Talk:War crimes in the Gaza War (2008–2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


economist editorial[edit]

The cited source is a Leaders editorial. I dont object to it saying an "Economist editorial" rather than "an editorial in the Economist" but it is an editorial and it should be presented as such. nableezy - 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messy article.[edit]

Reactions to the UNHRC report have a section but the report doesnt. Why? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a section and moved material into it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some useful links[edit]

  1. the testimonies of the Col. Lane and prof. Newton
  1. criticism of UN Watch regarding witness registry
  1. JCPA criticism of the reliability of the witnesses, the original publication
  1. criticism from WSJ
  1. Hamas embraces the report, despite initial response.
  1. response of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner
  1. response from president of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya plus some Israeli officials
  1. B'Tselem director is not very happy with the report, as well as with the "failure to investigate the accusations of abuses during January's Operation Cast Lead"
  1. analyses of the B'Tselem casualties report - belongs to other place. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. IMFA INITIAL RESPONSE TO REPORT --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council dropped its efforts to forward a report accusing Israel of possible war crimes to the Security Council, under pressure from the United States, diplomats said.

UN Watch questions credibility of Goldstone’s witnesses, demonstrated by police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan.

The Palestinian Authority has come under heavy criticism for agreeing to defer the draft proposal at the UN Human Rights Council endorsing all recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission regarding Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. Under the title "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied," several Palestinian human rights organizations issued a statement condemning the PA's action, accusing its leaders of succumbing to US pressure.

Retired major general Jim Molan: The Goldstone report is an opinion by one group of people putting forward their judgments, with limited access to the facts, and reflecting their own prejudices. The difference in tone and attitude in the report when discussing Israeli and Hamas actions is surprising. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move article?[edit]

I suggest a new name: 'Israeli responce to accusation of warcrime' or 'Israel point of view regarding accusations in general'. No joke. This article need rework. Sorry Sceptic. I see you putting in lot of effort but israels responces is causing undue weight compared to encyclopedical content. Not sure what to start but restructuring and removing excessive Israeli responces is a must or article might get tags. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the responses to Goldstone report, the contents is stable for quite a while, about 2 months. Actually, until recently it was merged into Gaza War article, and none of my prime opponents made such remarks. As I see it, all of the contents here has high encyclopedic value and you'll have to work hard to make changes to it. Btw, not all is Israeli response. E.g. read a para. on "Precisely wrong" report - a rebuttal was published by AP. Another example - whenever you see UN Watch - it has nothing to do with Israel, no more than Goldstone. Opinions from pro-Israeli NGOs like Monitor or JCPA are as valid as Israeli-critical NGOs like B'Tselem or Breaking the Silence and anyway does not necessarily reflect view of Israeli Government (and before you ask, Steinberg is not a consultant of PM - he was in the past before devoting himself to Monitor). When you have concrete proposals, we'll discuss them. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was little ti harsh in my comment. Its the Goldstonereport part I thinking about. And maby its more of a structure problem than the mass of responces from Israeli side. Two things I suggest. First: Structure of the first part, UN.

  • The UN Human Rights Council mission
  • The UN Human Rights Council resolution
  • The UN fact-finding mission
  • Goldstone report presented with its findings

After that reactions from parts and other interests. Like most articles with a section named 'critic' on wharever subject article is about. As it is now history/reports/accusations is mixed with responces and contradicting reports. Article give a unstructured and 'not so easy to read' feeling. Accusation and responces make it jumpy and dramaturgic. Not so encyclopedical.

Second, The structure of the rest of the article. In detail about the alledged warcrimes:

The allegations from diferent sources against the belligerents should be inspired by this side International humanitarian law. By going from the diferent conventions, in a juridical view, if we can, we not only get a NPOV but a readable and hopfully educational value about human rights and less of accusation/response style.

We got time as it isnt a current event and we can make this article really good. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a thoght is to split the article and have one for the Goldstonereport itself. We will see if this side can handle it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting Goldstone_report into separate article is fine (technically speaking I wouldn't do it myself but I know someone who can help). About the structure, I couldn't understand what was the first bullet and what's the difference with the 3rd.
Allegations per IHL - generally I agree, and that was a pattern I tried to follow (I guess I suceeded better with the Palestinian side). Again, we can work it out. State your reservations, one at a time, and we'll discuss it. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptic, I've blocked you for 48 hours for saying "Opinions from pro-Israeli NGOs like Monitor....are as valid as Israeli-critical NGOs like B'Tselem". Oh wait, I'm not an admin. Nevermind. Carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the almighty! Because I was just about to provide link to recent Monitor bulletin. If you read para. 495 in the final Goldstone report, you'll come across this: "...Their (Palestinian fighters) failure to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants...". Now this is a perversion of the IHL. Fighters and soldiers must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, otherwise they violate one of the provisions of the perfidy principle as outlined in Art. 37 of the Protocol I. I waited for someone to spot it and so far only Monitor did: "Moreover, the Commission denies the use of perfidy by Hamas (para. 495) ..., and incredibly claims that engaging in this action is not an IHL violation. Article 37 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions clearly prohibits the practice". I intend to include it - ignoring it would be highly unencyclopedical. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on this complex legal issue is that I don't think 'unencyclopedical' is a word yet. I shall start using it to help you out. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complex? It's quite simple, Sean, and for you, my fellow Brit-risen, I'll write it in English - Goldstone tells you that military is not legally obliged to wear uniform. Interesting, isn't it? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly impressed by hypocrisy of the shifting of positions on the legal status of 'fighters' and the obligations that follow as if they are a cynical matter of convenience. If it suits NGO Monitor, the MFA etc to argue that people are soldiers=non-civilians who must wear uniforms they will do so. If it suits them to argue that they are illegal combatants (civilians engaged in hostilities who are of course perfectly entitled to fight in bra and panties or dressed as Ronald McDonald without breaking IHL) they will do so. It makes no difference in practice. The people were killed because they're were regarded as 'terrorists' and therefore engaged in hostities by the IDF's legal team. Had they been captured they wouldn't have been given POW status because they aren't regarded as soldiers by the Israeli legal system. Of course Hamas are just as cynical in their approach. So, I'll just carry on ignoring NGO Monitor and listen to some complicated music from southern Senegal instead. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making ridiculous posts, you'd better reread recent ICRC publication. Maybe then you'll realize that a combatant must wear uniform; if he doesn't - he violates laws of war and becomes illegal combatant and these simple notions are universal (at least on Earth). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um..no need. I understand and remember these matters perfectly well. I also understand and remember the HCJ's position on these civilians engaged in hostilities that the IDF are fighting a war against perfectly well. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even when you're shown actual misstatement of the Int-Law in the Goldstone report, the attention is shifted to Israeli HCJ. Well-done. Even though you're not interested, I can't help pasting from p. 22: "members of militias and volunteer corps other than the regular armed forces recognized as such in domestic law fulfil four requirements: (a) responsible command; (b) fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) carrying arms openly; and (d) operating in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Strictly speaking, however, these requirements constitute conditions for the post-capture entitlement of irregular armed forces to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status and are not constitutive elements of the armed forces of a party to a conflict. Thus, while members of irregular armed forces failing to fulfil the four requirements may not be entitled to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status after capture, it does not follow that any such person must necessarily be excluded from the category of armed forces and regarded as a civilian for the purposes of the conduct of hostilities. On the contrary, it would contradict the logic of the principle of distinction to place irregular armed forces under the more protective legal regime afforded to the civilian population merely because they fail to distinguish themselves from that population, to carry their arms openly, or to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Sorry to tell you, Sean, but you are the one that misbehaves. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstone report[edit]

There is too much noise in this article consisting of reactions to the report. We cover that more than we do the actual report. This shouldn't be a collection of editorials of people praising or condemning the report. Yes there has been a lot of reaction but we need to put that reaction in the proper context and that does not mean we include any and every source that has something to say. Let's try to focus on the substance of the issues instead of the background noise. nableezy - 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you remember, the mission itself sparked a lot controversy even before it actually started its work. I guess it's inevitable. But I understand the concern, and I would support the idea raised above, to separate the Goldstone report in an entry of its own. Btw, I started looking at the Gaza War article and couldn't help noticed the mess in the preamble to Int-Law. Most of it should be, after serious clean-up, merged here and in the Goldstone report. Surprised you let it happen. Were you preoccupied with Eid al-Fitr? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, just stopped paying attention. We never really got a decent summary in place and a lot of what is in there now should be replaced. We (read you with a lil help from me) should really do that. nableezy - 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be easy - many new people are suddenly involved there. Why don't we start with the more easy task - spin off the Goldstone report into separate entity? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been criticised so frequently as being biased and the result of a procedural malfeasance that omitting any reference to this, in fact treating its findings as undisputed or reliable, puts Wikipedia firmly in the Goldstone-Hamas camp. By all means report it, by all means cover the defense of it, but be even-handed and warn the reader that it is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.251.147 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton vs. Astroturf[edit]

Hi, there has been some reverting going on recently, my view is that junk like "UN watch" doesn't need to be cited if we have Hillary Clinton saying the same thing. --Dailycare (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word 'junk' from your post if you want to talk like civilized person. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is entitled to the opinion that UN Watch is junk and he is entitled to use the word here. If you don't want to talk to him or interact with him because you personally find his views or manner uncivilized then don't. He can deal with other editors. It's not a big deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a view on what kind of sources these are, see the UN_Watch#Criticism ("Since 2001, UN Watch is a "fully integrated partner" of the American Jewish Committee"). "Eye on the UN" for it's part is a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute, so both of these "NGOs" are in fact instances that would be expected to be mobilised to attack any document even remotely critical of Israel and they shouldn't be used as they currently are in this article (see WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources). --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and all the human-rights groups like B'tselem, Breaking the silence, Gisha (not to mention some Arab human-rights groups inside Israel and the NPA), HRW (background of its MidEast members is revealing), Oxfam, etc, etc are far left, so? shall we exclude them too? UN Watch is notable org. that was commended by Kofi Annan, so it stays.
What you don't understand is that the point UN Watch is making is completely different, so I'll separate it and keep it intact. Goldstone discussed the terms of his mission with the UNHRC president and got his verbal agreement to investigate both sides. They even convinced Cuba and some other states to proceed with the upgraded mandate. No one challenges these facts. The point is that all these agreements were informal and UNHRC did not change the resolution in its June session. Would you go to advocate that is not certified to look into your matter, but who supposedly is backed up by his boss to nevertheless take the job? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the mandate was formally, or only in practice, broadened isn't very important, IMO. The report did address also Hamas' violations, after all. --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some think otherwise. After all, no one could have known in advance what the report would be. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem's Montell[edit]

Not sure that the current material from B'Tselem's Jessica Montell in the Non-governmental organizations section faithfully captures her views on the report. Her blog piece in The Huffington Post might help. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-montell/the-goldstone-report-on-g_b_306500.html Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, her post in JPost is slightly different, but her key points are the same: 1) "Israel must conduct credible investigations into its own conduct"; 2) "This is not to say that the report has no faults" (and the whole para. there). So yes the wording can be improved to reflect more carefully what she says, but the contents would not change much. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See..[edit]

..new article United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict although I'm not sure what revision Jalap used as a source as it has discrepancies with this article i.e. I noticed an update from a few days ago was missing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, it was created Oct 2 which explains the differences. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for that article, taking into account that the fact-finding mission is already extensively discussed here? At the least, the articles should be linked to each other. --Dailycare (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is yes, we need that article, since it has floated current article recently with tons of info linked only indirectly to int-law. What I would do - I'd merge the info here with the text there, place links and leave here summary only. Don't worry, I won't select - as it is now, including latest edits and corrections will go there as they are. I hope I'll do it before the weekend. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge is complete (easier than i thought). i'm going to delete redundant contents, but if someone has reservations - go ahead, we'll discuss it. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit worried that the Goldstone Report is now buried quite deep in the bowels of Wikipedia, it can still be found by typing "Goldstone report" in the search bar but that's about the only way, aside from jumping to Gaza War, Int.Law&GW and then to the "UNFFMOTGC" page. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, you can say the same about every entry, including the Gaza War - that unless you type it in the search or redirected from I-P conflict, you won't find it. Btw, whenever Gaza War will be reopen, we'll insert a link to the Goldstone report too. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

libido-increasing chewing gum[edit]

I removing this part as nonsence, the police spokepersons credability is attacked in the line above in a more substantial way even if I disagree its of importanse for Goldstone Reports finding on the subject. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the sentence is not readable.
your only way to remove highly valuable important info on the police subject as stated by UN Watch is to remove it together with the findings of the Goldstone report - and it would be kind of you if you ask Nableezy first. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, is libido-increasing chewing gum part highly valuable important info?Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human-rights generalizations[edit]

The UN Human Rights Council Amnesty International Human Rights Watch are *cough* quite notable in the article. The letter on the other hand can stay into its own sectionMr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'In order to protect soldiers from charges for possible war crime charges...' This part dont really belong there either- Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on proportionality[edit]

The End of Proportionality. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny references[edit]

Maybe I'm stupid (no replies required on that subject :-)) but what are the < ref >Id @ Pg #< /ref > all about. Are they broken references that should be removed? Bjmullan (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In academic writing, 'Id' means 'the same source as the previous one'. They would better be fixed though. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it that the list on anti-Israeli propaganda is twice as long and hyper-specific while the ones on the Palestinians are shortened and generalized?[edit]

Seriously asking - who's slanting the crap out of this article?

Meanwhile of course... 20 Hamas missiles found in a UN school in Gaza.http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.94 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Falk's Allegations[edit]

The paragraphs I entered under this lede have been repeatedly deleted, first being called original research and then being called advocacy, and finally for no stated reason, apparently just for being controversial.

The fact is that Falk's work is tainted by ingrained bias against Israel, a bias that is demonstrated in the references I include. The fact of his bias is also shared by such as the US State Department, also shown by reference.

His judgment is also tainted, as shown by reference, by belief in a wild and arguably anti-semitic conspiracy theory ("9/11 trutherism") and by blaming the victim (the US) for being bombed in the Boston Marathon bombings.

He was appointed by the U.N. essentially to be a judge. His biases and character are therefore HIGHLY relevant. Any judge trying a criminal or civil case with burdens such as these on his record would be forced to step aside.

Falk obviously cannot be forced, at this point, to step aside, but his work product can and must be accompanied by this information, as it bears directly on his work product.

This material is not OR. It is not advocacy, as it simply brings balance to the article. Lacking a citation to a WP rule I've broken, or some reason other than not liking these facts, I will be adding these statements back into the article. Brownwn (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brownwn, I believe you when you say that you believe Falk's alleged partiality is relevant and should be mentioned. Be that as it may, you can only add it to this article in case you have reliable sources that explicitly connect the allegations of partiality to the international-law aspect of the Gaza war of 2009. That's simply how things work, and for good reasons as otherwise articles would end up rather cluttered with tangentially relevant, or irrelevant, text. The allegations are relevant to Falk personally, and I'm sure you'll find no objection if you mention them in the Richard Falk article, indeed they may already be mentioned there. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Falk is So partisan, that, at least on the blog version of the declaration of 28 July 2014, 390 scholars of international law, chairs of law, legal esperts, criminologists etc., the world over have endorsed it. So it is clear one cannot single out ichard Falk as an eccentric. In the second place, there is a problem with the title. Given the fact that these charges have arisen three times in three wars, it should be changed to 'International Law and the Israel-Gaza wars (2008, 2012, 2014' to allow complete coverage of all three stages in the one argument. This present war is certain to have legal consequences and rather than split the article, it should be retitled and rewritten to survey each phase in the various charges and countercharges.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What was the makeup of the 390? Where they all from Switzerland? Or all from Israel, or from Iran? Don't flaunt the word "expert without allowing assessment of their expertise and neutrality. Why did Goldstone later say that Israel does not target civilian populations? 99.27.239.172 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) The previous was by me Brownwn, I failed to sign in before posting.Brownwn (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International law and the Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International law and the Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on International law and the Gaza War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International law and the Gaza War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add year to the name? like: "International law and the Gaza War (2008–2009)"[edit]

Currently this page is just International law and the Gaza War. But in light of renewed war, maybe this page should be changed to International law and the Gaza War (2008–2009) and have International law and the Gaza War redirect to that, instead of the other way around as is currently.

Having the year in the title will help keep incidents in the two wars separate. Other pages for the 2008 war specify the year: Gaza War (2008–2009), Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–2009), Casualties of the Gaza War (2008–2009) Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'd do it myself, but I don't know the proper method to swap International law and the Gaza War and International law and the Gaza War (2008–2009) and change the order of the redirect. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's moved back to that title, and disambiguated again. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=1210429089"