Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 30

Re-Lede
 I've brought these two archived conversations back, for its information and work.

Lede

I know the lede is a powder keg, but for the benefit of readers who actually want to read the article to know what happened, I made two small additions.

1. Added "in the Gaza Strip" to specify where Israel's military campaign was. 2. Added "on its southern communities" to specify where Hamas rocket attacks were.

I also wikilinked the first mention of Hamas in the lede instead of the second mention. I have a grain of hope that these changes won't lead to endless partisan bickering, but...they probably will. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically 'in the Gaza Strip' goes better after Operation Cast Lead. Have presumed to adjust. Only problem with adding 'in the southern communities' is checking that the sources quoted use precisely that wording, as attribbuted to Israeli spokesmen. Do they?Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources I've seen usually use "towns and communities", "towns" or "communities". There was already a discussion about the phrase "towns and communities", with Nableezy arguing that this was weasel wordage and Cerojota and I arguing that it wasn't. The way I remember it is that Nableezy eventually accepted our position, but I can't speak for him. In any case, these are the phrases used by RS's; I chose a one-word phrase instead of a three-word phrase so as not to provoke arguments that I was giving the rocket attacks too much air time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and though Cerejota doesn't believe me, I argued that 'communities' is the default word for anywhere where Israelis live, and is never used to Palestinians, in most I/P articles. Here Gazans don't ever live in 'communities', though all their refugee camps and town-units are clan-structured communities. Hamas fires all over the Negev, mostly into the desert, even if it aims at settlements or towns.One argument for communities is that the many kibbutzim in the Sha'ar haNegev are not towns. On the other hand, most places hit are townships. In any case, technically, one should have this sort of phrasing sourced. We are dealing with 'stated' claims, and stated claims should follow the official Government statements to the word.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to me that you have that gripe, because one of my pet peeves is that "villages" is used in the media only for Palestinians and not for Israelis. Since "village" has no particular administrative meaning, but does conjure images of a bucolic, peaceful New-England-type setting, I consider it to be borderline weasel-wordage in the I-P context. But since it's a problem in the RS's themselves, I would never argue against its use in Wikipedia, as long as it was adequately reflected in the cited sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I use neither. It is interesting also that Israeli village gets 77,400,000 hits on Google. 'Village', when not upmarket nouveau-bucolic, has a touristy tone, whereas 'community' is schmalzy. I refer not to general usage, but to I/P usage. Israel's stated aims, are of course those announced in the press by government and IDF spokesmen. These naturally have absolutely nothing to do with its real aims, given that Hamas had accepted to reaffirm the truce. The real aims are already coming out in strategic reports all over the place, and have nothing to so with 'protecting southern communities', which is quite simple: accept a truce, one that allows people in Gaza to eat regularly. But this is soapboxing of course. The problem remains. The links I checked that are supposed to underwrite 'southern communities', are old links, and do not mention this as the stated aim. The stated aim was generic, to stop rockets being fired.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Israeli village" has 13,600 google hits, most referring to Arab-Israeli villages or reconstructed villages. "Palestinian village" gets 84,200 google hits. I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of never getting into rambling talk page discussions not related to the article. I can control myself when seeing opinions I disagree with, but when people get facts messed up, I get sucked in. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, both 'Israeli village' gives me 24,800,000 now, and 'Palestinian village' over 1,200,000. It doesn't matter either way to me. My point was (a) Wiki I/P usage and (2) the fact that nowhere in the three sources does it state Israel's intent was other than to halt rocket fire. No mention of 'southern communities' which appears to be your construction. Note 31 by Amos Harel however has this.

The Israeli objective is clear: deal as serious a blow as possible to the Hamas chain of command in order to throw its operating capabilities off kilter. Ostensibly, it will not prevent heavy rocket fire on the Negev towns, but it will likely make it more difficult for Hamas to carry out more damaging attacks against Israel.

This is not of course Israel's stated view, but that of an opinionist- The notes 32,33,34 all refer simply to an aim of hitting 'Hamas-linked' infrastructure and stopping rocket fire, as in the original had it before you changed it. I'll restore the old version, which was more succinct, until evidence is forthcoming that the stated view was that of stopping firing into just one part of Israel, (the known military objective was to destroy Hamas's capacity to strike Israel, and stop it from achieving an upgraded capacity to strike anywhere in the country). I hardly need add that rather than arbitrary sourc es from newspapers we need a specific declaration by the government on the 27th. referring to the purpose of the assault. If this exists, and uses language that justifies your proposal, or a different formulation, by all means bring it up. If we get the official gov. or IDF (same difference)declaration, we can get rid of the three newspaper refs, which are arbitrary, and as such improper.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, Nishidani, here are three sources explicitly stating that Israel's aim was to stop Hamas rocket fire on its "southern communities" (as opposed to, say, its northern communities). For simplicity's sake I'm limiting myself only to Associated Press articles. I agree that since the RS's - and not just the Israeli government - state as fact that this was Israel's aim, saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you. In fact, since the reliable sources use the phrasing "years of rocket fire", I see no reason not to follow them on that, too; but we can leave these issues for later.

* All 15 council members agreed to a press statement drafted by Britain and France that welcomed Sunday's unilateral cease-fires by Israel and Hamas militants following Israel's offensive aimed at halting years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. * Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire by Hamas on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. * Israel launched the war on Dec. 27 in an effort to halt years of militant rocket fire on its southern communities and arms smuggling into Gaza. (different article, different author)

This should sate your desire for "forthcoming evidence". Now please restore the more informative, if somewhat less succinct version, and please never waste my time again by demanding that I prove trivialities. Also, please please please don't ever again make me sit through your extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing. As a symbolic admission of my partial guilt in this case, I'm striking through my earlier comments that were not directly related to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My two changes to the lede were proposed together, since one adds info on Israeli violence (and thus vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Israeli editors) and one adds info on Palestinian violence (and vivifies it, potentially bothering some pro-Palestinian editors), while both add necessary information for the naive reader. Nishidani was the only one who objected, predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence. Since he has not responded to me, and more importantly, since no one else has objected to my (in all honesty, ridiculously cautious) change, I am restoring it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so rude. Your time is no more valuable than my own. Were I as ill-mannered as you seem to be above, I should reply that you wasted my time by inserting a phrase unsupported by the old references. It is standard wiki practice to anchor one's edits and wording in references. My drawing your attention to this was neither rude, nor time-wasting, but a matter of editorial scruple. If you demand precision from others, expect it from those who examine your own edits. You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective. It remains for me your edit proposal, now with proper references. I don't know about wikipedia, but that's how historians work. And I do not understand, in closing, your remarks about my 'predictably agreeing to the info on Israeli violence while finding a way to oppose - and then unilaterally remove - the info on Palestinian violence'. If I have unilaterally removed info on Palestinian violence, while agreeing to that on Israeli violence, I'd appreciate a link to show where. The only edit change a made to your lead suggestion was repositioning words for stylistic smoothness. Otherwise, unlike yourself, I left an edit I didn't agree with intact, as courtesy obliges when one's fellow-editor takes the trouble to engage in dialogue. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'saying "with the stated aim" in the lead is an unnecessary qualification: we can just say "with the aim". I said this long ago, but was opposed by... hmm, I guess it was you.'

I didn't insert 'stated aim'. It's been there for some time, unchallenged. I agree with it. 'Stated aim' is perfectly correct, since several articles I've been reading by military and political analysts, not all with my POV by any means, assert that these two 'stated aims' often bruited about in newspapers, do not reflect far more complex considerations behind Israel's decision to go to war. To replace 'stated aim' with 'aim' is to presume we here know exactly what those real intentions were. We aren't at this state, in a position to know anymore than this. There is a very serious distinction to be preserved here.Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, Nishidani, could you both stop with the personal attacks please? Blackeagle (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? I won't push it, but I haven't attacked anyone, and will not engage further if this is raised again. Take it to my page if you think I have. Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the content of either of your changes, but now we've got quite a run on sentence. It's made even worse by all the (parenthetical) statements. How about splitting it into two sentences, something like:

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip. Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas." Blackeagle (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

where has nishi made a personal attack??? i see him being exceedingly patient while being accused of "extremist, bitter and remarkably un-self-critical soapboxing"

if jalapenos were serious about regretting disruption he should strike that statement and apologize. Untwirl (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The person who made the remark should not be allowed to light a fuse that isn't there. I checked. I mistook a newbie for an administrator and took the crack as an instance of administrative nodding, to be countered. This has blown over. Jalapenos and I are, essentially, discussing technical problems in the lead. We disagree. We argue. No harm done.Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blackeagle, I don't think either Nishidani or I engaged in a personal attack, but I did fail to keep cool. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adopting Blackeagle's suggestion above about splitting one sentence into two. It is a stylistic necessity and does not change the content at all. If anyone objects to it for some reason, they can say so here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A point, as I see my name up there; I was never involved in this discussion, though I favor a word other than communities. I think there are any number of words that fit better, and the one I would think fits the best is 'southern Israel'. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC) And I also think it should say with the 'stated aim'. It is Israel's stated aim, there are a number of sources that question these were the actual aims, questioning whether or not it was motivated by upcoming elections, or by the knowledge that support for Israel in the White House could not be assumed to be as strong upon the inauguration of Obama, or any other number of reasons. The easiest way to sidestep that is to explicitly say this is the stated aim of the Israeli government, which can be both well-sourced and verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article uses "stated intention", rather than "stated aim". Does anyone have a preference for one over the other? Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would favor 'aim'. I think intent would apply to wider vision, a military campaign has aims and goals, it is a tool of intent. Just me though. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "aim" until being shown a good reason for "intention", at least because its used in one of the sources I quoted above. Nableezy, can you give an example of a high-level RS, say a news item from a major news organization, that assumes the alternate aims you mentioned or casts doubt on the "stated aims"? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I'm still researching the issue of "stated aim" vs. "aim", but I thought I'd post this tidbit. Iranian Press TV, which is, to put it mildly, biased against Israel, cites the aim of ending rocket attacks against Israeli towns as fact: "Tel Aviv launched Operation Cast Lead on December 27 to put an end to rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns." Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear up there I meant I would go with 'stated aim'. There are no sources that report as fact anything that I said above questioning the stated aims, there are certainly editorials by notable authors about that, but I wouldnt think of including them in the article. The reason why I would favor stated aim is this. I don't think anybody can accurately report what any government in this world is actually trying to do. What we get is what they say they are trying to do. I would be wary of saying anything that a government says about its aims or intentions without first qualifying it as what it is, the aim that is given to the public. It goes both ways, Hamas saying their only intention is lifting the siege is only that, what they say. Nableezy (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason many of the RS's cite the stated aims as fact in this case is because there are some stated aims that are inherently plausible. If a gov't builds a bridge over a river, the stated aim of "enabling people to get from one side to the other" is inherently plausible. I agree that in war we need to be exceptionally careful, becuase gov'ts are prone to conceal things in war, but I don't see why we need to be more careful than a large portion, possibly the majority, of the reliable sources. By the way, if we do go with "stated aim", we have the added responsibility of citing the stated aim fully and accurately, as it was stated, which means pretty much quoting from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The government may also be making strategic landing strips for fighter airplanes with that bridge (from a conspiracy as to why the US has the Eisenhower Interstate System). Governments consistently hide their true motivations from the public, I just don't think we can take any at its word. Nableezy (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not addressed: "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani

Because if we DO go back to the beginning of this conflict(and we should when addressing the lead), we'll find the following:

Dec 30 - Israel attacks Gaza for the fourth day - http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=54699 (from the BBC)

On goals(aim) - "Israel's defence chief earlier said his country was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas."

On whether to use 'stated' or not - "Israel says its aim is to end the rocket attacks by Hamas-linked militants - of which there were reportedly more than 40 on Monday."

Dec 27 - Israel's attack on Gaza kills hundreds - http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391

On goals - "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time."

"Stated"? - see above plus "Israel warned it might go after Hamas' leaders, and militants kept pelting Israel with rockets - killing at least one Israeli and wounding six.

Dec 30 - Israel Assaults Hamas In Gaza - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html

On goals - "Israel's stated goal is to cripple Hamas' ability to launch rockets at Israeli towns, which means that a ground invasion is becoming more likely as it becomes clear that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job."

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has declared "all-out war against Hamas."

"Stated"? Yes. But infrastructure? and since Hamas fire those rockets from civilians area, not having military bases of their own, police stations and houses in gaza are Hamas' infrastructures?

I recognized Nishidani's point as being that from the beginning there was ambiguity as to what this Israel's attack was to bring Israel itself. Now there was a target inside Gaza, Hamas, there is war, but is war about what? goals? yes to some degree, but most of those goals can't be archived until conquering has been archived(re:Iraq war, AND Israel's previous occupations of both Lebanon and Palestine)...so to cripple Gaza, only Hamas's "infrastructure" was the "stated" goal?

At what point, even Israel's foreign minister was at odds with what the prime minister was "stating" as the goals for this operation.

Needless to say then, it would be a great disservice if we use Israel's "stated goals" as of Jan 30.

My humble suggestion is to leave it as "The operation was aimed at..." Stated is a loaded term.

There should be even more discussion on this BTW. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Dec 30 - ANALYSIS / Hamas is hoping for an IDF ground operation in Gaza - http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html

On goals - "The operation's goals, as defined by the cabinet, are "creating a different long-term security situation in the south, while bolstering Israel's deterrence." The IDF does not interpret this to mean a complete end to the rocket fire, as it considers this impossible. Rather, its goal is to eliminate Hamas' desire to attack Israel. The bombing campaign has so far dealt a severe blow to Hamas."

Fire in the hole. Notice ref to "as defined"(so they are defining what they are stating? or vice-versa?) plus IDF does not interpret what's been stated(which of course was defined before it was stated) which at the end, they disregard what was stated for them(perhaps rather just defined, in order for them to interpret on their own?) because they found what was 'defined' for them impossible(or what they interpreted as being defined to them). Cryptonio (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a really hard time with complaints that "community" should not be used in the lead but "Massacre" is A-OK. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, thanks for the input. Wikipedia is not calling it a Massacre, we just say who is. Here, wikipedia is using the term 'communities', not just saying who is. There is a little bit of a difference there in case you were wondering. Nableezy (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New section re lead

Jalapenos do exist and other committed editors. I'm extremely wary of touching leads until agreement is established via discussion. It used to be fairly balanced. What we have now, on checking it this morning, is gross reduplication, which the text didn't have earlier. It reads:-

(a) with the stated intention of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34]. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[35][36][37][38][39]

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.)

(c) On 27 December 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of halting Hamas rocket fire and the smuggling of weapons through underground tunnels from Egypt. [50] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Gaza Strip blockade.[51]

In my view (b) relatively untouched since the beginning, is fairly balanced. However (a) and (c) repeat the same phrasing, and this should never occur in leads.

The Ist para describes the Operation, Israeli's objectives. The second gives background and reciprocal blame or claims. The third repeats the already explained 'intentions' of para one, simply changing 'stated intention' with 'stated objective', while adding a further one (tunnel smuggling), and repeats the claim made by Hamas in para 2. Israel in (c) which is all repetitition, gets 24 words, Hamas 15.

Para (c) is therefore repetitive, reduplicates parts of para (a) and para (b), in violation of WP:LEDE. Since it says nothing new, but hammers away, I suggest it be removed, with an eye however to conserving in some form the 'tunnel smuggling' bit. However retain that, with a RS showing it was the explicit view of the IDF/Gov, and you then have a balancing problem. For Hamas, those tunnels mainly serve as corridors for food and goods to get round the blockade.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that (c) is mostly repetitive. What about moving the smuggling allegation to paragraph (b). Have it read something like:

(b)A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported cross-border tunnel in the Gaza Strip on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[48][49] Israel claimed cross-border tunnels were used for smuggling weapons while Hamas insisted the tunnels were necessary to supply Gaza with goods and food. [insert reliable source here] Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks on Israel using the smuggled weapons.[50]

Blackeagle (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that paragraph purport to explain? Why the truce was not renewed? You have Hamas claiming that Israel was not lifting the blockade as justification, though it is not clear whether that was agreed upon as part of the truce agreement. You have Hamas holding one cross-border tunnel raid as a reason, and give Hamas' rationale for the tunnels. You say "Israel blamed Hamas for rocket and mortar attacks using smuggled weapons." Nowhere does it acknowledge that Hamas fired weapons and mortar into Israel the entire time of the truce, really ratcheting it up in November & December. It does not state that Israel considered this to be a "serious breach of the truce". The fact that the weapons were smuggled was not Israel's reason for this counter-offensive. It was in fact the constant, almost daily fire throughout most of the truce that was the main reason -- and Israel did in fact hold the constant firing on the "southern communities" to be a "serious breach of the truce". Israel's view isn't really reflected in this paragraph except perhaps as an afterthought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is intended as a readability edit rather than a content edit. The content itself is pretty much identical with what is currently in the article, it's just arranged a bit less redundantly. Do you prefer the current version to what I proposed above? Blackeagle (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was meant as the "universal 'you'" as opposed to the "personal" you. If it were clear that we were talking about the reasons that the "truce" was not renewed, as opposed to the first paragraph which supposedly is talking about the reasons for "Operation Cast Lead" itself,' it would not then be redundant, though it might be similar. Hamas and Israel could not come to terms to extend the truce. Then Hamas' stated reasons & Israel's stated reasons, fairly. If you are not going to explain why there was no extension of the truce you could leave it all out or put it in later in the background section. ie "A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on 19 December 2008.[40][41][42] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[43][44][45][46][47]" End of story. Just a thought. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the lead has received exceptional cosmetic changes, there are a few that are necessary still. I will bring a few that I believe will enhance the article, with the help of the last conversation on record on this matter. Since the archived conversation was taken into consideration, I assume that it has wide support and warrants an edit before further debate.


 * Para A "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's stated intention was to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's southern communities and target the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[29][30][31] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36]"

It has been widely referenced, that the MAIN reason(perhaps even the only reason) given by Israel in support of the military operation(at the beginning of the conflict), is to stop rocket attacks by Hamas on southern Israel. One of the actions, that in Israel's view had to be done in order to archive this goal, was the targeting of 'so called'(but widely accepted as) Hamas' infrastructures. To this point, it should be made clear, that those attacks against Hamas' infrastructures were part of the operation but not a goal in itself, since the actual implementation of the operation, in itself, was not a stated goal. These changes are reflected and supported by the same sourced material of the Para's current format(and more were also presented). Also, before the operation, Israel had no information on what Hamas' response was going to be, so the targeting of its members was not a goal, but part of the operation since Israel was planning in using its military to archive the goal of stopping Hamas rockets. Here we must make the distinction between overall goals, and military operations. Not surprising in itself, since Israel(understandingly) would not make its actions known beforehand.

As for 'campaign's stated intention', on those same sources in support of the information, it does not include that phrasing, simply because it would be redundant. Once Israel makes its intentions known as a statement, and thus stated, it is taken as authoritative. If then, we go ahead and quote those intentions or aim, we are presenting the actual statement, and it doesn't need to be reminded(but sourced yes), that at one point it was stated, for we are quoting or resuming what that statement entailed. Only when there is a question on whether the party has made its intentions clearly, should our job be to clarify(by the input of known documentation) what those intentions were. And so, it would warrant the usage of the word "stated". In this matter, it is widely known that stop Hamas rockets were the reason given by Israel at the beginning of the conflict, and that in order to archive that goal, a military operation(with military actions) was the order.

Last, there was no mention at all about "southern communities" and I'm not surprise( in good faith, of course) but surely disappointed that it is till there. Almost all material used at the start of this operation, used the phrase "Southern Israel" as any respectable publication would.

New Para

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel's and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure.[29][30][31] In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36]

Cryptonio (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention to the ceasefire and the breach of the ceasefire should be made also?

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[27] when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip.[28] Codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), the campaign's aim was to stop Hamas' rocket attacks on southern Israel and included the targeting of Hamas' members and infrastructure.[29][30][31] The conflict is currently under ceasefire(negotiated on */**) however the conditions of the agreement were not fully agreed upon by either party, and several infringemments of the ceasefire have caused further violence. In the Arab World, the conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎).[32][33][34][35][36] Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) 'stated intention' is just because there are two reasons for going to war, the official and the long-term strategic. There must be quite a few sources dated 27-28 December 2008 which give the Israeli government's official position on why it undertook Operation cast Lead. So far, in lieu, of these statements, we only have retrospective articles from the press all repeating the same formula. Can't anyone dig up the words used by Israel or the IDF's spokesman on the 27th to explain the onset of the attack?
 * (b) 'Southern communities'. I objected to this. I think we should stick to the actually wording used at the outset of the campaign. Rocket fire on the sha'ar hanegev was a casus belli for Israel, as was Israeli fire on the Gaza Strip. In both cases 'communities' were hit, with the difference that almost all Hamas and co's rocketry fell outside of towns, whereas Israel's fire was extremely accurate, and almost invariably hit what it was aimed at, i.e. communities. To use 'communities' unilaterally of Israel, is unbalancing, and misleading, for by default it implies, tacitly, that on the other hand, Gazan 'communities' weren't hit.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I share your concern over 'exact wording' in this matter. At this time, I do not understand your position on the 'long-term strategic' reason as related to the actual operation. The bare minimum that I grasp would be the statement by Israel's prime minister in here http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11323391, which is dated btw, 12/27/08. "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said late Saturday that the goal was "to bring about a fundamental improvement in the security situation." He added, "It could take some time.". But at the same time, "The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel."

If, by your request, there is another publication per the dates giving by you, more information is found I will be glad to read over them. And if that's the case, where in your opinion this 'watered down' wording being used in the lead right now, is not adequate, some further editing can be discussed.

On the second matter, I do not understand "sha'ar hanegev", perhaps only that it could mean desert? where most of Hamas rockets fall? I'll await confirmation on that since it seems a workable matter that with sources can be corrected. In my opinion though, if that's the case, those areas would make up 'southern Israel' as well. I will retreat on this matter until further opinion and research has been found since I've made clear my position till now. Cryptonio (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cryptonio. That quote from Olmert 12/27/08 is spot-on. There should be some official Israeli source, of course, but method requires something of this order. Perhaps that in the meantime could be edited in as a provisory source, a good one too, since it gives 'southern Israel' (not, note 'southern communities').
 * The area basically hit over the years is the Sha'ar Negev(שער הנגב), the administrative area of the northern Negev.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, re the phrasing "southern communities": in the archived discussion I brought 3 sources using that phrasing. I researched the issue, and "southern towns", "southern communities" and "southern towns and communities" seem to be the most common phrasing in the international media for the target of Hamas rocket attacks. Presumably the reasoning behind that phrasing is that it briefly indicates that the target of the rockets are civilian habitations rather than army bases or infrastructure. Rather than speculate about what credible sources "would" do, why not just check them? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nishidani: Perhaps you could preview for us in here how you would include your idea, and let us discuss it. I am really into reading what others think on this matter.


 * Jalapenos: I clearly remember your posting on your 3 references. But you did not discussed or rather addressed Nishidani's response to your point.  You just did not followed through for some reason. "You have three texts, all AP from the end of January, not the beginning of the war, which mention in this context, 'southern communities'. The phrasing they used is identical. So you edit is referenced now. It remains for me, at least, to see whether that formula employed by the Associated Press reflects precisely Israeli government or IDF statements of intent expressed when the assault began on Dec.27, or whether it is retrospective." -Nishidani


 * I concurred with Nishidani on that point, and although I did not read others' approval I did not hear your disapproval neither. Again, for the lead we should use material from the start of the conflict, when everything was happening and people were saying things.  Those at the end of January, are elaborating and perhaps had time for style points, which is how i feel when you talk about Hamas rockets falling on 'israeli communities'.  Perhaps is not well known that Hamas rockets actually kill Israelis, but i will be surprised if is not universally known that those rockets affects people's life inside of Israel.  Using 'communities' does not make it 'more' believable and using 'Southern Israel' does not takes the danger away. Cryptonio (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos and I disagreed. We are unlikely to persuade each other. I didn't touch 'southern communities' even though I thought the introduction of that wording wrong. I waited for some rational consensus to build. I'm not in a hurry here. I dislike 'communities' for the reasons stated: I see this as the way Israeli or Jewish towns are selectively described, as opposed to Palestinian 'communities', from working on I/P articles. Secondly, sources should state the given reasons at the outbreak of the war in Israeli media that provide the official rationale for the war. J's three sources are all late, 2 or three from one writer, and all 3 from Associated Press. Thirdly, given the known inaccuracy of those rockets, and the fact that the areas they hit are thinly populated, it is not as if they consistently hit 'communities' as opposed to being fired in their direction. Evidently, Hamas' strategy is to reproduce some of the panic on the other side of the border that is chronic in the Strip as a result of Israel's continual killing raids from the time of the disengagement down to the truce in June last year. 'Southern Israel' is rather generic: I said Sha'ar haNegev because that's the zone, the northern district of southern Israel, most affected. But it is fair enough as a general description, even if imrpoved rocket technology means that 'Israel' is, and will be, seen as the general target. Just as Gaza is the IDF's favourite bombing zone.I think therefore that Israel, as it used to be, is best; 'southern Israel' more precise topologically, but rather restrictive, while 'southern communities' a subtle intrusion of an emotive POV.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another removal of a large section of sourced material
I really hate to be a tattle-tale, but I've been the main editor working against this phenomenon recently, and I'm unable to revert anymore, so another editor needs to take this up. User:Brunte has removed most of the content in the "antisemitic incidents"/"attacks against Jews and Arabs"/whatever section, shortly after beginning a discussion where he proposed to make that change. There is currently no consensus for his change, nor has there been time for a consensus to form. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * jalps, respond above, where there is already a discussion taking place (and waiting for your rebuttal or concession, i might add). no need for another (3rd? 4th?) section on this same topic Untwirl (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see concensus, you dont? Im I wrong or do I smell the smell of rounding up meatpuppets? Thats not nice if its true. Brunte (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Untwirl, I can't be everywhere at once. I just responded to your argument above. The two discussions are different: the discussion above is about whether to accept Brunte's proposed change, and the discussion here is not so much a discussion as a notification to editors that Brunte is engaged in disruptive editing, given that the discussion above has just started and that Brunte has previously suggested this removal without gaining consensus, and that several editors have earlier made statements that would preclude their acceptance of this removal. Brunte, see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:MEAT and WP:DIS for answers to your questions. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is serious acusations you bringing up. Stop waring and cool down. Els I you risk sanctions I guess. Brunte (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * who are these several editors? i
 * there is wikifan, who has bandied about the term 'anti-semite' at every opportunity. thats it. on the other side are brunte, andrews conscience, roma c, sean, vr, and myself and possibly nableezy weighing in on the 'trim down' side, including cerejota saying, "i do think it should be shorter."  and,  "I think we should remove the more debatable stuff like signs in protests"  make a suggestion for a trimmed down npov version and you might get somewhere. Untwirl (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My charge that Brunte's removal constitutes disruptive editing is not dependent on the fact that several editors made statements precluding agreement with his removal. Even if nobody had said anything, it would still be so. But as long as you're asking, we have Cerejota and Sean who said that the section should exist in basically the same format as it was, but shorter; As a result of Brunte's removal of information, the section does not exist at all, in the original format or any other. We have Andrew's Concience and RomaC, who said that the section should be expanded, we have myself, and we have (the problematic) Wikifan. Obviously, I can't represent other editors' positions as accurately as they themselves can, which is precisely what consensus-forming discussions are for: so that everyone can express their position. Brunte sought consensus once before for his removal of information and resoundingly failed to gain it. A reasonable editorial approach would be "hmm, I guess there's not so much interest in the idea. Maybe I'll ask again in a few days or weeks". A slightly less reasonable approach would be to immediately open the discussion again: though this smells of forum shopping, it's not so bad. An unreasonable approach (which is the one taken by Brunte) is to open the discussion again immediately, and then, before anyone has time to give their input, to implement the proposed removal. There's no point in opening a discussion if you don't wait for people to respond, unless the discussion is just an alibi. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sanktions Ok Jalapenos do exist (talk)]. You keep accusing me of disruptive editing and is generally waring. I like an administrator to involve him/herslf in this. Im not accepting Jalapenos do exist (talk) accusations and waring and want him/her out of her to cool down. Any administrator listening? Any editor reading this knowing how to get a administrators attention? Brunte (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said anything on either side of this discussion. Nableezy (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry nableezy, i only quickly scanned at that time. i've struck your name.  Untwirl (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

andrew said, " It just seems to me that this is a tangent issue and while it may be a direct result of the happenings of this article, it does not need more than a brief mention"

roma c said, "I have reservations about an exclusive "antisemitism' section. . .but go ahead, if the section includes info relating to both sides"

and as you said, cerejota and sean said shorter. who does that leave arguing for your side of leaving it as it is? there have been discussions ad nauseam on this now. the section does exist, it is summarizde. your accusation of forum shopping is another of your famous mischaracterizations. if your view were true, this very section you created would be a perfect example of what you accuse him of. read the wiki pages you link to before making accusations. Untwirl (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Untwirl, I wish I were as famous as you seem to think I am. The first half of your comment illustrates that you misunderstood my last comment, so I won't respond to it. The second half-- well, I have no idea what your point is in the second half, so I won't respond to that either. In any case, I never meant for this to be a discussion, and we're not even discussing anything. The way I see it, this thread is me having notified the community about something that happened, you throwing in various insinuations which I consider both irrelevant and false, and me responding to those insinuations, explaining why I consider them irrelevant and false. Hopefully, your last comment, wich was partly incomprehensible and partly clearly misinformed, will allow us to break this vicious cycle.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * so your response is: "i won't respond" nice.

your view that there wasn't consensus to summarize (make shorter) that section is wrong.

it was summarized, and you dont like how it was done.

now its your turn to suggest a more concise version, otherwise just leave it be.

i wont have access to a computer for a while; please don't misconstrue my silence as consent or abandonment - i'll be back later.Untwirl (talk)


 * There was never a consensus to shorten the section, though I think it's likely that if you and Brunte adopted a cooperative editing attitude, you could gain one. And there was certainly never a consensus to remove almost all of the section's content (which as you no doubt know but conveniently ignore, goes beyond "shortening"). Brunte tried to get one once, but didn't. Now he's trying to get one again, and isn't. Hence, the drastic removal of sourced information is disruptive, and should be reverted. It's that simple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you keep putting 'see talk page' on your summaries, and not putting any explanation here. So please stop before you drive everyone crazy.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jalapenos keeps doing this. Stop it please. As someone pointed out before, you don't need a consensus for edits that almost no-one (except you) would oppose. Someone has added a load of irrelevant information, and we are trying to cut it down. So stop reverting our work. It's you who would need a consensus to revert the edits in question, and you dont have it. We can't discuss and get consensus for every obvious edit.


 * Jandrews, as has already been made clear, a removal of a large section of sourced information, once opposed, requires consensus. That's just the way it is. A revert of such a consensus-less removal, does not require consensus, and that's also just the way it is. If you think that your removals will receive a consensus, just open a discussion on the talk page and get one! That's what I've been telling you for several days. The accusation you just threw at me is irrelevant, since the issue has nothing to do with me. Nevertheless, I don't like to be falsely accused of things, so please point to a single instance where I inappropriately wrote "see talk page", or apologize for saying that "I keep" doing it.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok here are several instances of you saying that:
 * 00:07, 3 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (→Effects: Restored deleted subsection. See talk page)
 * 21:04, 1 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (Reverted another removal of several paragraphs of sourced information. See talk page.)
 * 20:04, 1 February 2009 (hist) (diff) 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict ‎ (Reverted removal of several paragraphs of sourced text by Jacob. See talk page)


 * and then (as far as i can tell - show me if i'm wrong) you never put your explanation here. are you going to apologize like you insisted jandrews do if he was wrong? Untwirl (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jalapenos. That section could make an article. I counted 21 lines, which is odd given that you had pared the bone on sections like the one I was trying to write on economic effects on the Gaza infratstructure. 'No details', 'just keep this to general statstics'. Fine I lay off, and now find that we have more than double the space, and open to expansion of details on antisemitic reverberations (which is an effect, but nothing like the effect of reticular, capillary destruction of the whole industrial, agricultural and religious and school infrastructure of that society, for which space for specifics is denied. You are whittling the actual material on effects in Gaza, and expanding material on reports of antisemitism abroad.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, your comment is a bit disingenuous. I once removed two sentences from the Gaza humanitarian crisis section, back when there was a consensus to keep everything pared down to the bone. I ended up accepting your revert of my removal after we agreed that the consensus was moot. Since then I have added many things, such as a paragraph on the UNSC reaction in the conflict and a paragraph on countries' reactions, both in the International reactions section. Do you have a problem with those? Have I ever objected to any of the material added to the humanitarian crisis section since our discussion? In everything I've added since then, I've tried to be as concise as possible and only to mention highly notable details, as we agreed. If I'd wanted to put in "an article" I would have literally put in the fairly long article on antisemitic incidents, just as you, if you'd wanted to put in an article, could have put in the fairly long article on the humanitarian crisis. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be a prick to deal with, but I am not insincere (disingenuous). I was told to pare down when real damage from war was being discussed, and then see a ballooning on a lot of things interpreted as 'antisemitic'. It's WP:Undue applied, in different sections, in a different way, underplaying the huge devastation of a war on an economy, while overplaying the antisemitic card for what often were protests at that devastation, which many sources will construe as antisemitic. In Rome, that incident was almost invisible, (despite the fact that there is a strong fascist undercurrent in this city in fringe political movements. The government itself is post-fascist, and many of its reps were antisemitic in the 70s and 80s, and, having refocused their ethnic contempt on Arab immigrants and those other heirs to the Shoah, the gypsies, made a hullabaloo over this minute group in order to do what they have to do, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their new pro-Israeli stance of convenience has effectively buried the convictions of a lifetime). Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The section on antisemitic attacks needed to be trimmed a little, not removal. You guys need to realize this. This is not about NPOV, this is about facts and not hiding them. This whole thread sucks, and not because of Jalapenos. Sorry guys, but jalapenos is mostly right on this one. Part of moving forward is to stop beating dead horses. If you wanted merging of the antisemitic attack, live with the results of the merger. If not, you were being dishonest in the AfD. Its a matter of WP:HONESTY and basic respect for each other as editors.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nish above, not pointing fingers here, but the section on antisemitism now has the article covering spraypainting in Slovenia and boycotts in Italy etc. more thoroughly than the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. An objective analysis would suggest this constitutes undue weight, no? RomaC (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. i agree that more objective analysis is needed, and that there is undue weight given to these incidents
 * 2. i also agree with nishi that in the version jalapenos wants, the direct effects in gaza do not receive as much attention as indirect events elsewhere in the world. the 'summary is the same length as the text in the international reactions article.  (as discussed above "as a comparison, the summary of the humanitarian crisis has 12 lines of text - compared to 6 pages in the spin-off article, while this 'summary' of anti-jewish incidents has 14 (lines)- compared to 14 lines of actual text and 2 1/2 pages of a chart in the spin-off article (international reactions) . . . the balance with regards to important facts, directly related to this article, is way off.Untwirl (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
 * 3. furthermore, it is giving undue weight to identify multiple cities and countries and specific incidents that occurred, while not listing any details about the highly notable protests and summarizing like this:

"The conflict was marked by worldwide civilian demonstrations for and against both sides, with many protesters disagreeing with their governments' official position on the conflict. Large demonstrations against Israel's actions took place in western Europe and in the Muslim world. Some protests became violent, with clashes between demonstrators and police leading to arrests.[383][384][385][386] Protests in Egypt led to controversial police detentions of Islamist protesters.[387][388] Pro-Israeli demonstrations also took place in many countries.[389]"
 * if this is a fair summary of those events (it actually needs to have its neutrality addressed, but size-wise i think its probably fine) then i see no reason to have the next section go into such great detail.
 * 4. is there any excuse for the weasely way this last sentence is phrased?

"In one Associated Press article about a firebomb attack on a French synagogue, it was reported that there was an increase in anti-Muslim incidents in France as well, however the article did not specify further.[426]"


 * 5. why was the sourced information about west bank settlers removed? Untwirl (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Untwirl I agree with most of these points. "Reactions" is severely unbalanced. What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe we need a rfc? Untwirl (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Intersting justification for the Gaza conflict. Israeli conqust for natural gas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjXiv8rVxMU&NR=1

Brunte (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, whatever. Actually, the PA decided to give BG the authority to develop the field and negotiate on its behalf. BG wanted too much money from Israel, who opted to sign a deal with Egypt for their natural gas. Israel was also worried about the money going to finance terrorism, and that's why the suggestion to pay in goods and services was raised.
 * The current war changed nothing with regard to the Palestinian gas field. okedem (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stated aims versus strategic aims
Jut to reply to those who queried my point re the use of 'stated' as opposed to 'real' aims. The latter only emerge when the fog of press releases clears, and strategic analysts give you the inside story. The first of the latter to do so is Anthony Cordesman. He writes of elite strategy considerations.


 * (a)First, Israeli officers and officials, as well as military analysts and journalists, felt that Israel had to fight in ways that would restore Israeli deterrence, and show the Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria that it was too dangerous to challenge Israel by limited or asymmetric attacks. In short, Gaza and Hamas were only one objective of the war. Rebuilding deterrence was an equal objective and this could only be demonstrated by conducting a highly punitive air and ground campaign against Hamas with limited losses to the IDF and an unacceptably high price tag to Hamas and Gaza. One official went so far as to state that, Israel had make its enemies feel it was "crazy." Others stated, however,that Israel did not escalate beyond clear limits, and was careful not to go to extremes, took account of civilian casualties, and provided humanitarian assistance were possible.


 * (b) While history may reveal a different conclusion in time, no Israeli leader gave a clear indication of the purpose and desired outcome of the conflict during the war or seemed to act to achieve clearly defined goals and objectives once the fighting began. At least in some ways, Israel‘s leadership seems to have repeated key mistakes made during the fighting in Lebanon in 2006.


 * (c) Third, there seemed to be broad agreement among Israeli officers, officials, analysts, and media that Israel‘s top three leaders – its Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and Foreign Minister – disagreed over the length the conflict should have, the nature and priority that should be given to diplomacy, and how long the conflict should last before a ceasefire. Accounts differed over the nature and intensity of these differences, but Defense Minister Barak was general credited with wanting to terminate the fighting once Israel scored major initial gains through air strikes and the air land battle, Foreign Minister Livni with wanting to extend the conflict until significant success could be achieved at the diplomatic level, and Prime Minister Olmert with seeking to extend the war until Hamas was weakened as much as possible and outside states – including Egypt – agreed to play a major role in securing Gaza. Anthony H. Cordesman, ‘THE “GAZA WAR”: A Strategic Analysis,’ Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2009 p.11-12


 * p.s. a statistical chart (Figure 1: Patterns in the Rocket and Mortar Attacks on Gaza)for rocket attacks from Gaza(not 'on Gaza' as Cordesman has it in his draft) from 2005-2008 may be found on p.13- This will make more sense of course when we get Johannes Haushofer,Nancy Kanwisher and Anat Biletski's statistical analysis of cause and effect in Gaza-Israeli cross-retaliations in the near future (Cordesman almost always ignores Palestinian sources on matters like this and uses only IDF sources).Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the bolded bit above puzzling. There were clear statements by Israeli leadership stating that the purpose was stop the rockets and mortars, and the desired outcome was to destroy Hamas's ability to continue to fire them.Dovid (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read Cordesman's analysis he says (actually the text is in draft and he makes an error leaving out the key word 'not') that these 'stated' (to use our words) aims were not actually those of the planners, who knew they were impossible objectives.


 * "According to senior Israeli officials, Israel decided that it could not effectively destroy Hamas without much more intense air and ground engagements, and a longer occupation, than it was willing to plan for. It also accepted the fact it could (not. = nishidani) suppress every rocket or mortar, and would have to rely on civil defense, rather than the ability of the air force and army to halt every attack. This simplified Israeli war planning and the air operation. It allowed the IAF to stay focused on high priority targets rather than disperse its efforts. At the same time, every aspect.' Cordesman p.16"


 * I put 'not' in because the sentence is meaningless without it, and Cordesman's paper has many errors, being a final draft though under review.


 * What the leadership said was for public consumption. They knew, according to Cordesman's top level informants in the senior echelons of the IDF, that it was impossible to take out every rocket and mortar, and that these would continue. As I say, newspapers on the day are fine for getting het up, and disinformed, but they rarely tell you the real calculations that go into decisions, esp. like war.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That may very well be true... but the bolded part is untrue. They stated purpose and goal, even if it was unrealistic and/or masked another agenda. I just don't see how that statement can be construed to make any sense.
 * Aside from all that, is there any relevance to our article?
 * Finally, please don't overindent. There's no need to put a four-colon note in response to my two-colon note. The extra indents just make the paragraphs way too narrow. I edited the extra indents out (!!)
 * Dovid (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The bolded part is 'true' in so far as the statement reflects what Cordesman's informants in the IDF told him. Whatever the public was told, it was not this. That is why 'stated' in stated intention is important.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vetting RS in article
We've managed to create an article with close to 400 footnotes. With that many references, I'm sure all would agree that some issues are bound to come up with some of them -- misattributions, broken cites, or RS from breaking news source but that is later retracted or repudiated. I'd like to propose that this section be used to point out such instances. If any issue is posted here, and is then undisputed or consensus is reached supporting the post, the RS and/or its related article content will be corrected or removed.

Feel free to add any you find, I'm starting with one here. If your issue is higher-concept than just a reference problem, then please do NOT put it here, put it in its own section or a relevant existing section. I want to keep this section to discussions about simple RS issues. If any ideological arguments start here, they should be cut as outside of scope!


 * Israel has been accused of collective punishment by ... Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[344] ... The RS doesn't say that Abbas accuses Israel, just that he wants the event looked into. Furthermore, the precipitating event was later repudiated (i.e., no school shelling). I propose removing the ref. This leaves Abbas in the list of accusers as unsupported, so unless we get an alternate ref, he should be removed form the list of accusers in the sentence. Dovid (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that source isn't clear, replace it with this one: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268573,00.html   Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please can the article be reprotected
A look down the history page shows several either vandalism or poor quality edits by anonymous sources. I think we need semi-protection again.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. There are various arguments below, but the strength of the arguments appears about equal on each side. I will note that there was some support for Gaza war as an alternative, but it did not receive enough input to achieve consensus; nor does there appear to be any consensus likely on a new name in the near future. It still appears that not enough time has passed for there to be a clear WP:COMMONNAME for this event. The first move request was made while the event was still occurring, or had just finished, if I remember correctly. It has still only been a few weeks since it ended. In my opinion, editors would do better to wait at least a few months before worrying about the name of the article again. Concentrate on ferreting out all the reliable sources for the event and adding the information to the article; once the article has been stable for a few months, it will probably be clear to most editors what the most appropriate neutral title would be. --Aervanath (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Israel–Gaza war — There has been a lot of discussion around this, and there seems to be a growing consensus towards this formulation, from RS and wikipedians. Its time for another poll. This will require admin close as article is move protected. — Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support - just in case it was not clear. :D --Cerejota (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said a few times that I'm okay with a "war" title. I pointed out a while ago that it comes up more than just about anything else in news searches.  And it does seem to be the most common name in both Israeli and Arabic news sources.  I guess we can't be sure that it will endure in the long run but that's a long way off in the distance either way.  So for now I'm more than happy to support the name change. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - a much clearer and more sensible title than the current one. It will be an improvement at least.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - In addition to thousands of reliable sources which have used the term "gaza war", google search also has more results for "gaza war" than "gaza conflict". Some of those reliable sources are:

--Wayiran (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Parsing Gains of Gaza War، The New York Times
 * Ceasefire may not end Gaza war, BBC News
 * Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation, Guardian
 * Gaza: War, from a distance, The INDEPENDENT
 * How the Gaza War Could End: Three Scenarios, Time (partners with CNN)
 * Gideon Levy / Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel, HAARETZ
 * War on Gaza, Aljazeera
 * UNICEF: Children bearing brunt of Gaza war, CNN
 * We've got a comparison of how many results the different terms return in the RM preparation section, above. Blackeagle (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Many news sources also use "war in Gaza", but this is not as good as "Gaza war" or "Israel-Gaza war". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - However, due to a recently diagnosed TS related medical condition whereby I apparently have an unconcious tendency to promote antisemitic conspiracy theories such as that the US provides financial aid to Israel and Egypt I am ineligible to vote. Consequently I would like to propose that anyone who has either been the accusor or the accused in some "that's antisemitism" impoliteness in WP recently be excluded from this vote. That should speed things up enormously. I would also like to propose that anyone who wants to use the word antisemitism on this page from now on must first make a $250 donation to the ICRC. This should help to counter the tumbling market price for the use of the word and stop it being handed out like Jelly Babies.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Israel-Gaza War - btw sean- did you know that if you think lenny kravitz music is terrible you are racist and antisemitic, but if you liked his old stuff but you think his newer stuff sucks you are a new racist and a new antisemite? Untwirl (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indifferent- I do however disagree with the "antisemitism" remarks... but feel that SH should be able to allowed to vote no matter how pukey one finds his smug remarks. V. Joe (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a Jelly Baby to settle your stomach V. Joe. They worked for me after reading some of your more controversial comments here. There was a serious point buried in my smug, pukey remarks so I welcome your support in any drive to ensure that the word antisemitism is given it's due weight in discussions here and I hope I can count on you to challenge anyone who uses it inappropriately, disrespectfully or devalues it in any way by making dim-witted accusations against any editors here. I think this is probably one issue that we can agree on. By the way, pukey is $100 to the ICRC. Forgot to mention that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - This conflict is part of something bigger that has been going on for over 50 years now and no side has declared war on the other as of yet.Knowledgekid8716:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Though as I remarked below, I don't know that we need the 'Israel' part. Blackeagle (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Pure original research. Those links represent nothing more than the pov of the reporters. Israel deployed a force in a scale of a division wich is barely a maneuverable force. The best description for the fighting is a military operation. Lack of military background doesn't justify this change, no offense. 87.69.41.159 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (loosely) It may not be a "war" but this is how much of the media throughout the world title and/or refer to it.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although this term is second-best, "Gaza war" is better. Israel is a recognized country and Gaza is not, so the current proposal's juxtaposition of the terms is awkward. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opposition to "Gaza war" - but I took what I understood as an emerging consensus. Is anyone opposed to "Gaza war" who supported "Israel-Gaza war"?--Cerejota (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Since Israeli officials don't call it a war. Flayer (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Current title is good for me but the suggested is little better, more concise. Brunte (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title (1) includes a date specification, since this isn't the first Gaza-Israel conflict and probably won't be the last (2) uses "conflict" instead of war because war denotes a more complete military engagement - in this case only one side has a military to speak of, so using "war" would seem to give an inaccurate impression. I'm not against finding a better title, but Israel-Gaza war isn't it. Avruch  T 17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There is an official definition of a war; it's not just a term that can be thrown around freely. Israel never declared war on Hamas, because Hamas is not a state, rather a terrorist organization. Therefore, this was neither officially nor technically a war. Furthermore, to title this the Israel-GAZA War is absolutely ridiculous. If this change goes through, it will only be further demonstrating to the public just how biased wikipedia truly is. Israel's military operation was not against Gaza; it was against Hamas. If you were hellbent on including war in the title, which I still maintain is incorrect, you should at least have enough neutrality and objectivity in you to concede that it should be "Israel-Hamas War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 January 2009
 * Oppose, as per Avruch. Israel's Gaza war' is closer, but tendentious. But I think we should patiently await to see how specialist journals on international relations, conflict and the Middle East decide how it is best called. There's nothing wrong with a provisory title, in lieu of RS consensus which will take time to come on line. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: "Israel-Gaza war" gets a few dozen true google news hits (I looked through them te separate the wheat from the chaff). As was established above, Gaza war and Gaza conflict are in the low thousands. I doubt that "Gaza conflict" will be used in the news for long without the addition of modifiers, since it can be confused with other things once the searing memory of this round-of-fighting wears off, but the more powerful "Gaza war", without modifiers, may well remain the moniker of choice, and so so I think we should be eyeing that name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This was a massacre, not a war. War requires an army: What army does Gaza Strip maintain?  Where are the Gazan tanks?  Would we call the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a "war"?  I have come to prefer the Israeli name: "Operation Cast Lead".  It's Israel's baby, so Israel gets to christen it. NonZionist (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Fipplet (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote.--Cerejota (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - lacks the date in the title. Also, it's questionable whether Gaza, which isn't a recognised political entity, can be a participant in a war; that proposed title implies something much less one-sided than what actually happened. Terraxos (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The term 'conflict" seems to imply that this is just a disagreement between two parties. The article already uses terms related to warfare as truce, attack, broad offensive, air raids, ground invasion, target is bombed, third stage of the operation, etc. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've sort of changed my position. I now oppose Gaza war compared to something like 'Israeli asssault on Gaza', but I still support it over the status quo (conflict).Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would oppose merging for now, the conflict warrents its own article, but a limited merger may be warranted upon the undisputed conclusion of the conflict. --Pstanton (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Israel–Gaza war" alone is ambiguous: there have been x number of scraps between Israel and Gaza. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose There may be several more and it will help to differentiate. 128.30.5.108 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose  Does not qualify as more than a few skirmishes or a battle. It may very well be a significant event of such a war, but there should then be two articles. So far, doesn't look like there is a consensus to move the name. Dovid (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Dates not needed, as there is no disambig.--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we need the 'Israel' qualifier, or could we just go with Gaza war? I don't think there are any other Gaza wars we need to distinguish it from. Blackeagle (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we do, as otherwise there could be confusion with the internal struggle in Gaza last yearJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 'war' would be stretching it as a description for Fatah–Hamas conflict, but if people were confused we could always put a disambiguation link at the top of the article. Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think "Gaza war" is descriptive enough. Lets try for consensus this one time...--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_warsKnowledgekid8716:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * War was never delared on either side so how can it be called a war? The news may call it one, but doesnt it have to be a fact for wiki?
 * verifiability, not truth. If the consensus of the sources is "war", even if it is a ridiculous media invention with no basis on reality, we should give it weight.--Cerejota (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that horse is already out of the barn. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, and 2006 Lebanon War were all undeclared, yet they are all have wikipedia articles with 'war' in the title.  For that matter, I don't find any reference to a declaration of war in the Six Day War or Yom Kippur War articles.  Blackeagle (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I lean towards Gaza War per the discussion from Blackeagle and BrewcrewCptnono (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From the military point of view, the "Israel-Hamas War" seems to be more correct. --Wayiran (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, can't be, because about 5 groups are listed as Beligerents on the 'Gaza' side, including Fatah and some other groups.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ignore comments from editors not actively involved in discussions and editing, and ideological arguments, such as that from the recent anon account. We should base our naming on editorial decisions from RS, most oppose here do this, but partisan, WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAPBOX arguments are discouraged, and generally invalid. Can we discuss this without climbing in our soapboxes?--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * After thinking this over, I think 2008-2009 Gaza war would be the best title, by analogy with 2008 South Ossetia war. There's no need to actually mention Israel in the title, if the date is used; there's only one war that took place in Gaza at that time. Israel-Gaza war is somewhat more ambiguous, and (I think) falsely implies a certain equality between the belligerents, which wasn't really the case. Terraxos (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. There is a precedent for this in the 2008 South Ossetia War. 2008-2009 Gaza war seems to be the best choiceAndrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well what's the decision
Well according to the tag at the top of the talk page, the proposed title is Israel-Gaza War. I have no objections to that title. I guess we give it a day or so to see if anyone has any further discussion or objection and then we make the move. Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, judging from the discussion, there is no rough consensus. However, there seems to be a move for one alternative (actually two) "Gaza war" with or without date. We should give this a few days, and then close it. If it is move, then we move, if not, then I propose we re-open with a two way on "Gaza war" with or without date.


 * BTW, this discussion should be closed by an uninvolved admin if the result is move, as it is move protected.--Cerejota (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, judging from most of the comments in the core survey responses (not discussion), there probably isn't consensus around Gaza War either, though I personally have no objection. Some might say there is ambig. v. the Fatah/Gaza internecine "war."Dovid (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the Fatah/Hamas intercine war have a page?124.189.241.23 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

antisemitic incidents edit revert
isn't the reactions section supposed to be a summary of the reactions article?

regarding an incident in italy, the main page says, "] Italian trade union Flaica-Cub called for the boycott of shops owned by the "israelitic community" ("comunità israelitica") in Rome, interpreted by the media as Jews, in protest at the Israeli offensive. Following an outcry and threats to sue the union under Italy's anti-racism laws,[434][435] the union stated that the proposed boycott was directed at products made in Israel ("Boicottaggio dei prodotti israeliani").[436][437] "

in the international reactions page, this is the only mention of that event "In Italy, a trade union called for a boycott of Jewish-owned shops in Rome.[557]"

A. the main article page should be a summary of the (more detailed) international reactions page, not the other way around.

B;. the international reactions page mischaracterizes the boycott as "jewish owned" with no reference to what the union clarified was their actual proposal.

cerejota, i respect your editing and dont want to go in and revert your reversion. please look over the whole section and see if you agree that it is too much detail. also look at the discussion above entitled "antisemitic incidents" (about the first half or so, before it disintegrated). specifically i'd like to see if you agree to add anti-arab incidents and either rename it to anti-jew/anti-arab incidents or go into the whole etymology of semite (since they both are, technically, semitic, could all be seen as anti-semitic attacks) : ) thanks alot  Untwirl (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's some background. A link to Articles_for_deletion/Antisemitic_incidents_alleged_to_be_related_to_the_2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict for those of your who missed it. Here's a link to the admin's talk page User_talk:MZMcBride to read the comments from some understandably peeved editors.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Far more honest than this bloated article. Oh no, disagreement!  *censor stick* Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there will be any censorship in practice. It's very likely that all of the info will survive in one of the articles split off from the gigantic reactions article. That article has to be split for practical reasons. There are enough editors willing to make sure that racially motivated attacks related to this event are covered in WP.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is bad as it inflate the word antisemitism, a word that should be saved for those who have a irrational hate against jews like nazis. Arabs and muslims attacking jews is more common etnical violence (though not less bad) and in this context not irrational after israels unproportional killings in gaza. I suggest to merge it in diferent sections or condense it to mention pure antisemitic attacks. Not containing attacks by arabs and muslims. Brunte (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the title to 'Violent and Antisemitic backlash to the events in Gaza' As it would give space for my considerations without changing text to much. But I think it is to long. Brunte (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as I get reverted by some random user Dendlai maby some other can look at the my edit. Brunte (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Random User" eh? Well, I guess on wikipedia, we are all random users. I disagree with the wording "Violent and antisemitic" because it equates the two. Antisemtism = violence. (And oh, I've had this page on my watchlist for quite some time now. Just not jumped into the fray yet.) I just thought equating antismeitism and violence seemed a bit too POV. Like using an extra loaded bad word to "discredit" the protestors, some of who, I agree, seem antisemitics. Weasel language. No reason to label them both antisemitic AND violent. If they used violence, then that's what we write. If they didn't.. No need to lump them under a heading that says they were violent. Dendlai (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagreed with that change and reverted it. My rationale is that "violent and antesimitic" sounds too POV, saying antisemitic and violent is the same (both are bad, but they aren't necessarily the same). I reverted as soon as I saw it on instinct, thinking it was a pretty pro-Israeli POV edit. Dendlai (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * anti-jewish or anti-arab incidents are better Untwirl (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what I did was rework the content into the appropriate section and sub-article, because it was under "effects", which was inappropriate (this is not an effect of direct combat, which is what "effects" section/subarticle is about). So I put it in reactions. I didn't want to get into a debate on content, so I didn't modify anything. This was essentially wikifairy stuff. I do think it should be shorter, but deservers its own section in reactions in this article. In particular the reaction in Europe was virulent and blatantly anti-semitic. I think we should remove the more debatable stuff like signs in protests, and there is some blatant right-wing LGF type stretchign of the word, but calling a spade a spade, if the RS do it, is a no brainer. And the freaking president of France addressed the matter, so this not some kind of Fringe crap. There have been a wave of antisemitic actions, and this needs to be included in an encyclopedic article.--Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i agree completely that it should be included, my point however is that the main article page should be a summary of the (more detailed) international reactions page. i don't recall  anyone saying it was "Fringe crap", please point to that comment.  attempts are being made to summarize several sections and this one in particular is covered in detail on another page.  your link to wp:moralize only suggests that "anti-semitic" is an unnecessary descriptor for the incidents.

wp:moralize "Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article: You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." Untwirl (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, lets present the facts. I agree with removal of incidents not labeled as antisemitic by RS or from which an obvious, non-controversial conclusion of being antisemtic can be drawn. For example, a mugger mugging jewish tourists is not antisemitism, but an RS saying "Jewish tourist were told "Death to Jews" during a mugging" is antisemitic. I think some have tried to throw the baby with the bathwater, maybe as ofer reaction to pro-Israeli pov pushing, but also perhaps of their own bias.


 * When I said "fringe crap" I mean that due weight considerations are mostly as part of "fringe in wikilaw: this material is not fringe should be included, and should be included as copiously as RS allow as per the need for an encyclopedic voice (after all, we are not journalism). Of course, this doesn't mean a list of every antisemitic incident, but it does means a generalized, thorough and well sourced space should exist for this information. If we are to give our readers an NPOV view of the events around this war, we should be careful to give context.


 * A clear international reaction of this conflict (not an "effect" or an "incident" as some would have it) was a notable increase in antisemitic attacks worldwide. This is entirely relevant. We should not MORALIZE around it, qualifying the responses, or arguing that these facts are linked to X or Y arguments, unless reliable sources do so, but include? Snowball.


 * My position is exactly the same as with the inclusion of pictures, except in this case the RS threshold is higher, because its text. --Cerejota (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i actually interpret moralize differently. there probably are sources saying hitler was a bad man, just as sources may label incidents antisemitic.  labeling a boycott antisemitic when it is in response to the actions of the state of israel is false.  it does not reflect a deep-seated hatred of jews, but an outcry against the military actions of a state.  the increase of attacks is a reflection of anti-israeli sentiment, not anti semitism.  i think a dispassionate, brief description, such as the one used to describe the backlash of attacks against arabs in america after 9/11, is best:

Hate crimes Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people in the days following the 9/11 attacks.[149][150] Sikhs were also targeted because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States. There were reports of verbal abuse, attacks on mosques and other religious buildings (including the firebombing of a Hindu temple) and assaults on people, including one murder: Balbir Singh Sodhi was fatally shot on September 15, 2001. He, like others, was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim.[149] According to a study by Ball State University, people perceived to be Middle Eastern were as likely to be victims of hate crimes as followers of Islam during this time. The study also found a similar increase in hate crimes against people who may have been perceived as members of Islam, Arabs and others thought to be of Middle Eastern origin.[151] Untwirl (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Untwirl, these post 9/11 "hate crimes" are so called for a reason! Attacks against middle-easterners are labelled "Anti-Arab", not "anti-terrorism" attacks. Who cares what the motive is. You will note on the anti-Semitism page that some anti-Semitism is based on irrational or deep-seated hatred of Jews. But this hatred stems from what has been associated with Jews, irrational or not. Other forms, such as that as a hate of Judaism itself, also counts! If most Jews support Israel, then those who hate Israel will also hate Jews. This hate is called anti-Semitic. A hate of Jews for what they believe in. Any attacks against Jews due to what they are associated with, are therefore classed anti-Semitic. What I find intriguing is that it is the pro-Arabs here who are busy saying there is a distinct difference between anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attacks, yet generally they tend to view Israel and Jews as synonymous in every other instance, why make a distinction here?


 * The deleted page had a “Motives” sections which dealt with this very issue. I am personally of the opinion that Jews and Israel are distinct issues. And since Jews who may have not personally supported the Israeli actions, have been targeted just for being Jewish - that itself is enough to call it anti-Semitic. These rage filled people automatically perceive every Jew as supportive of Israeli actions, just as other anti-Semites view all Jews as miserly. But not all Jews are misers. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. If someone wants to boycott Israel, let them. Let them scrawl offensive graffiti on Israeli embassies, or target Israeli institutions or citizens. Why bring Jews into the picture? Why desecrate a synagogue in Venezuela 5,000 miles away on the other side of the world? Was there an Israeli flag hanging from its roof? That is the other argument why these attacks are classified as anti-Semitic. Have a look at my last response to Yamanam at . Best, Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti-semitism is attacking Jews for being Jews. I think that includes attacking Jewish places (homes, shops, places of worship) or Jews in general because of the actions of Israel. But if I hated dentists because they enjoy sticking drills in people and I attack somebody who is a dentist but also happens to be a Jew, that is not an anti-semitic attack. It is an anti-dentite attack. But yes I think the term anti-semitc covers attacks on Jews as a response to actions of the state of Israel, they are associating the synagogue with Israel because it is Jewish, so it follows that they are attacking it because it is Jewish. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

InfoBox Belligerents
Some of the names of the belligerents in the InfoBox are quite words. I'd like to use the common short name for them to make it more compact. With footnoting and more detailed descriptions in the article text, nothing is really lost, and the InfoBox will be neater. Dovid (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposed name / Current name in InfoBox
 * Hamas / Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)
 * Fatah / Fatah (Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades)
 * Islamic Jihad / Islamic Jihad in Palestine (Al-Quds Brigades)
 * ???Open to suggestions??? / Popular Resistance Committee
 * PFLP (Popular Front) / Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades)


 * The problem with that is each of the names in parentheses is the militant wing of the group preceding it. I had earlier wanted to change the belligerents to just list Gaza and was told that wont do because normal Gazans are not picking up arms. Here, political leadership is not picking up arms, the militant wings of these groups are. Nableezy (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we agree, but others have ganged up on you. OK, we now have two editors who want to simplify it. Let other voices make themselves heard if they still want t o back their opinions. Dovid (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I would want to simplify it to just say 'Gaza' and 'Israel' as the belligerents. If we have to include each organization then I would say it would have to take the current format. Nableezy (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also have "Gaza" and "Israel" as the belligerents. RomaC (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Dovid's original suggestion; alternatively we could just lump the less significant Palestinian militant groups together as "other Palestinian militant groups" or something to that effect. "Gaza" doesn't work because it wasn't an official Gaza army that was fighting. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was the armed group associated with the government of Gaza. If we need to be that accurate then the current wording should stand. Nableezy (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very dubious claim
The section on booby-traps states that: A colonel estimated that one-third of all houses encountered were booby-trapped. I find this hard to believe. Given Gaza City's 1.5m population, there must be at least 150,000 houses assuming 10 per house(might well be less than this). So we are meant to believe that, in the few days leading up to this offensive, Hamas had the time and resources to booby trap 50 thousand homes? I simply can't believe that.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fog of war claim but your statistics are incorrect. The IDF rarely got very far into any built-up area: it bulldozed through to several strategic holding points, and found extensive booby-trapping in the few suburban areas it did hold.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jandrews I think what Nishidani wrote is right, the source says "one-third of all houses encountered" not one-third of all the houses in Gaza. RomaC (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "encountered". It makes little sense to booby trap houses deep within Gaza, in non strategic locations. Hamas et al probably tried to estimate the routes the IDF might take in an attack, what points would be considered advantageous, and booby-trapped houses in those areas. okedem (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah OK. I didn't realise the IDF hadn't completely penetrated into the centre. Do people think that figure is plausible then?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it must be doubtful if Hamas had explosives enough for this purpose - if they'd had such material (how?), I'd think they'd lay much more effective (and safer) traps in the open air. Recall the huge number of people living together in every room, even before the incident - how could the houses have been mined without the kids either setting them off or the dads disarming them? In 2002, the UN Report stated that "The camp residents live in terror, fearing for their future and their lives, following the repeated explosion of mines which the Israeli soldiers left behind". PRtalk 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamas had vast quantities of explosives, both "home-made" (using fertilizers etc, it is very easy to create crude explosives), and standard explosives, brought in through the tunnels. I cannot say anything about the plausibility, though I believe a large part of the booby-trapping was done after the residents left their homes (retreating from the advancing Israeli forces). Remember - the IDF advanced very slowly, so this would not have been a problem. Also, explosives could be placed beforehand, and armed (with a fuze, wires etc.) at the last moment. okedem (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A booby-trap could also be a bowling ball balanced atop the front door. RomaC (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of casualties questioned by Italian media
For those of you who read Italian, you are probably very aware of the war correspondent Lorenzo Cremonesi who wrote in Corriere della serra that the number of casualties just don't add up as well as there being a disproportionate number of young men among the casualties. By checking into the every single medical clinic in Gaza he realized that hamas were inflating the numbers and using the young men as medial cannon fodder. Since I'm sure there are a bunch of people who do this better than I do, I'll just post those facts and some links here and someone else can edit the article accordingly. Jerusalem Post translated parts of the original article and I think the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail had a similar approach in their articles regarding the number of casualties. Here are some links: Original article, published the 21:st of January: http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_gennaio_21/denuncia_hamas_cremonesi_ac41c6f4-e802-11dd-833f-00144f02aabc.shtml Translation in English at LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=457_1232627391

--85.229.35.200 (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

UN: Hamas seized food and blankets from needy Gazans
See: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061426.html According to the UNRWA Hamas police raided a UN warehouse in Gaza City late Tuesday, snatching 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels. What's the best place to mention this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.66.174 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that this is an important fact and that adding it would make this a better encyclopedia article, I suggest the "Gaza humanitarian crisis" section. (I tend to think it's important, since Christopher Gunness implied that it had a significant effect on UNRWA's ability to care for Gazans). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed those stories this morning. Personally I don't think it belongs in this article.  It isn't really about the war per se.  It is an after effect and should be included in some other articles like Hamas, UNRWA, and maybe the effects article.  But I don't think that we need it here.  There are also sorts of aftershocks like price changes and shortages for example.  Gazans are needy in lots of ways as a result of the war and we just can't get into all of them here. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If this was something Israel had done it would be in the Incident section by now.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably true. The article would probably be better if "pro-Israel" editors would stop getting themselves banned so that they could engage in the discussion here. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Catty guys. Meanwhile the pro-Wikipedia editors get no love. RomaC (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that as an attack on anyone and especially not Cptnono. It is just kind of ironic and really unfortunate that editors who have spoken too loudly have sometimes lose their voice entirely.  I think it would be better if someone could make a modest contribution than none at all.


 * As for the pro-Wikipedia editors, they're jerks. They won't let their pro-Wikipedia agenda be balanced out with anti-Wikipedia things.  --JGGardiner (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some wise words from Mr Siddhārtha Gautama from Nepal about the middle way would be in order at this point...meh, can't be bothered.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer has politely informed me that my comments above may have been a "type of ad hominem semi attack". So I'd like to apologize to any "pro-Palestinian" editors who thought that my "probably true" comment implied they held a double-standard. That wasn't my intent. Sorry. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * wow, you kind of switched that around. impressive. anyway, i'd like to accept your apology on behalf of pro-palestinian editor Tundrabuggy who's unavailable due to important bugging tundra commitments.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say this was a fantastic comment: Meanwhile the pro-Wikipedia editors get no love. RomaC It brought a huge smile to my face! For the the sake of complete transparency, my primary concern with any article is complete neutrality in the wording and structure. I personally lean towards being pro-Israel so I appreciate anyone who edits any of my additions since my objectivity can (and probably has) come through.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:HONESTY - I love you Cptnono, we need more of that. My interest in these articles, as stated in the collaboration wikiproject, is around systemic bias. I am also interested in establishing the principle in practice that non-neutral editors can develop neutral articles in the I-P conflict. I want to be able to bring one of these articles to GA. It would be a triumph for the project, but it requieres a lot of work. And people willing to push for that. --Cerejota (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an official announcement from the UN concerning Hamas confiscating UNRWA's shipments. Of course, they never used the word Hamas, which is quite funny, but anyhow, here: http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2009/jer_6feb09.html -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
What does this sentence in the introduction mean: "The Israeli military claims that 1,100 and 1,200 Palestinians comprising 700 militants and 250 civilians were killed". Perhaps the editor meant to write 1,100-1,200? Kinetochore (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed. Nableezy (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli ambassador: Gaza attack prelude to attack on Iran
The Israeli ambassador to Australia spoke candidly when he thought the cameras were off:

"(He said) the country's recent military offensives were a preintroduction to the challenge Israel expects from a nuclear-equipped Iran within a year," Cummings said. During the meeting, held in a relaxed breakfast setting, Mr Rotem spoke about the war in Gaza, which has killed more than 1300 Palestinians. Cummings said Mr Rotem made the point that "Israel's efforts in Gaza were to bring about understanding that we are ready to engage in a decisive way." --

I've been making the point that we should not divorce the attack on Gaza from the larger context provided by the series of recent Israeli attacks (Gaza in early 2008, Syria in 2007, Lebanon in 2006, Iraq in 2003). All of these wars follow the 1996 "Clean Break" plan, developed by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and others for Benyamin Netanyahu. If we are going to change the name of the article, we should call it the "Israel - Middle East War", or go along with the neo-cons and call it "World War IV". We impose POV when we exclude crucial context, just as we would impose POV if we were to treat Germany's 1939 attack on Poland as an "Isolated Response" to "Polish Terror".

"Clean Break" calls for: --  I do not believe that suppressing this information is justified! NonZionist (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation",
 * a "new strategic agenda [that] can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies",
 * "seiz[ing] the strategic initiative ... engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran".


 * I have to say, I'm against nuclear weapons in general, but if Israel can possess them, why doesn't Iran have the right to do so. I don't trust Israel any more than Iran. After all, which of them is constantly attacking other countries/territories?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic but Iran signed the NPT treaty so they have no right to nuclear weapons. They can pull out of the treaty. Israel has not signed the treaty. You can read all about it here as there are quite a few people working on these issues in Wiki.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And they are both Parliamentary Theocracies, as is Gaza currently. Religious nuts with nukes, what fun! That said, Sean is correct, under international law, Israel's nukes are legal, but Iran's aren't. Period.--Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly though Arabic public opinion favours Iran having nukes. See the bit I added in Iran_and_wmd last year based on the annual University of Maryland survey. Not great news for NP efforts.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course Arabic public opinion favours an Iranian Nuclear weapons program. Iran is the biggest player in the Arab world. Death to the west and all that buissiness. The Saudi's are BFF's with the states and with Israel swinging it's arms around a bit. A nuclear Iran would have the political presence to make itself into the region's superpower. A superpower that is run by Arabs for Arabs, it's like their biggest christmas wish. But enough about all this OR and unrelated talk. On with the article at hand I say Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Iran isn't an Arab country. They don't speak Arabic, nor are they ethnic Arabs.  Arabs are a minority group within Iran.  Blackeagle (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Middle Eastern then, my mistake. my points still apply. Perhaps musslim would have been better but I didn't want to offend them (They get so cranky j/k :/) Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a wide range of views towards Iran in the Arab World. Officially, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and others are averse to it, while Syria and Qatar, e.g., side with it. Among the Arab population, there's a degree of sympathy for Iran and the assertive stance of Mr Ahmadinejad, but not everywhere (e.g. not in Sunni areas of Iraq or Lebanon). Much of it is about the Shi'a / Sunni divide in the Arab world, which Iran is trying to foster. The emerging connection between Hamas and Iran, e. g., is far from obvious, because Hamas is originally affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which considers Shi'ites apostates. Some of al-Qa'ida's leaders have even argued that fighting Shi'ites is more of a priority than fighting the West. This is all commonplace Middle East history slash politics. I'm a trifle concerned that users who are not aware of such basics are among the contributors to an article like this one.--84.190.24.105 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm a trifle concerned that users who are not aware of such basics are among the contributors to an article like this one". I have to say that I do share your concern but the way I look at is that people learn things here that they won't get from their mainstream media. Also, if they want to add things to the article they need to go and find a reliable source, read it, process it a bit before they edit WP or else they'll get reverted. I think it's better for people to be here than sitting in front of their TV screens watching dumbed down nonsense e.g. editors had the opportunity to read your 'it's more complicated than you think' remark above and let's be honest, pretty much everything is more complicated than pretty much everyone thinks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm offended by NonZionist (talk) Wikipedia name. The fact is that Zhid-derived name was disallowed as offending on ru.wikipedia.org. Is there any WP rule about it? Some people still deny existence of state of Israel and call it Zionist entity. Hopefully it's Flat Earth camp. I prefer Frank Herbert Jihad meaning, e.i. fighting inner fear AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. If he wishes to display his view of Zionism, which as I recall he described as 'being free of Zionism' through his username there isnt anything bad about that. Not everybody is a Zionist, sorry (and the people you speak of do not deny the 'existence of Israel' the deny the legitimacy of that existence). Nableezy (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you clearly respect UN, so it's surprising that you could relate to claim that state of Israel existence is illegitimate. I hope you are aware of events that took place in UN at November 29 1947. You could always use Wikipedia to find out. NonZionist wiki page clearly disrespects this UN ruling with One state banner. I also hope you could relate to the fact that some people living in Israel find such a claim offending and out of touch with reality. Hope you see what I mean. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt say whether I agreed or disagreed with the sentiment, and I understand why it would offend Israelis, but that isnt the point. Me calling myself an Arab could conceivably offend a fellow Egyptian. It is up to NonZionist to determine what it is he thinks, and the fact that he differs from others in his thinking shouldnt be cause for offense. The One State banner is certainly a valid argument, and one he makes on his user page. Here, on this page, it is not relevant or important what NonZionist believes is a just solution to the I/P conflict. To be clear, I did not say one way or the other whether or not I think Israel's existence is legitimate, and I certainly do not intend to discuss this here. I was just answering your question as to whether NonZionist's username was in contravention to policy. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing 'destruction' and 'dismantling'
Moved this down, we need to change the sentence below as it is WP:plagiarism. This sentence, in the Background section -- is it neutral? (my itals) "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be dismantled." How to rephrase this, as it has been lifted verbatim from the the cited article, which is WP:plagiarism. RomaC (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be removed from power in the Gaza strip."

You can't destroy or demolish Hamas it's a worlwide organisation. Destruction in the case of Israel can stay as it would probably be thae words any Hamas official would use Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, more importantly I guess is that "Hamas considers Israel an illegitimate state and is doctrinally committed to its destruction" is just plain wrong given that Hamas, like all Arab states, Iran, pretty much everyone in the world supports a 2 state solution albeit with some conditions. If we are going to say something about Hamas' position on this then we better get it right. Maybe whoever inserted this text didn't even know that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, that's not true. Reliable source consider Hamas to be doctrinally committed to Israel's destruction. This assessment is based on, among other things, Hamas' charter (available online, and quite an amusing read, what with the references to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and so forth). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jalapenas, I don't know if you have ever lived in the Middle East but you quickly learn that there is huge difference between the propaganda/rhetoric crap and nonsense thrown around by all sides and the pragmatic reality of peoples actual positions on issues especially the average members of the public who are just trying to live a happy life like everyone else. This is something that much of the 'reliable' media chooses to ignore, particularly in the US, preferring instead to present a grossly distorted view of reality on the ground. I don't know why. Maybe they're just lazy or think that people prefer cowboys vs injuns stories. The reality is that Hamas supports a 2 state solution. It doesn't get into the press very often but see these articles for example. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/10/israel1. There's more where that came from.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, if a group usually presents itself in a politically inexpedient way ("we are theocratic, antisemitic, conspiracy-theory-driven, intransigent wackos"), and occasionally presents itself in a politically expedient way ("well, we might be pragmatic about this one thing"), don't you think it's likely that the former stance represents what it truly believes, and the latter stance is posturing for political benefits, such as international legitimacy and money? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an enormous irony in me apparently painting Hamas as peace brokers given that I dislike religion based political movements (yeah, call me an atheist bigot). I guess my point is that Hamas is a political party, therefore everything they say is politically expedient and will vary according to who their audience is at any particular moment and which RS you look at etc. No surprise there. Who knows what the truth is or even if there is one truth but I guess it's probably whatever position would maximise their popular support and financing like anywhere else and that would be to support a 2 state solution. The RS say that Hamas are both things, a party that wants Israel's destruction and a party that supports a 2 state solution. So, mentioning one without the other is misleading and an oversimplification. I'm with Nableezy on his proposal at 17:46, 4 February 2009 below. Let the contradictory facts speak for themselves.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the vast majority of the Arab world do not support a two-state solution. As evident by their refusal to provide citizenship to Palestinians, indifference or financial support of Hamas, and woefully tactless handling of refugee camps situated in their lands.  But this is an entirely different argument.  : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So far 55 Islamic and Arab states have undertaken to recognize Israel within the 67 borders. Israel has yet to give a formal answer to this proposal made at the Beirut summit, and repeated twice since.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you say that but when I visited a refugee camp in Jordan many years ago I was very impressed by the number of TV aerials. There were so many that somebody could have lost an eye. :) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anecdotal evidence is very impressive. I'm sure the many Christians being harassed in this camps and the conditions exacerbated by the hypocritical theocracies must have impressed you as well. Or, how extremist literature is spread throughout the various educational facilities (often financed by the UN) unabated.  Please, leave your confusing sympathies with someone who cares.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok Wikifan enough. Maybe you could find conversation of your "caliber" some where like www.arguingwithfools.com . You're all over this talk page doing nothing but antagonizing people. It stops now.............or I'm telling Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just remove the sentence all together.:"Elements within Gaza and Palestine consider Israel to be illegitimate state and are committed to its destruction, while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist group that must be removed from power in the Gaza strip." Sounds convoluted and blatantly obvious Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd, since the ones doing the destruction are the Israelis, and not just of Hamas. Obliterate the sentence please --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, those evil Israeli's. How dare they avoid historic muslim sites and taking great prejudice in avoiding civilian casualties, unlike their friendly, peaceful, tolerant, Hamas neighbors.  If Israel wanted to truly kill civilians, they could demolish Gaza in 15 seconds.  That's what Hamas would have done if they had the capacity to do so.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I salute Israel for not completing a genocide. What tremendous moral fiber they must possess. Surely Hamas would have done that, why Miss Cleo says so! Nableezy (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Nableezy, Israelis should be commended for not completely wiping Gaza off the non-Israeli map. The Israelis take great care when they aim at homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, medical personnel, and civilians. They avoid causing collateral damage to the vegetation while targeting with precision. Just ask the Samounis. What is left of them of course.-- Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, my intent. Your true colors show.  Here, let me direct you to a site you might find very interesting: Lovely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My true colors? I just praised Israel for showing remarkable restraint in not completing a genocide! What else do you want from me? And your true colors are what exactly? Nableezy (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And for all those living in the states that are at all worried about triggering an NSA seizure of your computing equipment, the above link is to a site about the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, might not want to click. To my homies up in Canada, click away! Nableezy (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks. One should be more worried about what happens when they can't seize your computer. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By your true colors, I'm not referring to your obvious sympathies with Hamas and total ignorance of the situation in Israel. I'm talking about how your talking me down about the idolization of Falk in the international lead, using various fallacies and citing rules (or someone else was citing rules), while your own opinion is a strong cause for concern.  You are acting out in the interests of your heated self and not according to the supposed-neutral POV advocated by wikipedia. My colors?  I believe in truth.  I don't endorse everything Israel does, but I know bullshit when I see it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, try identifying what you are writing and you may be surprised that much of it is bullshit. Nableezy (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how destructive it might be. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan you haven't said one thing in this section applying to the ACTUAL TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED. Either participate in the discussion of this particular topic or get out. That goes for everyone else who wants to use this as a forum to argue with other editors.Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you state the obvious? Thank you Andrew. Your timing is impeccable.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm handsome too Andrew&#39;s Concience (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, Wikifan, why can't you be less, lets say, combative? Pretty much everyone here knows were people tend to stand soapbox-wise. If you are going to appeal to motive every time someone disagrees, we will get nowhere. I have seen here some rather strange and hopeful collaboration, and even sincere friendliness about people accross all POVs - lets keep it that way, and lets work towards it. The reality is that neither the pro-Plaesitnians nor the pro-Israelis can be convinced to abandon their true colors - what we must do is collaborate in spite of them to build a neutral encyclopedia. I hope you can join in that spirit.--Cerejota (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my original spirit, but I became discourage by the total and completely resentment for facts and truths, in addition to the stubbornness willingly adopted by even veteran editors. Blah. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, please adhere to WP:CIVIL. For all the real pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and/or neutral editors, do not fall in this trap. Remember:"this is an article that the Palestinians will fight for. You want to get them into trouble", the previous CAMERA Wikipedia lobbyists. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing Wikifan of belonging to CAMERA, I'm just warning the real editors from people who are trying to disrupt others instead of faithfully improving Wikipedia. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I attributed the statement in question even more clearly to context and source (note: a ref already clearly indicated the source, --> no plagiarism) and put the NYT quote in quotation marks. That should do. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok Skäpperöd quotes citing NYT will do, thanks. I still wonder whether the sentence is a neutral choice, with one side characterized as bent on "destroying" and the other "dismantling." RomaC (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's plain wrong. See response to Jalapenas further up. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, given that the "dismantlers" have destroyed much more than the "destroyers" have, that the terms in this sentence may be misleading. I mean, "Hamas and Israel hate one another" is what it boils down to... Should we say "Hamas regards Israel as an occupying power and Israel regards Hamas as terrorists" or should we shitcan this sentence? Or something else? It's harder to phrase than I thought it would be, and I want everyone to be happy with the edit. RomaC (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be appropriate: Hamas views Israel as an illegitimate state and its charter calls for Israels destruction (cited to this bbc article), while Israel views Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be dismantled (cited to the NYT article). And there have been recent quotes by Hamas officials saying they will not stop until Israel is destroyed. If you can find some Israeli government official calling for the destruction of Hamas change the word, but I for one am not big on avoiding facts. The Hamas charter clearly calls for the 'destruction' of the state of Israel. Nableezy (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the way Nableezy put and sourced it, and also agree with the reasoning. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * dismantled or annihilated with every one and everything in its path?? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with Nableezy's proposal if there's consensus for that. These are facts after all but I'd prefer some mention of the contradictory positions of Hamas re: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-softens-israel-stance-in-calls-for-palestinian-state-431624.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/10/israel1 to avoid oversimplification. The same probably goes for Israel's position on Hamas although I don't have a source for that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, beside this charter and "destroying Israel" thing. We need to also say that "Hamas is willing to accept Palestinian state with 1967 borders". As reported by Haaretz itself, the wellknown Israeli journal:"He said the Hamas government had agreed to accept a Palestinian state that followed the 1967 borders and to offer Israel a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights."I'm going to add it, as this is related to the Hamas wants to destroy israel line. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Palestinian fightback" section?
"fightback" isn't a word in the English language. RomaC (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is but it's slang meaning gives that heading a pretty offensive meaning, un-intended I assume. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to that. Not ideal I know, I would have preferred 'response', but that was rejected it seemed on this page. 'Fightback' is prefereable (IMO) to 'militant activity' which is a phrase designed to discredit any resistance to Israel. I would welcome it if a beter word can be found. 'Defence'? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm an Oxford and Webster type myself, and I don't see "fightback" in either of those dictionaries. I would think "response" after the previous section, titled "offensive". That would make sense. RomaC (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Response" is inappropriate since it includes a judgment on the nature of the activity that is not supported in the text, nor is it true, since the rocket attacks, for example, were merely an intensification of previous attacks. There is nothing wrong with the status-quo "Palestinian militant/military activity". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to say that I completely disagree with Jalapenos view on this. And it looks like everyone else does as well. Jalapenos is clearly approaching everything with a 'try to discredit the Palestinians' approach which I don't think is appropriate. That's not a personal attack, it's a disagreement with the way (s)he is approaching things.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about just calling them both 'Israeli/Palestinian military activity'. Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not? There is need for a overhaul and focus on military activity. Not povfluff. Brunte (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy's suggestion sounds good to me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Campaign
Is the name of the section. Jalapenos argument cant be valid then. Its like going further back and rename Israeli offensive 'Israeli refusal to lift the blockade'. 'Palestinian fightback' is quite correct but can be reworded in that spirit. Jalapenos suggestion sounds more negative than 'Israels offensive' and thereby dont follow NPOV when there is better alternatives.Brunte (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When looking at the palestinian section there is something strange.When israeli section start with "Israel launched its military campaign, Operation Cast Lead, at 11:30 a.m., December 27..." the palestinian section is starting with a background with event before dec 27 11:30. The 'lead' in the palestinian section contain lot of what sounds like the justification for israels attack. My my, have I found a large chunk of POV-editing? Brunte (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

UN: A farmer was killed on the morning of 18 Jan following the ceasefire
I've read the above farmer discussions, but it seems odd, given statements below from the official UN reports. UN 17-18 Jan. report says:"Following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet on 17 January, Prime Minister Olmert announced a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, which came into effect at 0200 hours local time 18 January" And in the UN 19 Jan. report:"One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire."I've added this info on the violations section, but it was removed by User:AgadaUrbanit using the edit summary:"Resoring timeline and removing duplicate January 18". This has to be in the first statement of the violations section since it is the first reported violation. The paragraph is really misleading the readers by stating a pile of Gazans violations on the 20th Jan. before reporting the Jan. 18th incident. The current order does not reflect the reality occurrence order and is a POV pushing case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish07, it's nice to meet you. Please join discussion [here] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No Agada, they are different topics. The link you provided is about IDF admission of committing the incident and is not related to the occurrence of the incident, which is reported by an extra reliable source (UN). --Darwish07 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish07, I do not argue existence of the incident. I suggest use NPOV wording, include all refs gathered and let the reader decide. Agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada, you completely removed this statement: "One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January following the Israeli declared cease-fire", which is directly extracted from the cited UN report. Up until now, you didn't provide a reason for such removal and just pointed me to a different discussion. Again, why was the statement completely removed? --Darwish07 (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agada, behave, not that it matters but Darwish was around here before you, and in general is a cool guy. Sort of your opposite - ideologically, you cool too. However, I thought we had agreed that well soured material was to be included?--Cerejota (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merci, Cerejota. Yes, it's really frustrating to see well sourced information silently vanish behind mysterious edits. I'm assuming good faith till now anyway, but still Agada hasn't replied to any of my several queries of why he deleted such statement. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwish07 and Cerejota, maybe you did not notice. I added NPOV source quote Gaza medics said IDF troop shot eight-year-old girl in the northern town of Beit Hanun and a 20-year-old man near Khan Yunis with both refs. I think Darwish07 ref will be a nice addition, have no problem with its inclusion. Does not it reflect this incident? Do you prefer different wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking about severely different things. I'm talking about deliberate removal of very well cited information. Read my original complaint and my reply below again. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Darwish07, could you please provide link to my change? It will help discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've provided the link to your damaging edit in the first paragraph. I'll say it again, your edit silently removed a crucial UN cited statement; namely: "One Palestinian farmer was killed on the morning of 18 January in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis following the Israeli-declared cease-fire". And you've provided zero explanations till now for such a damaging edit. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish07, thank you for providing change link. I'm sorry I've removed UN 17-18 Jan. report. Do you have relevant to January 18 morning incident quote from it? This is first time I see UN 19 Jan. report ref. though. Could not have damaged it. Fully agree on this ref inclusion in relevant section with NPOV wording. Do you agree? Would you like to change wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems, it happens. Ref. 19 was there before your edit though. Your edit removed the statement with its source (report 19) . UN statements are NPOV by themselves, they need no extra or less wordings. The statement is already clear I'll reinsert it in the same old position. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Before your statement removal, the statement was mis-cited with report 18 instead of report 19. Was that the reason you deleted the statement back then? If so, I provide my sincere apologies. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Thank you Darwish07, for your understanding. I know that we both want to better reflect reality with as much cross referenced information as possible. Please believe me information censoring is not my kick. We already agreed January 18 morning incident in this discussion belongs to Unilateral ceasefires, second paragraph. After all it's the place in this article where January 18 morning events are described. You are welcome to join discussion and offer opinion, wording and references. Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked the discussion, but I found no consensus that 18 Jan events has to be in the unilateral ceasefire section and never on the violations section. Why such weird thought anyway? The UN reports says it clear and with no room for debate or doubt that the incident happened "following the Israeli declared ceasefire". Any killings after the ceasefire is a violation, as any rocket from gaza is. It belongs to violations. the statements I cited above can not be any more clear. There's no reason whatsoever to move the incident from the violations section. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Darwish07, I understand your concerns. Still I believe it would be more effective discussion if we moved this discussion here. Editors did agree to quote this incidents in context of January 18 morning. To the point of your argument I fully agree that reported incident happen after Israeli unilateral cease fire announcement and when it was in effect. I also agree that current organization of this conflict aftermath is far from optimal and I'm open for suggestions about improving the format. Still currently events of January 18 morning described in Unilateral_ceasefires second paragraph. Do you agree? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved to the discussion above, per your request. As I said above,  It's utterly misleading to read a huge pile of January 20th Gazans violations of cease-fire in the very first sentence of the "ceasefire violations" section, when in fact there has been a UN confirmed violation from the IDF on the very first morning of the 18th of January. --Darwish07 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)