Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 43

Police in international law section
Per today's discussion:

Bold text is currently in the article

Israel's response is that its military action (use of force) parenthesized addition actually needed here? ''' in Gaza constituted acts of self-defense rather than being reprisals or punishment.[256] Israeli's definition of a justifiable target has been criticized for being too broad. Professor Philippe Sands ''' Who? oh: Philippe Sands. He deserves this much attention in this section?  of University College London says that "once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" Paraphrase could be better when watching out for weight and balance or maybe using a source that said the same thing without a drawn out quote  as in the case of the Israeli strike on the police station stations, actually. Israel targeted many police stations which deserves mention The IDF justifies the strike, which killed at least 40 trainees Graduating ceremony for the 40. They were full on police give or take 5 minutes claiming that Gaza police participate in Hamas military activities, From the source: "Analysts say Hamas policemen are responsible for quashing dissent and rooting out spies... also The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads... but the IDF was unable Unable was not used in the source. refused, did not, whatever, several words can be used but "unable" implies that they could not instead of would notto provide any information to substantiate this allegation. Human Rights Watch argues that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat. I like that and kept that in my proposal B'Tselem disputes the IDF's claim, stating in a letter to the Israeli attorney general, that the police recruits killed were "trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order."[257] So these last two extra lines with very pointed quotes were necessary but not Israel's side? If we are going to pick and choose like that, I like this quote: Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. -NY times or this Most of those killed were policemen in the Hamas militant movement -BBC or maybe even this "In the Israeli offensive, one of the first targets was a police academy, where scores of recruits were preparing to join a security service that Hamas uses to "enforce its writ within Gaza."

My problems with this the current version: My proposal as a base: ''Israel was criticized by B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch for targeting of public buildings including the educational institutions, interior and foreign ministries, police stations, and the parliament building. Israel argued that the buildings were part of the Hamas infrastructure. The IDF justified the strike on Gazan police stations since some police participated in military activities. Human Rights Watch argued that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat.[253]'' Fitting in 40 police dieing is OK by me if it can be worked in properly.
 * This fits into a "war crime" in the sense that targeting infrastructure was not needed to attack Hamas. The professor's line and half a description of 40 police dieing does not convey that to the reader.
 * The editor of the section that is currently in the live article picked and chose lines in a manner that victimized the police while giving Israel's side of the event very little weight.
 * The lines were off enough to be weaselly but this could have just been an error while putting the info in.
 * We could easily have a more concise version while still being neutral

Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should cite the IDF explicitly rather than paragraphrasing. If Israel has a retort for specific claims made (i.e, argument for collective punishment) we address those as well. Also supplement with supporting experts, like Cordesman, etc...Personally this is totally unnecessary and is asking for heavy edit warring. At this point any reiterating accusations should be mentioned at a much less-emphasized extent unless something is truly notable, like recognized by a legal entity. The Khmer Rouge period (1975–1979) has less information on war crimes than this article, and they've actually been tried in UN sanctioned courts....though unsuccessfully. : ( Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The UNHRC specifically highlighted this issue in their statement i.e. "Disproportionate military response – the airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government". If we are going to go into detail about the police then I suppose this outweighs HRW etc. Having said that, I still have a 'less is more' view on the international law section. Interesting comparison to the Khmer Rouge. Sadly, if you go there many people don't really know what you are talking about or don't really believe it. Same goes for elsewhere in S.E.Asia. It's largely forgotton which is perhaps an argument for more info.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, are you suggesting we don't go into detail on the police thing or did I read that wrong? I agree to a certain extent since it is accusations from primarily biased orgs that will not go anywhere but I assume other editors will go nuts.
 * I prefer to not balance out a long quote with another. There is so much commentary in this article since people are bickering over details that might prove or disprove a point. No one can argue in favor of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge which makes it a refreshingly concise article. I'm actually really surprised there isn't more in there though.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * disproportionate military response – the airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government sums up so much in one sentence. I haven't checked the source yet but it sounds better than strings of random quotes.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cptnono - From what I understand that was the military objective? Destroying Hamas infrastructure? UNHRC mention is good, but it's Palestinian speaker is none other than Richard Falk, who is already in the article. Basically talking point such as "collective punishment" "disproportionate use of force" must be met with an Israel and/or expert retort, if one exists, which I know there does. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, screwed up and replied to your previous statement above. Collective punishment and disproportionate use of force are not necessarily even related to the police and infrastructure thing. I like the sources where it is asserted that it was self-defense. That should be another paragraph if we go into detail. There were so many knee-jerk accusations thrown out there that it makes it ridiculous. "A bunch of women and children died... the end" is almost OK with me out of shear frustration.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my point was really that if you plan to say Israel was criticized by B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch it might be better to say Israel was criticized by the UNHCR, ...etc. The Khmer Rouge stuff in WP has lots of holes about third party involvement and lacks the historical context of the emergent role of Viet Nam in regional politics (and if there is anyone with a historical beef with Viet Nam it's Cambodians oddly). Also they're still around remember albeit largely rebranded and doing quite nicely in the Cambodian electoral system... In fact you see their flags flying in villages quite often. *sigh*  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My accusation comment was directed towards media and aid agencies just to clear up any confusion. Don't want to stray to far off topic, but yeah, Cambodia is hardly covered in western media. The Economist does a good job at covering stuff not considered as important as Britney Spears at least.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, yes back on topic, I'm not advocating quotes/counter-quotes. I don't see them as necessary to get the facts over.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do. If x accuses Israel of x, and Israel has an explaination, we include it. Am I right? If we could afford to list the two sentences that condemn Israel, then listing two more sentences that provide balance shouldn't be a major concern. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that I'm more in favour of Cptnono's proposed approach above made at 05:06, 13 March 2009 which doesn't have detailed statements by either side.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been about 24 hours. It is time to rework the current version or add Israeli rebuttals to balance it.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to either remove or 'balance'? Nableezy (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the part on police being considered combatants, other organizations have made the same point, so we could use one of them: The military bombed the main police building in Gaza and killed, according to reports, forty-two Palestinians who were in a training course and were standing in formation at the time of the bombing. Participants in the course study first-aid, handling of public disturbances, human rights, public-safety exercises, and so forth. Following the course, the police officers are assigned to various arms of the police force in Gaza responsible for maintaining public order . . . These are just examples of what appear to be clear civilian objects attacked by the army. On the face of it, the activity carried out in these places is not military activity aimed against Israel, and the IDF spokesperson does not even make this claim. Clearly, then, they cannot be considered military objects in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law – they do not make an effective contribution to the military activity against Israel and the attack provides Israel with no militaryadvantage whatsoever, and certainly not a clear militaryadvantage. B'Tselem Further, initially, Israel had focused its attacks on the police stations in Gaza.  However, police were not combatants and could not represent legitimate targets, unless actively engaged in hostilities.  It was Israel’s burden of proof to show that the police they had targeted were, indeed, Hamas militants.  Instead, it appeared that Israel had targeted the police stations “on a blanket basis”. Israel had also made clear that all Hamas entities, affiliates and sympathizers were subject to attack, she continued.  In that regard, it was important to note that only combatants who were actively engaged in fighting were legitimate subjects of attack.  Thus, a Hamas official at the Ministry of Health was not a legitimate target, and neither was a Hamas media broadcasting station. HRW statement at UN press conference Police stations, police officers and law enforcement officials are classified under the international law as civilians, and targeting them as such while they were not engaged in military action constitutes a violation of the international law. PCHR But the quote was in a BBC piece dealing specifically with this issue, I think it is fine to use that one. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not like you to go into so much detail, Nableezy. Are you drunk? All kidding aside though, A bunch of guys graduating from the police academy were bombed. The IDF felt it was justified. We can write pages upon pages on this but does it 1) deserve this much weight in the international law section 2)Make sense to use this one incident to illustrate the disproportionate use of force 3) have plenty of arguable points that will draw this paragraph into five? I personally feel it is a big of enough deal to not get relegated to the incident specific article but I also don't think it deserves long drawn out quotes only mentioning the concern while not giving enough info on why Israel thought it was a valid target.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a disproportionate force problem. The issue is whether or not they are a legitimate target at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the IDF has received plenty of media attention quoting them or arguing against the accusation of it not being a legitimate target. Furthermore, most of the sources criticizing the incident have grouped it into the disproportionate force argument in regards to international law. You can argue against me all you want but if you want to follow Wikipedia standards you will see the sources used to balance a section that currently has undue weight.Cptnono (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono. this "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

doesn't mean that Israel is connecting the firing of rockets as terrorism yet the source connects it as military activity.

then, it would be SYNTH to connect the above quote with the police officers, since police institutions does not fall under "strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions"

this is totally SYNTH. you are connecting these dots to serve your purpose on this matter.

the source that would connect the firing of rockets with Israel rationale that police officers are "fair game" is this and was included "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," Cryptonio (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just quoted a source. I don't like using the term "terrorism" per wiki standards but I will insert certain lines in certain reliable sources as other editors have done. I would prefer a section that isn't full of extra quotes and lines. When the current section is fixed I will withdraw my edit but it is currently needed due to weight and misquote issues. If this one realy hurts your feelings I have another handful of sources to fix it.Cptnono (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote itself has nothing to do with police stations. this is what you fail to understand and tried to SYNTH. plus this other sources you are referring to, must address Law issues that we are currently working on.  If i were you, i would bring all these sources you are referring to in order "to fix it".  as of now, your SYNTH is unacceptable.  Cryptonio (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I am OK with removing it as long as we can remove the other quotes that were picked only to show one side of the dispute. The paragraph is not acceptable as is and needs reworking or strong rebalancing.Cptnono (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you will remove the NYTIMES source since you know it talks nothing about Law. Then you will address the point I just brought up about connecting military institutions with police stations.  You will address these concerns or you will lose a whole or credibility.  the concerns you have brought up about the Law sections has been responded to.  If you feel as if they have not been satisfactory, then you must continue the debate instead of these terrible unilateral edits that will surely lead to edit warring.  Cryptonio (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYTIMES source you provided does not address anything about Law, which is the section we are dealing with in here. and so it would be considered as SYNTH.  do you understand this?  Cryptonio (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of it is about international law. It is about bitching about one attack that made headlines.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And all I "understand" is that one editor warped the sources to meet his commentary on the incident and that has made a mess of it.Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be out of yourself right about now. I will continue to address your concerns just to be on the record.  The quote we are using - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm strongly address International law concerns.


 * the thorny question is arising of who and what can be considered a legitimate military target


 * International law

Israel says it is operating totally within humanitarian law, but human rights groups fear it is stretching the boundaries.

And as ground forces clash in the heavily-populated Gaza Strip, the questions will become more pressing.

International law’s rules on keeping civilian casualties to a minimum are based on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants".


 * The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".


 * And on and on and on. Cryptonio (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For the remaining editors, I will propose this edit to the para in question.

"Israeli's definition of a justifiable target("anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target") has been criticized for being too broad. Professor Philippe Sands of University College London says that "once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" as in the case of an Israeli strike on the police station. The IDF justifies the strike, which killed at least 40 trainees, claiming that Gaza police participate in Hamas military activities, but the IDF did not provide any information to substantiate this allegation. Human Rights Watch argues that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat. B'Tselem disputes the IDF's claim, stating in a letter to the Israeli attorney general, that the police recruits killed were "trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order." "

Changes in bold. Cryptonio (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cptnono, you remove those edits(terrible edits that shouldn't be allowed to stand a second more) and by the end of the day, we will have a proposal here for consideration that you will find acceptable. Now, i understand that you are holding this section hostage, and no compromise should be made under those circumstances.  But out of respect to you(and only respect) we will tackle this issue that has made you lose sight for a second.  You have done nothing before now, that merits blindside you 'just because', so accept this olive branch, and lets get to work on something that will address the concerns the section merits and not your own concerns.  Please, remove those edits, and lets go back to the drawing board, i will be satisfied if we find common ground that will satisfy you.  and if i think a bit more on this, this is the only way for us to resolve this issue.  amicable with a sense of archiving a good article.  Cryptonio (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cryptonio, you have a really accurate BS radar. I agree with you on cptnono's edits. There was nothing wrong with the para before cptnono came along. Sands echoes what many commentators have been saying. Cptnono bitched that this is undue weight. One sentence is undue weight? Irwin Cotler who is a nobody and his comments brings nothing to the article has a quote in the article and we were okay. Then this cptnono complained that the police station attack was taken out of context  (a lie that he later ditched). No it wasn't out of context, the BBC called it a key case of what Sands was talking about. I gave the Israeli point of view which was the police moonlight as Hamas militants (claiming they have evidence which they were not willing to provide), and I gave the human rights organizations' opinions. Cptnono's solution is to add the most silliest of quotes, without quotation marks btw (plagiarism/copyvio). Anyway only para 2 and 4 is mostly my work just so people know  --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli officials said that anyone linked to the Hamas security structure or government was fair game because Hamas was a terrorist group that sought Israel’s destruction. This sentence was copied from the NYT article and pasted into this Wikipedia article without quotations and proper attribution (i.e. not mentioning that the NYT article is the source for the statement). I am removing it --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We source it to the NYT, I dont think this small quote qualifies as a copyvio. Nableezy (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a quotation when it is not in quotes isn't? So if people are feeling lazy about paraphrasing and just want to copy-and-paste, then you place quotation marks and you attribute the quote properly. Example: The NYT reported, "blah blah." [343] Please revert your edit or change it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it all right now? Nableezy (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replacing words and phrases with synonyms and similar sounding phrases is not exactly what I would call rephrasing. That trick may have helped us get by in middle school, but I don't think it is accepted here.:D Still, it is a temporary fix for the copyvio. Whether the quote should be there or not is the next question. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The NYTIMES source does not address the claims brought up in legal terms and ground already included in the article. There is little doubt, that it should be labeled as SYNTH. The closes we actually have now(and more should be "dig" in order to find direct responses to the charges being made) is the BBC article. Now, that simply by putting that 'terrorist' tag in order to 'blunt' or 'balance' the charges is insufficient and detrimental to the painstakingly process we have engage in order to avoid those same useless tags in a war with two participants(and if this doesn't do, it is simply against wiki policies). The quote "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," does what the NYT quotes implies, addressing the point straightforward without the 'superlatives'.

If Cptnono wants to add that line, he needs to explain the inclusion( not as being questioned whether or not is a RS or not, but if its relevant to the Law section at all). Israel's responses must be related to the Legal charges that have been presented, and not Israel's rationale or POV, simply because the information is out there and this is Wiki(an encyclopedia).

I will, edit the para to this.

Israel's response is that its military action (use of force) in Gaza constituted acts of self-defense rather than being reprisals or punishment. Israeli's definition of a justifiable target("anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target") has been criticized for being too broad. Professor Philippe Sands of University College London says that "once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved" as in the case of an Israeli strike on the police station. The IDF justified the strike, which killed at least 40 trainees, claiming that Gaza police was involved in Hamas military activities, but the IDF didn't provide any information to substantiate this allegation. Human Rights Watch argues that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat.

Removed the last line by B'tselem and added the quote "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target". Also removed Cptnono's 'terrorist' quote. Cryptonio (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also changed 'unwilling' to simply "didn't provide..." Cryptonio (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much focus on this? WP:UNDUE is not fo show, ya know?--Cerejota (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cerejota shouldn't mince words. I clearly understand(as so those Nableezy, sharp as a double edge sword) that since Israel is 'perhaps' the main culprit in this situation(conflict etc.) a lot more 'space' should be allotted to 'its' response on this section.  Basically, it should be at a 75-25 ratio.  What I mean is(and what Cptnono is trying to get done) that Israel's rationale etc. should be given prime 'real state' since it's the party that took desicive action for whatever reason(and those 'reasons' should be clearly labeled).  Now, there is no confidence in 'that other side of aisle' edits.  and this is the main reason why we all are still present in this article.  In my estimation, Falastine should be given a whole lot of credit, for he had excellent 'foresight' and understanding, that the article was not the opponent(and various other details i will forgone here) and actually presented the blueprint we should all work from(a tedious task, yet his work still remains).


 * this is the one article(in this conflict) where reasoning was given center stage, then, it is through reasoning how we should actually address concerns.  perhaps, it has been difficult for some etc, but i clearly understand, it is only time who has been given a backseat.  eventually, reasoning will give in to 'practicality'.  and the reason being, we are all human beings, and we don't know what it is that really makes us happy.  because we don't understand what happiness is.  and that is due to this marginal world we all live in.  it is why, we settle for something less than perfect, for something less than the real thing(time and time again).


 * I strongly believe though, even though the process is arduous and challenging, we must not skip steps. All arguments should be brought to the table, in due time.  If time is responsible for the 'timing', then only those who clearly understand what man is all about, should waste time in trivial affairs like these.  the most relevant and important of man's needs are already covered.  if they are ignored, they are ignored for a reason.  should we then attempt to 'make' something, that something will be judged by trial, and the trial of fire(as illogical as that may sound). all in all, time is measured by a distant point of reference.  and men tend to like vices.  so everything is fair game(even abnormalities).  such is the deepest of thoughts.  Cryptonio (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't elaborate my point enough it seems: I do not care much for this section, seeing as a bit coatracky. You can search the talk archives on my position on this. We spend much too much time on this minor, relatively unimportant issue comapred to other more important parts of the article. The reality is that accusations of breaking international laws other than the Geneva Conventions are irrelvant, because Israel shares with the USA the dubious honor of not belonging to most international treaties around humanitarian responsibility in war. Even Jordan, that towering example of human rights and international law, is an active participant in the ICC. So my point is that regardless of how we organize this section, I do not see enough notability in the issue to justify such a long section. However, there could be certain senstences that can be woven into the narratives of other sections. Get?--Cerejota (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "certain senstences". of course 'we' get.  That Israel is not a participant of inter treaties and such, is not a reason why the world itself should ignore its actions.  it is why, Israel's actions are debated.  for Israel is part of that same world, that it refuses to respect.  Like the US, who is the main defendant of many UN security council resolutions calling for the termination of the blockade against Cuba.  Yet, the US has its 'rationale' etc to ignore those resolutions.  yet, every year, for some reason, even knowing that the resolution will be vetoed, the 'world' votes against the blockade.  nothing, nothing, is written on stones.  and so jokers and clowns run wildly at night.  Cryptonio (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Freak, ignore what i just said. Where is the statement from Israel that says, that since it has not singed(or ascribed itself to those treaties) it reserve the right to violate them.  Cryptonio (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont really agree with either of you. Cryptonio, I dont think Isreal's response should be given 75% of the section. I think for each of the accusations there should be space for a response by the accused. Cerejota, the accusations of human rights organizations and international organizations about violations of international law are important. Even on the ones that people are arguing Israel is not bound to observe (for instance WP), the sources explicitly state that even though Israel is not party to the treaty barring the use of the weapon, they are bound to others that prohibit the use of such munitions as weapons. I cannot see how you say they are irrelevant, these issues have been given more weight in the sources than pretty much any other thing besides the casualties. I do not understand your argument on notability on these issues, organizations from the ICRC, the UN, AI, HRW have made statements, every single news organization has detailed these accusations. Could you please explain your arguments of the accusations being irrelevant and the accusations being non-notable. Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Shit, i would love to just basically post that statement up there, instead of everything else(i mean, like deleting the whole section and just include that line). But sadly, even Israel quotes those treaties from time to time.  Cryptonio (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nableezy, 75-25 with the understanding that he who speaks the most has the most to explain. 50-50 is wiki policy, a guideline of sorts.  let Israel explain itself as much as possible, heck if they want us to be open(since we have nothing to hide) then let them also ignore the 5th amendment(dude, it is there for a reason).  Cryptonio (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesnt make any sense, for each allegation there should be a response if one is available (and I am sure there are responses available), not allegation followed by 3 times as much devoted to an explanation. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course of course, as always, i agree with you and more. Cryptonio (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments cryptonio... at least one person is satisfied with the work I did. And I had began to doubt myself thinking I really did post garbage. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Cerejota? A puny section is not undue weight to one of the most important issues unlike the issue of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict which got its own article!! and you supported that article!! All this time I thought you were neutral, now I am beginning to think you are part of the Hasbara brigade that you supposedly oppose. Spy :D Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No my friend, that was not a 'free pass' for you to take leave. but, like Nableezy's stance, you work is worthy of defending. you are credited though, as being formidable on this matter.  and I just wanted to say that, you had excellent foresight.  i love things like that, and i'm obliged to care for things like that.  rest assure your work will have to be defeated and not just simply deleted.  :) Cryptonio (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But Cerejota is not without mention though. Falestine, give a free pass to both, Cptnono and Cerejota, they are important.  all in all, time will be the only culprit(so lets get our thoughts straight right now.) Seriously, Cerejota is not the face we should all be attacking.  I like it when he surprises us and let us know the 'entrails'.  Cryptonio (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was out of line last night. I could have added other less inflammatory lines with explanation. Glad to see it got some attention but throwing stuff in out of frustration like that was crappy of me.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
The timeline article may need to be revised. The content is fine, but it has incidents for almost every day since the ceasefire. Surely, if we define this particular battle as ending on the 18 January, we can't justify having all those attacks listed.

This brings up back to the difference between this - a specific battle - and the 60 year israeli-palestinian conflict. The new attacks -if notable enough - should be in a page on the general conflict. We all agree that what this article is about was a very intense battle where both sides joined in complete war.

I'm posting this here because that article is really just a sub article of this, and this talk page gets a lot more traffic.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its part of the redifinition of the scope of this article some advocate. I say we need 2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and begin with the Ceasifire sections here and there and then move up. --Cerejota (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moar, huh? Get your poopey meme out of here. If it shortens this bloated article I usually am happy but my money is on it kicking off again in a few weeks which will be a continuation of this conflict.Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, it isn't cool to make fun of his accent. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Making fun of accents can be fun though e.g. Talk:Albert_Einstein.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)



continued continuous negotiations continued
removed copyright image, please do not restore. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Of interest Haaretz: Israel Agrees to Free All 450 Hamas Detainees for Shalit.....and here  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. That's interesting.  Do all Israelis wear baseball caps like that? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a form of veil to separate man from....no, I'm not going to do that. Aparently he moonlights by working for microsoft http://www.oferdekel.com/. I really am tempted to email this microsoft guy and ask him to comment on the proposed prisoner release. Maybe if I get bored later.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I missing the joke here? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is REALLY funny is that the guy's name is "Ofer". I mean, imagine: "Abdul: "So make us an offer, Ofer." Abdul's Cronnies: "haahahahahhahaha" Ofer: "Vat iz zo funee?"--Cerejota (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, don't you think the man looks like he has a sense of humor?
 * Sean, if he responds to you, remember to write it up for Wikinews. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you hadn't said that because I'm now feeling a very strong urge to email him.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nations agree plan to combat Gaza arms flow
The United States, Canada and seven European nations have agreed to try to stop the flow of weapons to Gaza by methods such as interception at sea, information sharing and diplomatic pressure.. Can this go anywhere? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you should start with Gaza–Israel conflict. After that I might try The 2007–2009 blockade of the Gaza Strip and Rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, why not here? This announcement is in direct response to the conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we're having enough trouble focusing the article as it is. I know we decided that this starts with the Big Bang but it doesn't have to end with the Big Freeze.  Or Big Crunch if you must.  This article should be about just this part of the Gaza-Israel conflict.  The weapons smuggling was an ongoing issue so it should be in the more general article unless there is a compelling reason to put it here. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

IDF accused of wearing Hamas uniforms
There was a report accusing the IDF of wearing Hamas uniforms and driving a "vehicle normally used by paramedics". It appeared in Haaretz. Should this go in the international law section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodge (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting but it was a quote from locals implying so, reported by Haarestz, and then reported by AMW so it will need accurate explanation. it is a report alleging a reported accusation. Another source would negate too many disclaimers if it is available. It could also be relevant in other places such as media. Is AMW a reliable source? I am not familiar with them but at first glance they look good enough but a little biased.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They look "good" enough? Give me a break Cptnono. 10 seconds of googling will reveal it is far from impartial, so good luck proving it is an RS. We need to end this never-ending compilation of Israel's "crimes". This article is loaded enough as it is, simple accusations without corroborating evidence and notable recognition must occur before inclusion. If this is the standards I have about 30 links enumerating Hamas of x war crime. In response to the link, it is suspicious they post a paint-picture and not an actual link. Not denying the removal of pictures occurred, it probably did considering the sensitivity of the subject. No country wants their intelligence agents exposed.

Only coverage on "censorship" I know about is []. Also, I don't think this is against international law. Come on' Cpt, you know better. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror's Security correspondent covered the story as well: "Haaretz claims the reason for the article's removal was that "the Israeli Defence Force censor had not cleared it for publication. There was no indication, apparently, that the article's accuracy was in doubt." Quite a lot of Israeli Adovacy groups are considered as RS so I don't see why AMW shouldn't be. Wodge (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Making me feel bad, dammit. I honestly haven't looked into AMW much. From the page I looked alone they look no worse than some of the other sources used (I think I see your point all of a sudden). If a better source can be found I see no reason not to include it, though. If it goes in based on the current source we need a long sentence explaining how fishy this is. To clarify my above comment (Media), I of course do not think the censorship allegation is a problem under international law.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reference to IDF soldiers from the usual Mista'arvim units.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What Israeli NGO's are considered an RS? CAMERA? No. Please, show me where Arab Media Watchdog Group is an a reliable source. Please. And BTW wodge, nice textbtie from . For starters it's a blog, and second it refers to this accusation as a conspiracy: "As conspiracies go, this one from a friend at Arab Media Watch is pretty odd." And when they said "accuracy", they were referring to the AMW perspective, not theirs. Nice try. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Ha'aretz is an RS, that's where the article appeared first. 2) It's a blog on The Daily Mirror website written by the Daily Mirror's security correspondent so that's an RS too. Wodge (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ha-aretz told me this" is not an RS. Neither is an unprovable picture. And neither is a blog referring to this accusation as a conspiracy, which you failed to mention in your attempt to provide secondary evidence. Again, nice try. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you visit the Haaretz page that that article was on, the first 20 or so comments are about the IDF dressing up as Hamas which seems odd considering it's been replaced by a story about Obama. Is that part of the conspiracy as well? link. So lets see. AMW photoshopped a page to look like Haaretz, posted completely unrelated comments to a page on Haaretz, sent the story to a journalist at a reliable newspaper and used a Jihadi mind trick on him so he wouldn't bother checking with Haaretz about whether or not it was true? Wodge (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical conspiracy mentality. Even if it were true (which it likely is), it still doesn't matter. You made the mistake of misrepresenting the stories and twisting a conspiracy into an accepted truth. We can't speculate or make judgments. Welcome to wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, It's only a blog in the sense that it uses blogging technology. However, the content seems to be exclusively from Mirror Journalists. So presumably whatever they write there is under the same requirements as the rest of the paper. Wodge (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You made the false impression that the blog was qualifying the allegation, when in actuality it referred to the accusation as an "odd conspiracy." We have one advocacy/watchdog group accusing the IDF of censorship and a user trying to shove this into the international law section. The IDF is legally allowed to censor material if it is a threat to the safety of soldiers or the campaign. The US, Russians, and British have done it during the Iraq War as well. Nothing fascist or illegal about it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, censorship is not the issue. Posing as Hamas and using a vehicle normally used by paramedics is. That's definitely not legal under international law. Wodge (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it against international law? Hamas doesn't have official uniforms. An accusation such as this has serious implications but only when it pertains to international law. Author Amira Hass isn't particularly impartial when it comes to Israel, so it isn't surprising she would pick up a story that amounts to "Gaza residents" offering "testimonies" on Jews posing as Arab terrorists and evicting civilians from their homes. Please, come back with something substantial. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, it is against international law to pose as a paramedic in a combat zone. But Wodge, you would need a RS saying that Israel did this and it is a violation of international law that Israel did this, having one source saying that Israel does X, and another source that says X is against international law but never mentions Israel can't be combined, or synthesized to say that Israel did this violation of international law. You need a source making that statement. I am not sure about the Haaretz page, if you look at it now the earliest reader comments seem to be speaking on this supposed article and all of a sudden start commenting on the one that is currently up there. There isnt a google cache, and honestly there have been no RSs that have brought this supposed censorship up. But the censorship is completely irrelevant, whether or not this article was censored by the IDF isnt really material to this. The accusations, if found in a RS making them and relating it to international law violations, would certainly be relevant. But you do need a source connecting the two. Nableezy (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is legal to disguise oneself with the other belligerents uniform, but there are restrictions on it: "2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations." and other limitations. But there does need to be a source saying that Israel did this and it was illegal, and the sources brought do not or are not RSs. Nableezy (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, since when do Hamas militants wear uniforms? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since whenever a source says they do. Nableezy (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll try and find another RS. Wodge (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it against international law for Israeli commandos to wear civilian clothing? Why would Hamas soldiers being driving a paramedics vehicle? Wtf? Tired of this tit-for-tat wikipedia gaming. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :I also hope any editor commenting on this has read the link originally posted above " ".Gaza resident S. told Haaretz he heard people say (emphasis mine) they saw armed men wearing the uniforms and symbols..." Doesn't even say Israeli by the way. I think it is implied by the title of the story. Also " .A Gaza radio station warned that troops posing as locals were driving a vehicle normally used by paramedics..." A radio warned? Which one? Actually an ambulance or a vehicle typically used by paramedics? Was it a white minibus or was it a straight ambulance? Also, the weird typo's before the beginning of each paragraph and names "S. told" "B's house" make it understandable that it was pulled. The more I look at it, I don't see how we can give this any coverage until AMW provides verifiable proof of email from the newspaper. Another source would also be nice. As stated above, it is a report of a report of a report.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cptnono is being generous. I'd call it malicious propaganda but that it just me. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to look it up. Who is Arab Media Watch? Even the wikipedia entry lacks valid sources. A single line quoting the founder in the Economist is not good enough (no offense to the badassness of The Economist). Who is he anyways? He has done some opinion pieces but I don't see anything else. Arab Media Watch does not look reliable. Arab Media Watch Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi
 * Cptnono (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a RS for anything besides its own view. Nableezy (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless it is straight fabrication. Its view is Haaretz had an article in which a guy heard people say stuff and also that a random radio station made a claim about vehicle. Not enough credibility to give it a line in the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't even a link above the article to check a cache. Thee isn't a printscreen of the email from Haaretz but they got one for the article? There is enough of a possibility that this is shennanigans and the original article had weak enough allegations to prevent this info from being OK for inclusionCptnono (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I dont know about the article, but if you go to the current url here the first comments are talking about a different article written by Amira Hass, not something off the Reuters wire. Then it changes. Now all that is obviously OR, but there is something wrong with that page. That doesnt mean much for the international law vio claim though. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments point in that direction for sure. Maybe another source will come up.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also just noticed Amira Hass. Her history is not the most neutral.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This all might be bullshit, but it doesnt really matter if the article existed and was yanked, even the text that is claimed to be in the article doesn't say anything about allegations of international law violations. If a source does say something then fine, but what has so far been presented dont, and that has already been acknowledged by Wodge. Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on:


 * 1) AMW is not RS in the same sense CAMERA is not RS, its a partisan source of opinion.
 * 2) Blogs of an RS by the journalistic staff of the RS can be considered RS, IF the information they provide is verifiable. In other words they are the least quality generally accepted RS. Why? In general editors of newspapers do not subject blogs to the same fact checking and ethical standards they do to reporting. But also because blogs in general are not reporting but more like op-eds. It is generally understood that an op-ed from an ultra-reliable RS is still an op-ed, that is, to be treated with some caution.
 * 3) Things are violations of International Law if RS say so.
 * 4) I think this has to stay out of the article until which time it is verifiable: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.--Cerejota (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember having read other articles which mention disguised Israeli soldiers. But I can't find them just doing a little searching now. I did add this link to Cerejota's Cast Lead page which mentions the Duvdevan undercover unit participating in the fighting but gave no details. But I did read this article about Israeli soldiers disguising themselves as vegetation. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it against international law if the vegetation can be shown to have medicinal properties in a peer reviewed journal ? I'm thinking of the plants rich in salicylic acid for example. Would an IDF soldier disguised as a willow tree for instance cause alarm in legal circles ? Okay, I'll stop now.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was Nableezy was giving you his "medicinal properties" speech? --JGGardiner (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just a speach, an entire dissertation could be provided, and in fact will in the to be formed article Why Marijana is the cure for all evil (nobody better delete that article as OR, I am a RS on this matter) Nableezy (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have deduced from this discussion, already stated by Cptnono: I also remember a lot of accuses that Hamas has been hijacking ambulances. MY conclusions is that it probably was Hamas that were using the paramedic vehicle, though I have no way of proving it. Posing in their enemies uniforms are otherwise a charge that IDF has accused Hamas members of doing, though I don't have any source that I can quote right now.
 * 1) A Gaza resident heard people say they saw armed men wearing uniforms and symbols, but it is not mentioned if it was Israelis.
 * 2) "A Gaza radio station warned that troops posing as locals were driving a vehicle normally used by paramedics..."

Ending the discussion might be a good idea as there are no RS to back the accusation up, though knowledge from other events suggest that it might have been the opposite part that did the thing. --KMA &quot;HF&quot; N (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether the accusations about Hamas using amubulances are RS but there are RSs that say Israelis have at times hidden weapons in synagogues and that the IDF have used ambulances and human shields though. Wodge (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not RS. But it is not in itself an 'extraordinary claim', not should one fudge surprise, since 'Arab pretender' units are a standard part of the IDF. There is even a Human Rights Watch monograph on it, fully downloadable. See for the term, here Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Why is this still going? As Nableezy pointed out, I was beating the crap out of a dead horse. Any other similar claims should go in a different discussion subsection for vetting to prevent any confusion.Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this was a great exercise. We managed to have a disagreement that was mostly civil. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to remedy that. JGG shut the fuck up before I slap you. an attempt at humor, maybe a gross violation of WP:CIVIL but we need to keep up the standards on this page Nableezy (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that because I have noticed a drop in incivility here which is somewhat alarming. If this spreads it may eventually result in the global recession hitting the arms trade.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer incivility over a blatant attempt to insert factual inaccuracies. And then of course defending the attempt with even more inaccuracies, "Israelis have at times hidden weapons in synagogues and that the IDF have used ambulances and human shields." Lol. Yeah, IDF uses human shields. Are ambulances human shields? :D Oh, you mean like....shooting artillery from UN buildings, smuggling rockets through civilian homes, training militants in mosques, teaching preschoolers to hate and wage war against the infidel....human shields? :D :D :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those comments on Wodge's intentions are over the line. Remember to assume good faith and also to note bite the newbies. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Human shields? I loved it when the Red Cross equated Israeli troops telling Gazans to stay in their houses as human shields.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just about everything the Israeli accuse Hamas of doing, they have done and continue to do themselves Workers at Hod Hasharon synagogue discover trunk with Haganah-era weapons while cleaning adjoining supply shed Israel uses Human Shields too Ambulances They Hate, We Don't Wodge (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't even bother opening. Gave up after hovering over and seeing "blog" in the link of a few.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And to think people actually took Wodge seriously for a moment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my God that was hilarious. Couldn't resist opening a few. Two incidents not related to this conflict were police and army having kids on their vehicles so people wouldn't throw stones few years ago. Of course if the the if they would have shot the stone throwers it would be disproportionate. Israel did use synagogues to hide weapons... IN THE 40s! I know this isn't a talk page but that is too silly to not mention.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the 2 of you are astonished at the idea the IDF has used human shields, take a look at this. And there are reports of it in this conflict as well. I think you would acknowledge picking a civilian of the streets and making him stand in front of you while shooting over his shoulder is what 'human shield' means. Or forcing a civilian to walk in front of you into a house you are forcibly entering. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, YNet, McClatchys, BBC are all blogs. The ambulance one points to a blog that has an English translation of various articles in the Hebrew version of Haaretz. And the last link also points to RSs. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt Wodge (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)But can we stop talking about this? Let's try keep to the article's topic. Nableezy (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only looked at the BBC ones, Woodge. The stone throwing thing and the non relevance to this article made me not care. A blog is still a blog. More disturbing was Nableezy's link. The source we use from the Red Cross regarding human shields gives shit for details. If we have sources regarding the garbage tactics mentioned in the B'Tselem report I would full on support its inclusion. Also, started a new talk section below so we can bicker more productively : ) .Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that everything the Israelis accuse Hamas of doing, they have done themselves at one time or another. The two blog entries link to RSs and just summarize the information there. Wodge (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, it extends well into Sudan. But what does that have to do with anything?  In any event, Nableezy is right; we shouldn't be talking about this.  Wodge, I would say that it is basically unhelpful to bring something up that negative about one "side" or another, whether true or not, if it isn't directly related to the topic at hand. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was a response to Wikifan12345: "I prefer incivility over a blatant attempt to insert factual inaccuracies. And then of course defending the attempt with even more inaccuracies...". But enough said on this anyway. Wodge (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think JGGardiner summed this up quite nicely, the moral of the story is Nableezy is right. Let's just leave it at that. Nableezy (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reactions section
Call me nitpicky, but I'm removing this sentence:
 * Violence against Muslims and Arabs was reported in France[290] and in Israel.[291]

The "in Israel" part refers to a spree of attacks by a gang which took place before the conflict started, and which the police stressed had nothing to do with the conflict. Both of these facts are somewhat ambiguous in the cited source, but made clear in this one. The "in France" part refers to a single incident where youths of north African origin said they were assaulted by members of the Jewish Defense League. I have searched and have not found any source, let alone any reliable source, claiming that the incident was related to the conflict. And it would certainly be hard to make such a claim, since we're talking about a single incident in an area where Jewish-Muslim tension is high at the best of times. Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think Jews or any ethnic group have a monopoly on victimhood from political backlash, and I do think the Israel incident could be relevant for the Anti-Arabism article (the France incident is probably not significant enough for the Islamophobia article), but these two incidents are not relevant to this article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the France one, the article in question begins with 'anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim acts in France as a series of incidents apparently related to Israel's offensive in Gaza continued.' How does that make it irrelevant? Nableezy (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 2 of the French one describes another event. Updated source and returned France line. Agree the violence in upper Nazareth one was no good. Kind of agree with your original thought but the source opens with "... a series of incidents apparently related to Israel's offensive in Gaza..."Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, France one should stay in spite of its relative ambiguity, while the other one must go:

"The suspects allegedly carried out the attacks between October and December of last year, and during that time, police conducted undercover operations and collected evidence." The attacks happened before the conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, you're misunderstanding the Reuters article. The "series of incidents" refers to the anti-Jewish incidents in the article. Relatedly, Sarkozy said there would be "zero tolerance for antisemitic and anti-Muslim acts": he wasn't talking about what there was, just that there would be zero tolerance for those things. Neither Sarkozy or Reuters are saying that the JDL incident was related to the conflict. Even if it was related, it would fail the due weight test. I mean, c'mon, we're talking about a single alleged incident in the entire world. But we don't even have to get that far; at least not until someone can provide a reliable source saying it's related. I've looked, and couldn't find one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading on the relation, I read it as there have been a series of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim acts in France apparently related to the conflict, these are examples. I will look around though for some other sources, but, *cough cough*, not right this minute. Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The line currently in does not quantify it and is exactly per the source. I am under the impression there were several but I'm not a source. If we can't find a follow-up I don't know if one incident is notable enough for inclusionCptnono (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather not give the impression that both anti-Muslim/Jewish acts occurred at an equal rate, when they certainly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How would that line be giving that impression? Nableezy (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't emphasize either side? Derrrrr....Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the sentence says is 'Violence against Muslims was reported in France'. A simple statement backed up by RSs that doesnt give any impression of equal rates. In the whole context the article reads: 'The Israeli offensive "prompted a wave of reprisal attacks against Jewish targets in Europe".[290] The number of recorded antisemitic incidents during the conflict more than tripled the number of such incidents in the same period of the previous year, marking a two-decade high.[291] Violence against Muslims was reported in France.[292]' How could you possibly read that as giving either undue weight or an impression of equivalence in rates? Nableezy (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'We came to annihilate you; Death to the Arabs; Kahane was right; No tolerance, we came to liquidate. This is a selection of graffiti Israeli soldiers left on the walls of Palestinians' homes in Gaza, which they turned into bivouacs and firing positions during Operation Cast Lead. Here and there, a soldier scribbled a line of mock poetry or biblical quote in the same sentiment. There were also curses on the Prophet Mohammed and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, along with shift schedules and favorite soccer teams. When the homes' owners returned, they usually found widespread devastation - whether from the first shells the Israel Defense Forces fired to chase away the inhabitants, or from break-ins and the destruction of furniture, clothing, walls, computers and appliances. Frequently the breached homes remained standing in a neighborhood whose other houses were turned into rubble by bulldozers. The residents also found the trash the soldiers left behind. In Israel, research institutes count every abusive slogan scrawled on Jewish cemeteries abroad and document every problematic article, to monitor the upsurge in anti-Semitism. The media attributes importance to every piece of graffiti against assassinated prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. But the everyday racism - both institutionalized and popular, declarative and practical - against the Arabs of Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank are usually cautiously and frugally covered. No wonder the Hebrew graffiti, whose writers were also destructive, on walls in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods were not picked up by Israeli antennae, always so sensitive to racism against Jews.' Amira Hass in today's HaaretzNishidani (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Amira Hass and Richard A. Falk should reproduce. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting article about the damage to Israel's reputation from this war
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/world/middleeast/19israel.html?_r=1&hp

I think we should include more details of the fallout of this war in the article. This war may turn out to have very lasting impact on future politics in the region.

eg.

"[Israel] is facing its worst diplomatic crisis in two decades.

Examples abound. Its sports teams have met hostility and violent protests in Sweden, Spain and Turkey. Mauritania has closed Israel’s embassy.

Relations with Turkey, an important Muslim ally, have suffered severely. A group of top international judges and human rights investigators recently called for an inquiry into Israel’s actions in Gaza."

Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant place would be International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Wodge (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definetely, and not more than one or two sentence in some of the intro type paragraphs (or maybe at the end of the intro)--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support inclusion and if you like, I can paraphrase/summarize the important details, what you think? Though you will have to give me a few days because I am in half-dead mode battling this flu. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you feel better soon. You might be interested to know that there's some recipes for chicken soup with matzah balls linked to that article.  --JGGardiner (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is more about the incoming government than the war. An interesting read but doesn't deserve too much space in the article. The lines about the sports teams and the embassy in Mauritania could be used in the reactions section. The group of top international judges could be good in the law section if there is a source with actual detail.Cptnono (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They said this in 2005, 2002, 1982, 1974, 1967....same rhetoric my friend. Please include it but it's not a particularly unique opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I have added a new section on "Long term effects" to the reactions article. I put this in it. Feel free to edit and discuss. It is meant to be a start.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

International Law Occupation Paragraph
Current: Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation.[247] Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[248][249] However, the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch disagree and consider Israel an occupying power.[250] Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters.

Human rights experts say that one of the main pitfalls of international law is that enforcement is nearly impossible, even when the law is clear.[251]

Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this paragraph be moved into the Israeli subsection?
 * Has anyone found a source for the UNRWA and HRW claim relating it to this conflict (house keeping, I don't doubt that they have said it recently)
 * The extra airspace, borders, waters line is only in as a "counterpunch". We already have the blockade prominently wikilinked in the lead of the article
 * The pitfall line is just kind of hanging out.


 * It seems to be talking about the ongoing occupation or the ending of it. I don't think that we need to discuss ongoing issues in this article other than the background section.  But then I noticed the para when I was checking sources today and I figure if that's the worst thing in the article, I'll be happy. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont like the pitfall line either. But I think the occupying power should just be kept where it is, it is the most basic dispute about Gaza and affects all of the other arguments, from Hamas saying that because it is occupied that their attacks are a legitimate resistance, to Israel saying that they have the right to impose the blockade and close the borders as they are not occupying it in their, singular, view. That info is just background for the intl law section and as such i think it should stay out of a single subsection. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should it be in the background section then? Since it is really the context of their actions before the war? --JGGardiner (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be in the background section too ;), but it should be here because people have explicitly brought up the responsibilities of an occupying power in this conflict addressing actions in this conflict as it relates to international law. Nableezy (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could organize the article in as a diagram? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But diagrams have been proven to have an anti-Arab bias. Nableezy (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed pitfalls line from article. Nableezy (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We should remove this line "White phosphorus spread burning phosphorus, which burns at over 800 degrees Celsius (1,500 degrees Fahrenheit), over a wide area up to several hundred square metres." from the WP para. The very next line explains what WP can do, we don't need details in how it does it. WP has a wikilink. all against say 'no way jose'. Cryptonio (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reworded line to this "The weapon has a potential to cause particularly severe and painful burns or slow painful death, and spreads over a wide area up to several hundred square metres."

That it spreads beyond the intended target is worthy. Cryptonio (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, thanks to Nableezy for correcting 'economic'. you know i had Agada in mind when i read that since he was the one who wanted to add that line about the economic blockade but i guess he didn't have a source. yeah the source doesn't say economic, agada actually influenced on me about something. this is newsworthy and should be included in the article somewhere. Cryptonio (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to the occupation paragraph: It is an claim against Israel and so it looks like it would work best in the Israel subsection. It can even get to billing as far as I care. It just annoys me where it is.
 * In regards to WP: "particularly severe and painful burns or slow painful death" Obviously death from painful burns will be painful. We don't need to say that it is painful twice. Also, can WP kill quickly? "particularly severe and painful burns or slow painful death"Cptnono (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isnt a claim against Israel, it is basic information on why certain rules apply to both sides of the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What rules apply to Hamas because of it? Also, if the intent is to have this paragraph be a broader introduction into international law, one of the sources we already use ( I need to find it again) actually had a few lines on how intl law might apply in this specific conflict. It was short enough and might be a decent replacement for the removed "law is hard to enforce" line removed earlier.Cptnono (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are requirements of a 'resistance movement', meaning an organization resisting occupation, that they not indiscriminately target civilians and other requirements, putting together an extensive list will take some time, and there is this pesky problem I have been having with my boss expecting me to actually do some work, so dont have the time right now. Nableezy (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, I thought that skewing Wikipedia was your job. Are you saying that you're not a professional Hamas operative? (I am including a Wikifan style emoticon to ensure this is not removed for NPA) :D--JGGardiner (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even operatives have bosses, sometimes they dont seem to recognize the importance in what we do here. Nableezy (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, isn't that always the way? The boss had to work his way up so now he's in charge but has old-fashioned ideas.  So he probably wants you to make explosive belts all day but doesn't understand the importance of information warfare and propaganda.  But then you could also get some guy with an MBA from Marketing who doesn't know anything about anything so it could be worse. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'slow painful death' was argued before, but i wouldn't have a problem with your rewording Cptnono. Cryptonio (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the resistance movement info. That should still go into the Palestinian section but I see how it could work here.
 * I don't mind the description on burns (even though it is expected and assumed due to the high the temperatures given in the line before) but the follow up death part is overkill. Just slow painful and death is good enough for me unless we want to go as far as removing the whole line.Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i removed the info on temps and such, found that overkill. maybe mention that could be lethal would work as well IMO. on this matter Nableezy doesn't seem to be all that interested, so you should make the edit.  Cryptonio (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IDF Killed
I noticed this AP story which mentions nine Israeli soldiers killed. We have it listed as 10 in the infobox. Does anybody know what the situation is with that? --JGGardiner (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation
It also defines Palestinian attacks as terrorist in nature, because they kill civilians in order to "sow terror" within the broader civilian population. This would violate the Geneva Convention's Laws of Armed Conflict.[271]

Under Palestine inter/law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it do? its purpose? the accusation is brought by who? israel? Cryptonio (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like some sort of Israeli think tank. I'm not familiar with them.  I was about to suggest that it be removed but then I noticed that it does say that it was prepared "with the assistance of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General's Corps."  That's in the legal section which contains the relevant quotes. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apropos, Haaretz will apparently be running articles on soldiers' reports of the campaign inside Gaza in which odd rules and procedures, much to the grief of civilians, seemed to apply. One is Amos Harel, ‘IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement,’ 19/03/2009 and the accompanying editorial, 'Can the IDF dismiss its own soldiers' reports?' Haaretz 19/03/2009 Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more here: Shooting and Crying Wodge (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * where in the article is this located, can someone paste it here because i'm having trouble with the link etc. Cryptonio (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I found the section in the article where this "with the assistance of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General's Corps." is located.


 * What I didn't find was, the actual quote in question. Plus, I would be surprised(to the point I'm willing to place a bet) if the actual wording from the "Laws of war" is extended to include such "concocted" remarks as "terrorist in nature".  This is SYNTH, because the sentence is being enclave in "targeting civilians" which of course could very well be included in the section.  It is then, 'redirected' to the "protocols".  What is left standing without the 'concoction' is the valid point that Hamas has been accused of directing fire towards civilian population.  What is needed here, in order for this line to stay, is the quote from the "protocol" using "terrorist in nature" as being against Inter Law and used by a source making that connection.  The source in use right now does not "accomplish" this.  I am removing it of course.  Cryptonio (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole document, just those couple of pages. But it is perhaps SYNTH to say that they define Hamas as a terrorist group because they sow terror.  But the main part of what you removed, that "sowing terror" "violates the Geneva Convention's Laws of Armed Conflict", was taken almost verbatim from page 79.  So it isn't a synth issue although they didn't write the name of the Protocol properly. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean JG. We should quote then the Israeli Foreign minister as the party bringing up this charge? which should be included in some capacity as we appear to agree. How bout the "Foreign Minister(or such) considers Hamas rocket attacks as a violation of the Geneva(and such) since their primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population" ? I will add this ASAP since it needed not to be removed, so go from this point if you have any objection or idea.  thanks for the direction btw.  Cryptonio (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'm not sure about attribution.  It seems like it technically comes from that organization and not the government.  On the other hand, the note we discussed says that the IDF at least helped in preperation.  And the following note (26 on p.78) suggests more: "References to specific provisions of international conventions made in this paper are for reference purposes only, and do notnecessarily reflect the position of the State of Israel with regard to the customary status of those instruments as a whole."  That suggests to me that this comes significantly if not wholly from the government.  But I'm not sure what we should say.  Someone with more experience must know better than I do. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Attributing it to the Foreign Minister seems a bit of a stretch, as you say. I think I followed the para 2 attribution without making sure of it.  And plus the quote "references etc" is also troubling when it comes into contact with the Foreign Minister.  I am not sure though, how your conclusion "comes from the government" correlates with that exact quote. Perhaps that the Foreign Minister etc is not being noticed as the official stance of the State of Israel, yet is noteworthy and the attribution 'could' stay.  But for now I guess, we should have it as the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General's Corps.  as you, i wait for further intervention after this.  also, i don't see the Foreign Ministry being mentioned in the source at all.  perhaps i am missing it, can someone please quote the section where the Foreign Minister is mentioned?  Cryptonio (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I haven't seen any sign of relation to the Foreign ministry. As far as I'm aware,that was only in the erroneous note on our article. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Haaretz-Article - IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement. I can't write about it, because I am not an english speaker... Greetz, --Gsälzbär (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

US congressmen visit to Gaza
Should this go in somewhere?

On February 19th and 20th, Rep. Baird and Rep. Ellison traveled to the Middle East and spent time in Gaza, Sderot, Ashkelon, and the West Bank. They went to view the devastation from the recent Gaza War, meet the citizens of these areas, and speak with international and local relief agencies. After visiting these areas, especially Gaza, the Congressmen were deeply affected by what they saw and heard.

"We believe it is important to be here and see what happened for ourselves, to meet with people who have been affected, and to express our concern and support" said Congressman Baird.

"The stories about the children affected me the most. No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here."said Keith Ellison.

"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering. Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged.", said Baird.

Said the Congressmen, "People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food, and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in." Wodge (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Financial Times had a story on the destruction today (think it said 55,000 houses destroyed but not positive). We can't put in every detail, though. These long quotes and headlines can potentially bloat the article without providing the most notable information.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was notable because it was the first visit to Gaza by US politicians for quire a while. I wasn't suggesting using the whole thing. Wodge (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has become bloated and fluffed with unrelated or irrelevant info. This is about the 2008-2009 war, not the political/social/activists/radicals crying and moaning. We have other articles for that: International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and Incidents in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. If desired, feel free to create Allegations of Israeli war crimes in Occupied Territories. Seriously, give it up. If we're going to include Ellison we might as well include the bazillion other "notable" politicians who have made various comments. If this article needs anything, it's the reactions from the Israeli public and their representatives, as well as the various remarks from the selfless and tolerant Arab/Islamic leaders. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli reactions? Sure. Here you go: Hill of Shame where Gaza bombing is spectator sport Wodge (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! Jews with binoculars watching evil Zionist F16s blow up women and children (and freedom fighters) ! What shall we do? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

IDF soldiers' testimonies in Haaretz, March 2009
I'm not sure under which heading on this page to include information about the breaking story in the Israeli mainstream daily Haaretz with testimonies of IDF soldiers, graduates of the Mechinat Rabin pre-IDF preparatory program for leadership, about wrongdoings during Operation Cast Lead. -- Deborahjay (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about International law 7.1? Wodge (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ground offensive section. As it is describing the ground offensive...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Primarily the ground offensive, but part of the testimony is from pilots. This is very much about the IDF and Israeli society, so the suggestion of "International law" strikes me as far less appropriate for this particular content. Meanwhile I've added it to Israel Defense Forces. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and to the Timeline of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict for February 13 and March 19. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IDF soldiers refute claims of immoral conduct in Gaza By Daniel Edelson I'm not sure how to include this. Y net managed to track down an anonymous soldiers who then claims that the IDF only invaded to place money under the pillows of Palestinian residents like some sort of modern day tooth fairy...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All the quotes given are from the ground offensive. The articles report that pilots was also recorded but no quotes from pilots has been included in any of the articles...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean, any previously included on this page; I was referring to "Gideon" (and "Yonatan") in this: Extensive excerpts from the soldiers' testimony transcript - Haaretz, which I've cited on several other pages but don't necessarily see where it would fit on this one. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more, this time about t-shirts that are well, shocking.

Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings

--John Bahrain (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's more here: Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009 Wodge (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been looking forward to the spring collection and I am glad it is finally here!! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But seriously, that is repulsive. Killing children and pregnant women is something only they could boast about. But I am not sure this can go anywhere in the article. What does everyone else think? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what wikipedia has turned into? Lock it down, for goodness sakes. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They should probably start with your account seeing that you have soapboxed more than anyone. And how typical of you to express anger at people who protest the glorification of killing children and women rather than at the people who glorify killing of women and children. Disgusting --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the trial of "Wikifan12345" begins. So predictable. Bolded SOAPing for Lolz. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You were already convicted. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday beheading. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Zomg jew mooselimb bastards!!!! <end partisan radical tirade Wodge (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you already shot yourself in the foot loool That's good enough punishment. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The T-shirt article, from the mainstream Israeli press, doesn't relate particularly to the page's topic of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, although it's timely news. Considering the longterm and as far as I can recall, utterly unapologetic targeting of civilians by both Hizbollah and Hamas and dancing on the rooftops by their supporters in Israel and the territories whenever Israel is attacked by those organizations or individual terrorist acts, comments such as "only they could boast about..." reflect the sort of convenient generalization from a selective perspective known as POV. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pushing aside the soapboxing. I disagree: these incidents and the t-shirts are clearly linked by the RS to the gaza conflict, and belong on the post-ceasefire section.--Cerejota (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, not even Hamas and Hezbollah would stoop so low as to take pride in the targeting and killing of children and women. Yes, they cheer when their attacks kill Israelis whether IDF or civilians, but I haven't seen any indication that they are particularly happy about killing children and women at least not enough to create t-shirt to express this happiness. The IDF shirts do not have a Hamas member in the crosshair, it is a pregnant woman and another is a child. So my point stands, only they could boast about that. Don't even go into the subject about longterm targeting and terrorist attacks because we all know that Israelis dominate in that department.  --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this with all the headlines lately? A line with a whole bunch of sources is weird. I am OK with merging the mention into other instances or expanding as appropriate. We shouldn't be adding source after source to a line that doesn't really say much.Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? Hamas arms children with weapons and brainwashes them to kill Jews. Part 7 of Hamas's charter says: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!. Hamas deliberbately targets CIVILIAN areas, which has killed children and women blah blah blah. IDF targets Hamas infractusture, which tends to be loaded with civilians. there is a disagree if whether or not IDF deliberately kills pregnant women, children, like you accuse them of doing, but this isn't a general consensus and is simply another one of your appealing to emotion fallacies. Also, stop SOAPing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny that last line after everything that preceded it. But Falastine, the personal feelings are not needed, and it just gives others reason to say vile disgusting things over and over. We dont need to say look how terrible this is, it is pretty clear what it is. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you confuse factual reasoning with SOAPing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you think the pretend world that you live in is real where whatever you think is obviously factual and true. See you in 24 hours after your latest block expires. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Poop, Vomit, and Donkey penis(vile and disgusting things). Both sides have been the victim and the perpetrator at different times.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * true, but what is best here if we just do not make our own personal judgments known as to how terrible or horrific some action is. Nableezy (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I agree with you on that. Some editors try to hard to sway the article one way and is is hard to not want to counterbalance it.Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh are we not supposed to mention donkey penises? I didn't realize.  Is that an MOS thing? --JGGardiner (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Falk speaks


Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualities - Disputed figures
In the report by the well respected Anthony Cordesman (LOL) it mentions that Journalist Lorenzo Cremonesi article in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera about casualities is highly controversial because it's just based on a single unnamed source. Is it worth mentioning this in that section? Wodge (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I dont think so but I think it will stay. I have been against putting up a journalists numbers comparing it to human rights organizations and the governments of the involved parties. Nableezy (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worth pointing out that the Cremonesi report is based on a single unnamed source though or is that POV or OR? Wodge (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was based on more than one unnamed source, he says his estimate is based on going to hospitals in Gaza, not just 1. And honestly no need. We say he says this and thats it, no need for anything beyond that. Honestly, I think the casualties is one of the sections that doesnt need a whole lot of work, at least until numbers are independently verified (which might not happen at all) Nableezy (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Wodge (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. At the time, yes the casualties were solely based on PCHR and later the MoH of Gaza (Hamas basically). Human Rights organization basically paragraphed from the PCHR reports. You think Amnesty International sent in reps to Gaza to count the bodies? Lol. Israel did that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No they did not, the Israeli "investigation" is based on names from hospitals, not going in to count bodies. The MoH and the PCHR did that. Nableezy (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the Israeli investigation consisted of available records and cross-referencing them with known bodies. The MoH and the PCHR didn't line up the bodies on the floor and count them one by one. An overwhelming majority of initial stats simply came from word-of-mouth or general estimations - lolz. These people aren't professionals, they have a strong partial agenda and report on behalf of the Palestinians. If PCHR was in, say..err..Iraq, they'd be laughed at. Simply based on the fact that they consider every attack a "human rights violation" and rarely correct blatant fabrications, like merging KIA militants as civilians, demonstrates a lack of journalistic integrity. And even assuming all things click, just working in the Hamas-zone is suspect. Hamas and Fatah will never allow an unfriendly report go out unpunished. Remember - the numbers themselves aren't disputed to a significant extent, only the combatant/civilian ratio. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really dont want to read about your personal view on really anything, so lets try to keep it somewhere else. People who actually are qualified to speak on the PCHR praise it for its integrity and reliability, so your little rant doesnt really mean much. I dont care what you think is 'suspect', I dont care what you think is correct on what is a human right violation, I just dont care and it is not relevant at all what you think about these things or these organizations. Nableezy (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice save Nab. You think I am totally oblivious of your impenetrable opinion towards the state of Israel and the Palestinians? No, I believe it is my obligation as an editor to correct inaccuracies that might filter into the article. Some of the points you made above contained woeful factoids and inarguable errors. Let me make is clear: I am mostly concerned about the factual integrity of the article rather than your irreversible views of the Middle East. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what my opinion on the state of Israel is, the only thing you actually 'know' about me is what little I have written on my user page. I may have very high opinions on certain things about the state of Israel. The biggest issues that you have had with me is based off your own extrapolations on what I actually wrote to this make believe place where you know what I am thinking beyond what I am writing. You want to correct inaccuracies fine, but do it off of RSs not your own opinions on things. Every section with you recently has descended into this kind of conversation, we cant just talk about the sources and how to use them in the article. It always has to go back to this group is anti-Israeli or the IDF is evil or PCHR is basically Hamas, or whatever. How is this helping anything, you saying 'just working in the Hamas-zone is suspect' or 'these people aren't professionals' when these people (you see how somebody can add meaning to your words that one presumes you did not intend) have been recognized by many others to have a high level of integrity and reliable. At least bring a source that backs these claims up and can we please stop this type of discussion? It is not helping the article, and it is not helping my high, so unless you are saying you want to add 'unreliable and unprofessional' to qualify anything from the PCHR in the article, lets stop with the personal opinions. Nableezy (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we done this before? And then you reported me? Oh yeah, pass. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually have never started a thread on any noticeboard, though some comments you directed at me have been egregious enough that others felt the need to report it. But good call on the pass. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, you certainly encouraged the condemning and failed to object to the various witch-hunts within this discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * wtf are you talking about, another editor wanted to add more criticism of the Cremonesi report and I said it wasnt needed, what witch hunt occurred in this conversation? Or are you referring to me being amused at you taking offense at somebody saying you might be a racist? Or me saying your past comments to me were highly inappropriate and without basis? How many times do I have to say, I dont want to deal with this nonsense. The topic of this section has already been resolved, so if you feel the need feel free to have the last word. Nableezy (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, don't forget the juice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to go back to topic. I have heard that Amnesty have said that approximately 300 persons under 18 years of age were killed. I have also read that PCHR should have numbered the children (i.e. those under 18 years old) who died to 288. Israel claim that the civilian casualties summed up consists of 300 dead, Samfundet Sverige-Israel is my source (Swedish though, so not many will understand, they seem to cite CAMERA at least in part), they are of course pro-Israel, and might not be called RS, however, I have hard to see that they would make such bold claims of Amnesty and PCHR without any factual basis, so if anyone could check what Amnesty and PCHR claims at the moment, we might get som updated figures. P.S. I have no idea what their sites are going to say, but even though I am pro-Israel, I want the figures to have factual basis if they have become smaller at Amnesty and PCHR.--KMA &quot;HF&quot; N (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

times article on "Human rights campaigners call on UN to investigate Gaza 'war crimes'"
Think this deserves mention in the article. What I would say would be of note to add would be from these quotes: Human rights groups have accused the Israeli army of using disproportionate force in its attempt to halt Hamas rockets being fired into Israel, and there have been allegations that Israeli troops used civilians as human shields, refused to allow medics access to the wounded and used white phosphorous, a napalm-like substance that is intended for use as a battlefield smokescreen, on civilian areas. Led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mary Robinson, the former Irish President and one-time head of the UN’s human rights agency, the authors of an open letter to the United Nations published today call for a “prompt, independent and impartial investigation [that] would provide a public record of gross violations of international humanitarian law committed and provide recommendations on how those responsible for crimes should be held to account". and just to make wikifan happy the article brings something up close to his heart: Hamas has been accused of committing war crimes by firing its rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas for years, and there have also been reports of its fighters carrying out summary executions of suspected collaborators. Nableezy (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. "Human Rights Group" is vague, which ones? The coverage essentially reiterates what has already been said. Complaining isn't enough to warrant an inclusion, and Tutu is already in here somewhere. If not, put him in - but there's a better link If I remember, referring to the war as a "genocide/cleansing/yaddayadda" *yawn*. No need to butter me up Nab, AI and HRW have realized they need to put Israel in the same category as Hamas or else they lack credibility. LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line I was more concerned with the 'human shields', JGG had an article in which Haaretz also reported an instance of the IDF using a civilian as a human shield, or somebody else cant remember or find. The second one was thinking of actually mentioning the letter, the last is already well covered in the article, just thought you might appreciate others bringing up your cause for justice for the Palestinians. Nableezy (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An allusion to human shields is not enough. This is the same deal with the photo conspiracy that was almost included. Ghese claims are not necessarily unsubstantiated but neither notable or unique. We cannot counter strong theories (Hamas using human shields) with weak conspiracies. I won't object to a short line, i.e "various groups have accused Israel of using human shields..." if it was justified, but we have to be careful here and not go beyond what is considered a human shield. Protesters and activists have accused Israel of doing many things (genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc..) even leaders in the United Nations. In other words, this article cannot be a forum for propaganda or shouting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Not enough according to what? I can get the actual reports if you want the article to go into detail, I have seen a few that arent at my fingertips right this second. These arent weak conspiracies, and the definition of 'human shield' is much more appropriate for the actions Israel is accused of than more than half of the nonsense that people shout about Hamas for, that people running to a roof to stop an airstrike is them being used as human shields. This isnt propaganda, and if you could stop your personal feelings from getting in the way try to realize you arguing your opinions against sources that reference highly regarded people and institutions. For the last time, nobody gives a shit about what you think if a source hasnt thought it first. Nableezy (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this line is also included " is a military and political term describing the presence of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets." The accusation is made because Israel attacks from populated area, perhaps 'inadvertently' as is the case made against Hamas. This as a result of Urban warfare more than anything.  If Hamas were to return fire, at a populated location under control by the IDF, it would be considered as using human shields because it is expected of the side returning fire to actually return fire(though in connection of the provision that if a civilian area is being used for military purpose, it "could" be targeted.  It is why Hamas is accused of using human shields because, since it seems as if Israel returns fire no matter where the fire came from.  The question here faced by both sides is, are they doing it to "deter an enemy from attacking those targets".  Cryptonio (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, Israel attacks from populated areas? As far as I know Hamas doesn't even have a capable enough force to identify strong military targets...or their weak desire to attack the military offensively. Hamas deliberately targets civilian areas, areas with little or not strategic relevance (Sderot). I thought this accusation of human shields stemmed from Hamas' pooling of civilians into obvious targets: launching mortars/missiles near or from civilian centers, etc...IMO Hamas considers every citizen as an essential asset, with the line separating civilian from soldier/military/whatever almost unidentifiable. Can the same be said for Israel? No. I refuse to edit the article in this respect because I'm so biased but my contempt for Nableezy continuing to post extremely inflammatory, almost malicious material (grouping Israel and Hamas together) concerns me. If he is imposing such a slanted POV on talk, what's to stop him from doing this to the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time Israel enters Gaza for military purposes, it attacks from populated area. Cryptonio (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But don't take my word for it - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818122.stm


 * "Israeli troops had forced Palestinian civilians to stay in their homes after taking them over as sniper positions or bases, it said quoting sources in Gaza.


 * "This increases risk to families and means they are effectively being used as human shields," the group said. "


 * "The use of these tactics at a time when armed confrontations are taking place in streets in the middle of densely-populated residential areas underlines the failure of both sides to respect the protected status of civilians in armed conflict," said Amnesty's Malcolm Smart."


 * "In several well-documented cases in the past, Israeli troops have forced Palestinian civilians, at gunpoint, to go before them into buildings from which they feared attack." Cryptonio (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nableezy, do you mean this one?   John Bahrain actually brought it up but only to talk about the feces part.  But when I read it I noticed that it talked about children used as human shields which seemed more important to me. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a fun fact I found while looking for that: the word "feces" comes up twice in our archives -- for the moment. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Extremely inflammatory, almost malicious material." Wow. I know I promised I wouldnt say this, but that was just retarded, you are crying about me posting a source? Because I dont buy your bullshit on "IMO Hamas considers every citizen as an essential asset", i dont care about your opinion, I brought a RS that says something and you start crying about me? Awesome, great job you are doing in actually talking about the article and not your own opinions, just superb. Nableezy (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, this "and of the use of human shields when fighting in residential areas by Amnesty International[256]" is part of the article at this time. I guess the line on "forcing civilians" to walk in first etc. is what should be debated etc.  Cryptonio (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it per the sources. IDF forced civilians to stay in homes they had taken over. Someone basically duplicated the sentence in a rush to add headlines. I moved it out of the opening list so it can be expanded if needed. They also "vandalized" (drew maps on the wall) them while doing this.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck. Nableezy caught a line in the source I must have not seen and reverted. I'm OK with two lines so it matches the sources.Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, Nableezy pointed me in the right direction. It was a single line in a report by a journalist known as being radical. Regardless, it is a reliable source. Is expansion needed to put it inline with the sources. Most sources detail that the human shields claim is because soldiers forced civilians to stay in homes they took over. Israel has been accused of using civilians as human shields since troops forced civilians to stay in their homes after taking them over as military positions. Amira Hass reported that there were incidents of soldiers forcing children to accompany them as human shields." Text from source: "Soldiers broke down doors of grocery stores and helped themselves to candy and snacks. There were some who handed out candy to children; sometimes soldiers asked a child whom they forced to accompany them, as a human shield, to hand it out."Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that, but we generally dont specify the author of an article unless it is an editorial meant to show just that persons view. (also fixed your wikilink, its Amira Hass not Hess.) Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, I suck! I also had to fix my italics since I put them in the wrong places. Me adding a wikilink to her name is a little weaselly since I think anyone who reads the source and wikilink will not give it much credit. Let me know if that is a concern. I'm going to sit on this a bit and see what others say. I don't want to give Hass more weight but I also think expansion could be good.Cptnono (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have other objective and neutral reporters to corroborate Amira Hass findings? No? Then her credible names stay. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like an accusation of the war crime of aggression may be added to the section, though I'll wait for the actual report. Nableezy (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Old news. Posted in the talk page a day ago. I thought Falk already accused Israel of WCs? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw, I dont think anybody from the UN has said aggression before though. Nableezy (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

UN says 11 yr old boy used as a human shield, forced to walk in front ofg soldiers as they advanced, putting this in in a lil bit, stories:. Nableezy (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy
I noticed that this issue was being discussed in this talk page, I just wanted to let editors know that a dedicated article about the T-shirt controversy has been created (2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy). Factsontheground (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So Wikifan is into what? Cant see any reason for his revert. I put it back and IF that article become deleted feel free to remove it. Brunte (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International law paragraph
I need to stop discussing above so I thought it would be neat to see what people thought of this paragraph in the International Law section:  A study by military analyst Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed that Israel did not violate the laws of war during its operation in Gaza.[260] Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and frequent critic of Israel, wrote that Cordesman's study lacked credibility.[261] Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate.[262] It comes across like it was added in by editors to counterbalance each other (have no idea which line came in first or if that is the case). It is also from only kind of notable dudes and bloats the article. I don't think it is needed but won't be overly butt hurt if it stays. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think they are both needed, Cordesman's study was certainly biased, as was Finkelstein's review, but it was notable. The wording should probably be changed though, and I dont think 'frequent critic of Israel' is needed to qualify Finkelstein. Nableezy (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cordesman's "report" is based only on IDF press releases so nice try but no. That Italian reporter article about casualities was also based on a single unnamed source btw. Wodge (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We dont report his analysis as fact, having bias does not disqualify a source. Things are given their due weight based on the weight given by the sources, and Cordesman's study is the only real serious study from a so called 'pro-Israeli' perspective and merits inclusion. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the notability is my biggest concerns. This might just not be good enough with all the heavy hitting reports and statements made from the actual belligerents, international leaders, and human rights observers. If this was a shorter article I wouldn't care at all but it jumped out as something that may not be needed. I actually haven't even looked into them too much since it always jumped out as extra fluff. We can get into the wording if it is important enough to stay (uh oh... why did I start this section?)Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should use more details from the study instead of reducing it to "claimed." Cordesman report was 50+ pages, whereas Finkelstein has written nothing more than opinion pieces in crunchreport etc... "Claimed" is a somewhat inaccurate and definitely an understatement. Problem with Fickelstein is he simply attacked Cordesman as an analyst rather than the actual report in its entirety. I'm shocked Nab would want the credibility inclusion since it makes Fickelstein look like a complete fool. Cordesman has over 30 years of experience, leading organizations within NATO and holding posts all across the Middle East, in addition to writing 50+ books on strategy and western military. I think Fickelstein's credibility is in question here, I don't believe he is a fair counterpart other than his typical-fencing "you're wrong." I'd be willing to write a draft if requested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Finkelstein's report examined the sources Cordesman had used, he didn't just launch an ad hominem attack on him.Wodge (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Finkelstein sentence should be changed. We shouldn't note a criticism without reason. It is quite vague at the moment. What does "lacks credibility" mean? That doesn't help the article at all. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Vague sums it up well for me. It looks like it was just randomly thrown in. Do either statements deserve inclusion? Wikifan or anyone else who feels like trying can take a stab at fixing it but it still looks like getting rid of it might be more beneficial to the article. We could also use the sources somewhere else in the article if they are that notable. I'm still on the fence on this one and open to anything.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * cpt, changed your indent, hope you dont mind He wrote a counterpunch article where he goes into quite a bit of detail in what he finds wrong or lacking in the report, here (some of you may be averse to reading counterpunch, so it is with great pleasure i bring you the preceding link) Nableezy (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm against removing Cordesman's analysis. It is valuable and extremely notable, more so than Fickelstein's IMO. I read the counterpunch link, loaded with inaccuracies and extreme generalizations. Fickelstein accuses Cordesman of relying solely on Israeli briefings - not true. He met with many Arab leaders and officials according to the report, but stressed that Hamas has provided "minimal details on fighting other than ideology and propaganda statements." We could use Fickelstein's findings from his op-ed but then of course we'd counter it with the reasoning in the analysis. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck you, Nab, I mind. Actually I saw that you said fuck earlier and am just excited to use it myself Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So did Cordesman also meet with UN, Human Right NGOs and not use their info either? Wodge (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I recall he included notable and verifiable reports. Not sure on AI/Btselem/PCHRC. Problem with those organizations is they all relied on the same info coming from PCHR and whatever little info Hamas released, making it extremely difficult to verify. It would make sense to read Cordesman's analysis before jumping on the Fickelstein bandwagon, no? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At first I hated this section but now I am getting what is going on. A notable dude who works for a notable think tank said that Israel did not break international law. An editor threw in a counter punch. And then, another line was added just to drive the point home. I still think Cordesman's analysis could easily be used as a general rebuttal against accusations but unfortunately anything that doesn't use the term "VICTIMS!" needs to be argued in this article. The sources speak for themselves. If Cordesman is a big enough deal to dispute he is good enough for more lines. If not, his report will be beneficial as a source. I personally am leaning now towards keeping Cordesman in since other somewhat biased sources have received 1000x more room here.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @wikifan: I did read it, a long time ago when Nishidani first posted it. For the numbers he does rely exclusively on IDF numbers, and that was well before any detailed examination by them took place during the hostilities. @cpt, ill go through the analysis again and see what i think could be suitable for use in the article, yall do the same and bring it here if that is amenable to everybody. Nableezy (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Report was published on February 2nd. Many "detailed examinations" were conducted by then and they were used in the analysis. I'm sure he gave the Israeli's more credibility then say...err...Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, considering Israel is, well, a democracy and not a run by activists. In any other war PCHR would be dismissed solely based on lack of integrity. Distributing numbers in Gaza is difficult, anything that remotely disagrees with Hamas' agenda is silenced. But whatever, I'm not really in the mood to argue truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The IDF, the most credible army in the world: CHANGING TUNE January 5 The Times reports that telltale smoke has appeared from areas of shelling. Israel denies using phosphorus January 8 The Times reports photographic evidence showing stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells. Israel Defence Forces spokesman says: “This is what we call a quiet shell – it has no explosives and no white phosphorus” January 12 The Times reports that more than 50 phosphorus burns victims are taken into Nasser Hospital. An Israeli military spokesman “categorically” denies the use of white phosphorus January 15 Remnants of white phosphorus shells are found in western Gaza. The IDF refuses to comment on specific weaponry but insists ammunition is “within the scope of international law” January 16 The United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters are hit with phosphorus munitions. The Israeli military continues to deny its use January 21 Avital Leibovich, Israel’s military spokeswoman, admits white phosphorus munitions were employed in a manner “according to international law” January 23 Israel says it is launching an investigation into white phosphorus munitions, which hit a UN school on January 17. “Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF is holding an investigation concerning one specific unit and one incident. Wodge (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Zomg jew bastards!!!! <end partisan radical tirade Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He didnt say Jew, no need for that comment. But if you can keep saying the IDF is credible and AI, HRW, PCHR, . . ., then he is able to say that you are wrong without the implication you just gave. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quote exactly what I said. Quantifying credibility isn't exactly an easy thing to do. What is easy is recognizing Israel is a liberal democracy while Hamas is the poster child for religious extremism. Yet it seems they've managed to score more points and a much louder voice than Israel, that is where my concern lies. The way you posed the above sentence is woefully simplistic and dare I say, ignorant? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you really want to discuss the linked article? I think we've derailed the discussion enough as it is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going through your contributions for every time you have said that AI, HRW or others are not credible, but you keep equating the widely respected PCHR with Hamas, or in this very section that it lacks integrity, that is a woefully simplistic. I dont want to do this with you, I took issue with your comment and I said my piece, I dont really give a shit if you take anything from it and try to avoid such behavior. I already know what you think of me so no need to go any further with this as I dont think it will make difference in your behavior (which honestly has seen a marked improvement, but seems to fall into old habits on occasion). And no I dont want to discuss the linked article, it is well covered in the article, and I would advise Wodge to discuss the topic of this thread and if he wants to raise another point open up a new section. You too though. Nableezy (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never ever said AI, HRW, or others (what others?) are not credible. The problem with with seeing through a this or that perspective is it doesn't consider the details. AI is biased against Israel, doesn't necessarily mean what they say is false but it reflects their ability to be objective and maintain a reasonable level of journalistic integrity. Israel tends to draw the most flames because it's easy, records are available (p.s: democracy=free press) and the Palestinians love them. AI was almost quoted exclusively by BBC for over a month in February, rather shocking to say the least.  Nab, you seem to dismiss anything remotely critical of AI as either hypocrisy or inaccurate, and it truly is frustrating considering you are a major contributor to this article. Carrying such fallacies is....disturbing. Maybe I'm being too blunt.  :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, not getting into this with you, I said my piece, say whatever you want about me, dont really care, but at least have the decency to make a "The case against Nableezy" section and not in this one that started as a serious discussion about the article. Nableezy (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. I'll make an effort to have more decency in the future. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now kiss!--Cerejota (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No tongues though. Cordesman report isn't linked too but it's available here. Should a link to the actual report be added? Wodge (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah as a courtesy link.--Cerejota (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic: the issue as I see it is that Wikifan was to establish Cordesman as an authoritative source, and this is not really correct: he is not publishing in a peer reviewed journal, or a vetted document. He is giving his highly educated, qualified, and relevant opinion. And this opinion is subjected to direct criticism, not of him as a person, but of his work and its biases. I illustrating this in an NPOV fashion is important. One of the issues with the paragraph is that it is not detailed enough: it basically says "so and so, of Center X, said Y. This other guy, some qualifying statement, says he is wrong". That is a weasel-worded, totally uninformative, personalistic, and un-encyclopedic approach to it. What we need is "According to X, using Y and Z sources, and these notable arguments A, B, C, established that Q in his study for the Center N. This other notable guy, has criticized the conclusion for these reasons, and claimed Q was incorrect because of problems with Y and Z". In other words, rather than establishing our opinions on the sources, we should let the sources speak for themselves. Furthermore, Cordesman work is full of citing sources, and as per WP:CITE, we should cite them, not Cordesman.

But it goes back to how un-useful this section is: it is basically a honey pit for whatever polemics anyone can come up with, because as I have said, even if Israel committed violations of international law, due to its lack of adherence to most such treaties, and to the basic un-enforceability of the Geneva conventions if one of the parties is not a signatory or state actor, this issue is irrelevant other than as a polemical tool.

So the problem is the entire approach of the section, not the specific issue around Cordesman, which approaches the pointy.--Cerejota (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as it stands, it uses an appeal to authority fallacy to establish Cordesman as superior, with the converse ad hominem fallacy on Finklestein. The reality is that on this topic both stand on equally shaky ground as talking heads rather than serious scholars.--Cerejota (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cordesman's report is useful because it responds directly to the various "accusations" wedged against Israel. No source, report, study, or analysis has been "peer-reviewed" (including the United Nations reports - which rely directly on insider sources in Gaza). We are placing Cordesman at a higher standard than less relevant characters, such as Fickelstein. Grouping them is suspect Cerejota. Also, it is rather odd you feel compelled to point out "fallacies" from my writings but not Nab's. Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear Wikifan, did you write the section? I was to lazy to do a wikiblame, but I was not referring to the arguments, which are arguments to be had, but the actual text in the article. Don't be so sensitive, and also, where were you when I ripped Nab a new one and defended you? I am an equal opportunity arrogant asshole :D. It just so happens that we agree on the general (Cordesman is a notable guy) but not the specific (but in this case he is using that notability in a way vaguely reminiscent of linguist Noam Chomsky): I think Cordesman is better than Finklestein in terms of notability and possibly milhist qualifications (ie, if we were talking military science, order of battle, hardware, strategy etc), but in this case he is giving an opinion, and Finklestein is notable enough for a Wikipedia page, a noted partisan commentator on the PIA, and he has a relevant counter-opinion. I don't get the fuzz. Now, to re-state, I think both should go and the section itself trimmed, but if we include an opinion, we should include relevant, sourced, direct, counter-opinion. Its just the way this here wiki thingy works.--Cerejota (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Finkelstein's criticism of Cordesman's report is that its almost entirely based on what the IDF said and that it ignores information that was readily available from the UN, NGos and News reports. That seems like a valid point, IMO. And I don't think "You can't trust Norman Finkelstein, the UN, NGOs or RS News, etc because they're self-hating JudeoIslamoFascistNaziLiberals" is a valid rebuttal. Wodge (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree basically witb Cerejota, except his last remarks, and Nableezy. Finkelstein's job, before he was sacked, was to comb through a secondary source's use of primary sources and see how they matched or didn't match up, and whether the secondary source's use of sources was partial or comprehensive. He came up consistently with tons of things no one noticed, and a lot of people from Saul Bellow down were left with egg onb their faces. Precisely because his expertise created embarrassment for people like Dershowitz, his career was shot down. In any case, his review of Cordesmann's paper is an RS, as is Cordesman's paper. Cordesman's is a dreadful piece of analysis, straight from the IDF, and with none of the polish of his books (from the IDF but with more hindsight), but he cannot be rejected because one dislikes the quality of his work. I don't think he should be cited on international law, since if you read his remarks at the outset, he really doesn't think (legitimate) state actors in war can really be judged by legal criteria, a fairly familiar point of view in these circles. For these guys, law is what victors apply to the vanquished. Luca Cremonesi is RS, is an experienced reporter with one of the major Italian newspapers, with experience from Afganistan to Israel where he spent a dozen years, and learnt the language. That one disagrees with any of these people is irrelevant. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should expand the sentence to Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist, wrote that Cordesman's study lacked credibility because it was based almost entirely on IDF sources and ignored information that was readily available from the UN, NGos and News reports.. Might has well give the reason Finkelstein gives for lack of credibility. Wodge (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards cutting the paragraph if we are going to go into lines and lines of detail. Cordesman made some valid points and it might be nice to have a line or two in that doesn't completely go into how horrible the IDF acted but I don't see the point if it is going to require so much rebuttal.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are considered RSs so I think they should stay. Wodge (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both bloat the article and may not be needed. The balance is off and I assume editors will add extra lines to correct it making it longer. How it relates to the section as a whole is a little weird also.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless independent RS give coverage to the 2009 Cordesman-Finklestein Gaza war debate, there is simply no way we can do justice to both analysis without quote farming. In a year or so, when the books start flowing (and they will), then maybe an Analysis of the Gaza war would make sense. And definetely Cordesman doesn't add anything that we cannot add by directly citing the same primary and secondary sources he uses.--Cerejota (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you Cerejota, Cordesman is/was a member of the United States government and has served in leading capacity at NATO. Honestly, I hardly think his analysis should be axed for "lack of coverage." Not every source Cordesman uses is available to abuse on the internet, so we must quote Cordesman analysis and include his name if it fits somewhere, which it clearly does. He was one of the few notable Middle East figures who actually gave Israel a arguably fair voice that did not turn into Zionist propaganda. If an Israeli source corroborates his interviews with officials, that's even better. But truth be told, I am utterly shocked at your instance to bury the research.  Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is he speaking on an official capacity? Has he written a book that is notable about this topic? The same way we do not have articles on every book by every notable author, not every piece of research is immediately notable. I do not want to bury the research. I want to give it due weight treatment, including coherent, equally notable criticism. I might point out that I have been consistent on this, including not just this particular report, but reports by the UN, HRW, etc. This entire "international law" section is essentially a rack to hang coats on. Thing is you don't fix a coat rack by adding different coats, you fix a coat rack by not making it a coat rack anymore. However, if you are going to hang a coat, allowing for the counter-coat at least keeps the pretense of neutrality, if not the reality.--Cerejota (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to work Cordesman's analysis in with specific claims? Maybe it would be easier if we broke up that first run on sentence into small (very very small) paragraphs explaining each allegation. It would be better style and grammar wise. This would also ensure that Cordesman's views (as well as Falk's, Avi Bell's, Philippe Sands, and Finklestein's) can all get use.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially "bumping" this conversatoin so it doesn't get archived. I really want to see what people think about culling the opening to the section and opening run on weird list of the Israeli subsection. The "human shield" line is now in its own paragraph (only a line for now but we could expand it) so I would love to see people input on the falk falk falk falk "sentence".Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What Finkelstein is specifically criticising is Cordesman's claim that Israel did not violate the laws of war. In this he seems correct. Cordesman's report does not mention widely available information at the time he wrote it that Israel used white phosphorus, flechette muntions, killed cilivians not directly involved in the conflict, killed medical staff, blew up hospitals. All of these count as war crimes. Wodge (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)