Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 45

Abbas blaming Hamas for this conflict
Isn't that information included in the article? if it isn't it should be included. Than the information from Israeli human right organizations should be reinserted as well. we should look into this. counter reactions from different positions from within both territories should be of some value to the article. now, that should be countered with 'main' responses from elected officials etc. Cryptonio (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know if this is relevant and to what extent does the following comply with Wiki policies (which I intend to study). Anyway, Cryptonio must be referring to this:

“I say in all honesty, we made contact with leaders in Hamas in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly, and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non-Arab side... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said: 'We beg of you, we hope that you won't break [the ceasefire.] As the [Egyptian foreign] Minister said: 'Don't break the ceasefire, the ceasefire must continue and not stop.' In order to avoid [violence] that has happened. If only we had avoided it.” PA President Mahmoud Abbas [Palestinian Authority TV, Dec. 28, 2008] http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Feb2009.htm BTW, if the transcript provided by PMW is inaccurate, Arab-speaking participants are welcomed to point out the mistakes. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My only comment here is that it's probably better not to use Palestinian Media Watch as a source because it's status as a 'reliable source' is debatable. Everything they publish should easily be available from more mainstream sources that won't be challenged as reliable sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Sean. You say that their status as reliable source is debatable. Even if you are right, in this particular case they present the footage from the PA TV, showing Abbas in person. Can it be more authentic? You can argue PMW is unbalanced pro-Israeli source. True. However, in what way does it diminish the reliability and verifiability of this report? The only other source I found was in the link below, section 'Who gets the blame?'. However, I am pretty sure they simply quote PMW.

http://www.kbrm.org.nz/Posts/2009/Jan_7.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, more authentic and more suitable for WP as a source is possible. Firstly we can use uncontroversial reliable sources (RS) that deal with the same issue. If it is notable it will be covered by RS. Secondly we can avoid potential contributary copywrite infringements that often arise from self-published sites and their use of video etc by sticking to reliable sources. PMW supply material to many sources that WP regards as reliable so this should not be a problem in principal.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this: According to Reuters News Agency, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blamed the rival Hamas group on Sunday for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state.

http://www.france24.com/en/20081228-abbas-says-he-tried-continue-truce-avoid-violence-gaza-israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly...although I suppose he's probably made more statements since then but yes looks good.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, in the article International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. This section can be archived.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Legitamacy of PCHR numbers


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

"The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes, said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team."

How can numbers which consider Hamas leaders civilians be considered legitamate? How was that a non-combat situation either? By that logic every military strike by Israel was a "non-combat situation" Drsmoo (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've talked about that before. It's in the archives. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we also agreed about a warning neutral wording for encyclopedia readers which might be confused by such an outstanding PCHR civilian and combat definition. Since then, this article improved a lot: the warning was lost but now we have military rabbis engagement sub-section. Israeli troops clearly wanted to kill as much gentile changelings as possible. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you've been away for a while so I should say that user:Factsontheground added the rabbi section yesterday. If you have a problem with it you're free to deal with it.  And welcome back. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for warm welcome, I missed you too. I guess my point is maybe we should restore the warning regarding PCHR statistics meaning in Disputed Figures section. Does it sound reasonable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats your own 'warning' on the reliability of their numbers, you cant just say their numbers are unreliable you need a source to do so. Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important that people know that the PCHR figures consider Hamas leaders to be civilians Drsmoo (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * International law considers anybody, including commanders, to be civilians while they are not engaged in hostilities. What you think is important is only important to you. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being in a war counts as being involved in hostilities. As does launching thousands of rockets. There was alreadya notification in this article previously informing readers of this, and it should return. Drsmoo (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your own interpretation of international law, one that I am certain that you are not qualified to provide based on the simple fact that you are plain wrong according to those who are qualified to do so. Nableezy (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, combatant status it is disputed by Israel and others. It is also apparently a somewhat arbitrary process.  But I think that's an issue that doesn't need to be addressed in the infobox.  It can't be a place for dissections like that. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While we're talking about infobox casualties, our article seems to be wrong about that Ukrainian woman. It says that two foreigners were killed, the woman and her child.  But she was married to a local doctor, so the child was Palestinian, as much as he was Ukrainian.  Although I don't see why a resident foreigner, married to a local, needs special mention anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never looked into the Ukrainian myself. Special mention is not needed at all ff child has duel citizenship since it is covered. Someone married to a local (I assume she was residing as well) probably doesn't deserve special inclusion either.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont think special mention is needed at all. Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's PCHRs interpretation that Hamas's general during Cast lead was a civilian. If you think that is legitamate please cite the law that states that a general who is coordinating a war is a civilian. 199.79.168.212 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamas has generals? The source actually says: "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated" Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And read this for the views of people who are actually qualified to say something, not some random wikipedia editor. They are combatants only while taking 'direct participation in hostilities'. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, noone claims reliability. I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. This is why readers who read the first sentence of civilian Wikipedia article are confused. The CBS quote makes the required clarification and singles those two and mention them by name for confusion clarification reason. CBS probably cares about its readers. I agree with Drsmoo,  it is important that people know that the PCHR figures include some armed forces members as civilians. This RS backed clarification provided encyclopedic value to this article. I'm sorry it was lost. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the recent edit for the most part. Hamas members (including those with military ties) are in the count. I don't think we need to go into detail about the general but "The PCHR figures for civilian casualties include "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations"" It is kind of similar to the police thing. Israel considers some "civilians" potential combatants or tied to combatants. It looks like PCHR considers that at least mentionable.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of problems with that. The sources that bring this up are on old numbers, and I have yet to find one raising any supposed criticisms of the final tally. Beyond that, we say that the PCHR says x number of civilians died, we are obviously using their definition of a civilian. Also, the UN has now presented those numbers without qualification as to the source. We say that they said x number combatants died. That excludes noncombatants. It doesnt exclude everybody associated with Hamas, it excludes those not taking part in combat situations. The definition the PCHR used is the same that the ICRC uses, the same that AI uses, the same that B'tselem uses, the same that HRW uses. It is the standard definition in international law. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * per talk AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the notice, but I don't think that edit reflects the consensus on the talk page. I also think that it is not NPOV to say that the PCHR "inflated" the civilian count -- it is just their interpretation.  So I'm going to spare Nableezy the effor and revert that.  I think you should probably discuss anything specific first. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, is this your mean side? First time I have seen it, and I am shocked. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am playing the good cop. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope this fixes NPOV. Please don't arrest me, Mr. officer :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please try to get consensus for edits you know will be disputed? Please? I explained my objections above, could you at least try to answer them instead of just saying the completely meaningless 'per talk'? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, we need a consensus. Could you explain your objection to the edit, so I could improve it? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I already did, up above in a comment dated 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC). Nableezy (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can explain Nableezy's objection. He thinks that PCHR's definitions are standard for the field and thus do not require our expansion.  I think he would probably further say that, if anything, the IDF is the one with the unusual practice of classifying those figures as combatants.  And that's what we should mention, if anything.  I have the sense that he might also say something was "retarded" but I'm not 100% on that. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, JGGardiner, I see what you mean. Somehow if PCHR definitions would be standard for the field, we would not see neutral CBS expansion requirement and mentioning civilian names. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada, you need to stop putting in the same disputed edit over and over. Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I've learned a lot of Wikipedia rules from you. Really appreciate your opinion. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you discuss your changes as much as I do and publish your diffs :). You also need to reach consensous. I know it's a beginning of new day in Chicago, so good morning. Missed you, man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, if you insist on keeping this so called clarification then you cannot argue against further detail on the numbers of the IDF and the criticism of it. Nableezy (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for criticism, though maybe some belong to international law section. I'm not really sure what directly engaged in hostilities means. Does it mean that commanding officers which use communication equipment instead of guns considered civilians? Still Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And how exactly would the IDF know this? Wodge (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean how exactly would the IDF know that they were using communications equipment to direct hositilities if that's what they were doing at the time the IDF blew them up? Wodge (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what IDF knew :) I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are not taking part in hostilities they are classed as cilivians. Wodge (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hard to imagine that commanding officers of armed forces would be idle when enemy offensive is occurring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada the edit you made is nonsense. You cannot determine the innocence of somebody, kindly self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you insist on qualifying the PCHR numbers you have to include both sides, you cannot just say I want to disparage the numbers and thats it. Nableezy (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, innocence  is in CBS reliable source, quoted as is, because of my broken English :) Why do you object to this wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just changed it, the source says it includes members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations and that is what the article says now. Nableezy (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you didnt notice, hard to believe because it is in the same sentence, the source also says 'along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes' That should be in there as well if you are going to explicitly mention the names. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many editors noted in archives that IAF bomb on your head is indeed very non-combat situation. Still neutral CBS quote is The civilians not only included innocent bystanders. And again Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources. I don't want any confusion. Hope you don't object. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I feel kick and ban buttons singing danger danger - high voltage. I don't want to be trigger happy so late at night :) We'll continue this discussion tomorrow. Send my regards to Windy City. Is hockey season over already? AgadaUrbanit (talk)
 * Whats your point on 'rented' home? And why do you keep saying 'neutral' CBS? And why do you want to keep out 'killed with their relatives in their homes'? It is in the exact same sentence you keep citing. There is no confusion in that sentence. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * POVing, probably. I think he wants 'innocent bystanders' so that it contrasts Hamas members who presumably are guilty at all times. Wodge (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wodge, is this your understanding of assume good faith WP:Etiquette rule? It's custom to strike errors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a fundamental rule of wikipedia. Your use of the word 'innocent' is quite clearly POV. Wodge (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia rules you should assume good faith of other editors. This part needs striking. Please see WP:Etiquette.
 * Please read the CBS source, I incorporated in this article direct quote from neutral/secondary reliable source. So no NPOV issue what so ever.
 * It's human to err. Hope you see what I mean, Wodge. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. The sentence you inserted looked like your own wording. So clearly NPOV.
 * 2. Plagiarism is not allowed either. You can't cut and paste stuff without clearly labeling it as a quote.
 * 3. I might have assumed good faith the first you made the change but you attempted to insert it over and over again even though you've been told repeatedly why it's not necessary. Wodge (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand there are two issues here: Could we agree on that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CBS notes civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" and names two leaders.
 * PCHR notes "non-combat situations" and "massive bombings of homes"
 * No, the article already mentions all that. Your additional quotes are not necessary. Wodge (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the CBS article says non-combat situations and killed with their families in massive bombing of their homes. It is the very same sentence as what you keep posting, so I find it hard to AGF that you are innocently overlooking that. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AGF? Wodge (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to understand what is the Wikipedia way to reflect the facts in reliable source report. Hoped this is was good enough. AGF? :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it was not. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the current wording. Wodge, AGF=Assume Good Faith. Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase "innocent bystanders" is POV and shouldn't be included even if it from CBS. Wodge (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts of dispute is more clear now both on police officers and Hamas leaders. I still don't like current wording since it's more about accusations and less about facts as-is as brought by reliable sources. Let's be constructive and find some fair compromise for wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain exactly what is wrong with the wording. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-read the sources and it looks that the Disputed Figures sub-section (and me) is out of date. The name list was published by PCHR and analyzed. Enough of accusations on both sides. Maybe we could trim the Disputed Figures all together, so it will not grow as wild as Laos jungle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide specifics. I do think it needs to be trimmed (I dont think the Corriere info needs to be mentioned at all anymore now that we have close to official numbers from each side) but I dont know what it is that you want to remove. Nableezy (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree on Corriere in particular. Generally I would trim maybe the whole sub-section branch all together: accusations/legal stuff also (or alternatively move relevant info/quotes to international law). It is silly to dispute when detailed name list of casualties is available. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something there about the difference between the PCHR and IDF figures, though? Wodge (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, something should be up soon enough, as in an a greater authoritative investigation about the figures. That the IDF's figures on Palestinians are included, makes no sense whatsoever, yet no need to take it further at this time, after all, that italian doctor's allegations on figures was so damaging. Cryptonio (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A file picture dated 15 September 2007 shows senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan (L) inspecting Hamas militants as they participate in a training exercise at an undisclosed location in the northern Gaza Strip. Does he look very civilian or "not taking part in hostilities"? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, he has to be taking part in these hostilities Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are links in the archives of reliable sources describing Nizar Rayan as commander of northern Gaza Strip during these hostilities. Go figure it ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to add "such as Nizar Rayan and Said Siam" to PCHR civilian classification. I believe RS backed addition clarifies the dispute and provides encyclopedic value. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to add those specific names then also include what the RSs say how they died, namely that they were bombed in their homes with their families. You cant just add the information that you like. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rayan case is shocking, B'Tselem cried about civilian loss.. Other RS (New York Daily News) noted that Rayan had "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home.. Rayan sent his young son to die on a suicide mission back in 2001 - surrounded himself with human shields comprised of members of his own family, most of whom perished when an Israel F-16 dropped a bomb on his home in Jabaliyah.. From other hand Said Seyam was not killed in his home at all. Bottom line both leaders have Wikipedia notability and articles, so mentioning names and wiki-links would be enough. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not enough, if you want to bring up these two specifically, bring up the specifics. Your point about rented vs owned home is irrelevant, it was his home even if he did not own it. And the NY Daily news, please, lets try to keep the tabloids to a minimum. Nableezy (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we could describe Rayan using human shields comprised of members of his own family. From other hand Said Seyam was surrounded by body guards, his family home was not bombed. I think this article is bloated as-is, mentioning names and wiki links would provide the information about "non-combat" situation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a judgment you make on 'human shields', one that is not accepted by most sources. The relevant information to the 'non-combat' issue is that they were attacked in their homes. If you want to bring up the example of 2 specifics of what is already said in the article, 'members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations' then provide the specifics as to why they were classified as being in 'non-combat' situations. You cannot just pick and choose the information to use, it leaves an incomplete account that is used to only highlight one side of the issue. If you want to give the specific names of those two, then you need to also include the relevant information as to why they were classified as non-combat. Nableezy (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is Al Jazeera image of Rayan, published during this conflict. I just say, let's mention leaders names and let the reader draw moral conclusions. Let's state the facts as-is. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'facts as-is' are that both men were killed in their homes with their families. It already says 'Hamas members', the point is 'in non-combat situations'. If you want the names, put the situation as well, you can't expand on one point and completely ignore the rest. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While you continue to argue about circumstances, disregarding Seyam's case, you somehow miss the point why both mentioned together by CBS: the civilian classification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you missed the point that civilian deaths are defined as those killed while not engaged in hostilities, or non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me disagree with you. Hamas as organization publicly took responsability for rocket love fest. So Hamas security personal/armed forces members did take part in hostilities, no one denies it. Both mentioned persons had some "dudes with guns" under their command. I try to imagine Nizar convert to pacifism night before his home was bombed or Said deserting his role in Executive Force in Gaza when he heard jets overhead. It is still hard to imagine. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the 'while not engaged in hostilities', that they previously were engaged in hostilities does not make engaged in hostilities when they were killed. But that is not the important part. We have a sentence that says the 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to add specifics to the Hamas members part but not include that they were killed in non-combat situations. Even the CBS source you keep bringing up, after mentioning the names, in the very next sentence says they were killed in their homes with their families. You cannot just highlight the information that suits you, you want to expand on that sentence then fine, but you cannot include just one half of the story. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * for interest, I think even Israel’s High Court of Justice in their 'The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Gov’t of Israel et al' ruling declined to recognise 'unlawful combatant' as a third category of person in addition to the standard 'combatant' and 'civilian' categories of international law. Nor did they recognise members of Hamas etc as combatants as they don't meet the legal criteria. Even the HCJ seem to treat 'terrorists' as civilians albeit civilians who lose their immunity from attack while they are engaged in hostilities.
 * "The basic approach is thus as follows: a civilian – that is, a person who does not fall into the category of combatant – must refrain from directly participating in hostilities (see FLECK, at p. 210). A civilian who violates that law and commits acts of combat does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy – during that time – the protection granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war. True, his status is that of a civilian, and he does not lose that status while he is directly participating in hostilities. However, he is a civilian performing the function of a combatant. As long as he performs that function, he is subject to the risks which that function entails and ceases to enjoy the protection granted to a civilian from attack".
 * Have a look .  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for interesting reading material, still somehow I'm not sure it is relevant to this particular discussion. Do you say those two persons took part in hostilities before this conflict, but resigned as Israel started offensive? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted it because I found it very surprising indeed...to such an extent that I can hardly believe what I read i.e. even when taking a direct part in hostilities a Hamas person has the legal status of civilian according to Israel’s High Court of Justice. I guess my point was that if that is what the HCJ think then maybe it's not so surprising or controversial that parties like PCHR count Hamas people as civilians when they aren't taking a direct part in hostilities at the time they were killed.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ..maybe this is why B'Tselem record the statistics the way they do i.e. "Palestinians employing potentially lethal force (guns, rockets, explosives, Molotov cocktails) are listed as having participated in hostilities at the time they were killed" and refute CAMERA's militants aren't civilians statements...see B'tselem.....maybe it's all beginning to make sense...seems unlikely.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be frank with you: I do not have enough background to grasp all the legal technicalities. Do you say that HCJ would rule that all Hamas members were civilians? Had Hamas government took direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Me neither. They seem to have ruled (let's use Hamas as an example) that
 * they aren't "combatants" from a legal perspective at any time.
 * they are "civilians" at all times from a legal perspective even when taking direct part in hostilities
 * while taking part in hostilities they lose their right to protection as civilians (but keep their legal status as civilians) and can be attacked (although they seem to have ruled that the actual legality of a 'targeted killing' depends on the specific circumstances..blah blah blah..).
 * So yes, it seems that the HCJ ruled that all Hamas members are civilians at all times. Amazing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, this is really interesting. I read the sources carefully. HCJ takes an important role in balancing government and army policy in questions like torture, human shields, targeted killing and collective punishment. To tell you the truth I've learned about CAMERA from you, though, can not say they play an important and notable role in this conflict. The HCJ ruling in question is from 2005, back then Hamas boycotted Palestinian democratic process, since than many things had changed. Democratically elected Hamas government kind of rules in Gaza and kind of imports factory made weapon and kind of fires rockets. Do you think PCHR believes that current Hamas government did not take direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe there has been another HCJ ruling since then, I don't know (seems unlikely). I don't know what the PCHR actually believes but what I do see now is that there is consistency between the HCJ ruling on 2 kinds of civilian (protected vs unprotected), B'Tselem's classification of 2 kinds of Palestinian casualty (civilian vs 'participating in hostilities at the time') and the PCHR classifying militants as civilians when they are killed while not taking a direct part in hostilities. All 3 seem to be using the same (or at least very similar) classifications, standard civilian vs someone physically engaged in hostilities at the time (i.e. actually firing a rocket etc). It seems to me that the PCHR's classification of a Hamas guy killed at home as a civilian who is not physically engaged in hostilities is the same classification that both B'Tselem and the HCJ would assign simply because he wasn't actually engaged in hostilities/commiting acts of combat at that precise time. It seems counter-intuitive because he could be sending messages to direct operations from home...I assume 'directly participating in hostilities' is defined legally somewhere.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I think I understand what you're saying. Still, B'Tselem does not refer to Nizar Rayan as civilian in their press release, it looks that you discuss those who are not part of armed forces and yet take weapon and commit acts of violence. Do you say that members of armed forces could be considered civilians? Do Hamas has armed forces at all? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth reading the whole HCJ ruling. Yes, members of irregular armed forces (not armies with uniforms etc) are considered as civilians (legally). There are combatants and civilians under international law (and Israeli law). Both of those kinds of people have protection under the law. If you call a Hamas guy a combatant he would have the legal privileges/protection that combatants are entitled to without having any of the legal responsibilities that go with being a combatant. If you call him a civilian he has the legal privileges/protection that civilians are entitled to but while he is engaged in hostilities he can be attacked as a military target. And 'engaged in hostilities' is defined in the report amd it doesn't include sitting at home.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't grasp this concrete ruling in full, still it looks pretty regular and outdated to me. There is a question of "non-state actor", still I personally would not call security minister as "irregular". In the context of "War on Hamas" Israeli legal sources clearly classify mentioned leaders as combatants, there are sources in the article. Still charity wing Hamas members were not considered combatants. Do you object "such as ..." addition based on neutral CBS to clarify the dispute? Maybe alternatively we could say "with military ties". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agada, you keep missing the point. Sean gave an explanation as to the actual real world issue, which though it may be enlightening is not the point. In the article, we have a line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to expand on the Hamas members part of the line by adding specific members. If you want to do that, also expand on the 'killed in non-combat situations', which as the CBS source you keep bringing says, in the very next sentence, 'killed in massive bombings in their homes with their families.' You cannot just tell one side of the story. If you want to expand further you need to explain both parts of the story, the individual names and the individual circumstances. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. There is a dispute about such Israeli attacks legality and legitimacy.
 * One reliable NGO says: ''Israeli security sources reported that the house was also used as an arms cache, a communications headquarters and concealed a tunnel opening. Prior to striking Rayyan's house the IDF warned his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so hopping that the underground shelter (loaded with arms and ammunitions) would eventually protect them. Prior to the attack the Israeli army held deliberations regarding the legality of striking homes used as weapons storages when sufficient warning is given to the residents. It has been decided that this falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate.
 * Another reliable NGO says: Even if the army spokesperson's statement is accurate, the large toll of civilian lives renders the attack a grave breach of international humanitarian law. In the current situation in the Gaza Strip, it is hard to think of a definite military advantage that could have been achieved by bombing the house and killing Rayan, that can justify the killing of 13 women and children.
 * This is not the point of my argument. The point is PCHR classification of "military ties" leaders. I'm not really sure why we can not add "such as ...", following neutral CBS. Charity wing Hamas members were not disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agada, no, there is no question of 'non-state actors', 'bad guys', 'terrorists' etc there are just 'civilians' and 'combatants'. 'Civilians' may or may not be engaged in hostilities. The line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations' makes it clear how the PCHR classified the casualties. An RS might call someone like Said Siam a combatant for political/bad reporting reasons but that does not make them a combatant (legally) anymore than calling someone a terrorist makes them a terrorist. It would need to be attributed to the source. I don't understand what purpose is served/value is added by naming specific people because the controling factor seems to be whether the person was actually firing a rocket etc at the time of their death. Whether or not they were a senior Hamas member or a gardener is irrelevant. It's what the were doing at the time that matters. Perhaps it is the 'non-combat situations' that is causing trouble. Would it help to change that wording or clarify what a non-combat/combat situation is or mention that the civilian count included 'targeted killings of people not engaged on hostilities at the time' or something along those lines assuming there's an RS somewhere that uses that language ? I agree with Nableezy here. If you want to include names then it's better to include the context for those people i.e. targeted killing. Maybe there is a basic misunderstanding here that counting senior Hamas people as civilians when they're killed via targeted killing while not engaged in hostilities in someway de-values the PCHR figures. It doesn't. It might be confusing but it's what the ICRC etc would do. What is unusual, non-standard and notable is that some Israeli sources use classifications that are inconsistent everyone else's including with their own HCJ.


 * Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' so 'military ties' wouldn't make sense. If there were a Palestinian military those guys would be 'combatants'.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Sean, Nableezy. My mistakes, the infoboxes should burn in hell!!! This is not a military conflict, after all. Those rockets are toys and really fun. The "strength" of 20.000, according to this article are not a real army, they are actually civilians, pretty much like rest 1.5 million. So what difference does it make that Rayan was playing with guns while dressed in a "toy military" uniform, no question of classification at all. Sean, I still seriously I do not agree on "allowed", there was UN ruling from November 1947. Palestinians do have a right! It is so amazing, I did not believe it myself initially, maybe both of you should read it carefully. Palestinians are real after all, no IOF backed by F-16 could change it! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow what you mean Agada. Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' i.e. army/airforce/navy It's covered by the interim accords See article 14 for example and the details in annex 1. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess my point is that back when in the area of Big Bang (UN ruling) there were no "interim accords" or IOF F-16s and these days Hamas government is not obliged legally by "interim accords" and import factory made weapon from abroad and manufacture some domestically. Accords are important, but not really relevant. Do you object "such as ..." addition? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object to it. I just don't understand what purpose it serves. I'm not a big fan of information without context or purpose. Regarding your comment above "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. Attributing the non-combat situation assessment like in the CBS article sounds sensible. If you wanted to put all of the information from the CBS source in the article (slightly reworded) I wouldn't object. I mean this stuff "such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan..->...PCHR's research team".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I object. Unless you include the specific circumstances dont include the specific names. If you want to include both then I am fine with that. But not just one side of a story. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot keep adding language like 'However, CBS noted that PCHR civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" but also Hamas members such as Nizar Rayan and Said Seyam. According to PCHR research team head, top leaders were "assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes", thus in "non-combat situations".' For one thing, the 'however' is you making an assumption that CBS uses this information to dispute the figures. Also, 'CBS noted' that they were killed in massive bombings of their homes, not just the 'PCHR research team'. And even if 'innocent bystanders' is directly taken from the source, it is not needed in the article. We already say that 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' We do not make judgments on anybody's innocence. If you want to expand on the sentence, the way I would find acceptable would be something like this: 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes.' Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I hoped I followed the agreement lines and told both sides of the story. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of the CBS source is that "non-combat situations" attributed to PCHR research team head. From explanations in this discussion, the situation is a part of the reasons for classification. Do you want to propose alternative wording? Let's be constructive and move on. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just gave an 'alternate wording' Nableezy (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. I can not say I love proposed by you wording since it mixes opinions and facts. Opinions should be clearly quoted and attributed. Let me demonstrate how the same event could be described:
 * PCHR: "massive bombing of homes with families"
 * IDF: "pin point attacks on military infrastructure, taking all measures to warn civilians"
 * Both are opinions and I personally can not fully agree or disagree with either of them. I could live without opinions at all and propose factually NPOV: PCHR civilian count included officials with military ties. I hope you do agree on "military conflict" framework of this article. Could you live with that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, bombings of their homes is not an opinion, and again what you want to put in is only one side of the story. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

break


I think Agada has highlighted the root cause of this issue which is the ambiguity of the terms. Or rather it's the ambiguity of whether someone is taking 'a direct part in the hostilities'. Even if you attribute terms to PCHR via something like 'killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' it will still be ambiguous and people may want to expand the sentence, challenge it etc etc. Under Israeli law+their novel interpretation of IHL it seems that civilians who willingly choose to be 'human shields' to protect people taking a direct part in the hostilities are also taking a direct part and can be attacked. Similarly a guy driving a truck delivering ammunition to the place where it will be used in hostilities is taking a direct part and can be attacked. The truck itself with the ammunition is an uncontroversial military target though.

...and the scope for spin, ambiguous or context-free media reporting, confusion over casualty counts and terminology is endless. So, maybe it would be better to say something like


 * The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes. (cite) The IDF regard those particular incidents as attacks against military infrastructure and stated that they had advised residents to evacuate prior to the attacks. (cite)

Having said that, I still don't understand why we are singling out these 2 guys/incidents though. Just because CBS has doesn't mean we should. They're special cases and don't effect the statistics much unlike the policemen part later on. What is the objective here ? Surely we just need to point out that the PCHR and the IDF count casualties differently, briefly say why and describe the norm ? How about something like below....or just delete the whole article apart from the picture of the old lady.


 * The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians and regards "anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas" as "a valid target" according to a Israeli Defence Forces spokesman. Israel's definition of a combatant is broader than any other Western democracy according to Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London. Under international law, combatants include only those "directly engaged in hostilities" although there are differences in the interpretation of "directly engaged in hostilities".[205] (cite the HCJ ruling..hmmm..primary source).

 Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is already explained in the article in the intl law section. And I also see no point to singling out these two. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that. The reason I suggested putting it here is because we've already got "Under international law, combatants include only those directly engaged in hostilities.[205]". If that stays we need to say how the IDF perspective differs from that. So perhaps the solution is simply to say
 * The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians. (see International law section for details) removing the 'Under international law,..' part or something like that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, on 'assessment'. Indeed 'Under international law,..' looks kind of silly in Hamas members context. It's still valid for civil police classification dispute, so the source definitely stays, couple of sentences later. Not sure we need 'Israel does not count ...' addition, looks kind of obvious and redundant. If nobody objects I'm going to implement those yin-yang accords, maybe tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The police issue is another issue, the 'under international law ...' was specifically about counting Hamas members not engaged in hostilities at the time of their killing. So I object to the removal of that sentence in that context. Nableezy (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I clearly respect you minority (on this question) opinion. To me this sentence looks like WP:SYNTH, which is in context of civil police and kind of tries to argue Hamas direct engaging in hostilities, which is WP:UNDUE. Kind of against "don't edit WP just to make your point" rule. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The source brought by Sceptic clearly quotes that PCHR disputes civilian police as "not directly engaged" and not Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the 'Under international law,..', because of reasons above, maybe tomorrow. Seems like rough consensus on this one. Let me know if anyone still objects. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no synth in that sentence, no conclusion that any one source does not draw is made. And the PCHR also included these people, they included them in 'not directly engaged'. Nableezy (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean PCHR included Hamas leaders in "not directly engaged". In which source? If we combine PCHR and BBC then we get Hamas leaders not directly engaged, This is synth, since none of the sources draws this conclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't combining anything. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No source for making "International law ..." relevant in Hamas context. If we ain't combining (coupling), let's remove this sentence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the issue is pretty clear, if politicians or public services could be considered 'combatants' then why in a state of war would not every civlian which contributes to their country be considered a 'combatant'. Etither every civilian in Gasa is a combatant or only armed militatns are- there is no logic in going half way. If Knesset members were killed at home by rockets they would be considered civilians casualties- if members of the US senate died in a bomb attack they would be considered civilian casualties- why then is it not the same for unarmed politicians or members of public services?86.140.120.102 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Anon
 * Hey anon. Thank you for joining this discussion. Generally I think it would improve discussion if you register to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it's NPOV to say that all 1.5 millions living in Gaza are civilians or all 1.5 millions are combatants. Personally I would not think we would like to get there. Do you propose a change or just want a chat? Keep well in any way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mess with casualties' figures according to IDF
There is a mess there, I would like to correct. Figures according to IDF are divided, for reasons I cannot comprehend between two paragraphs. 1. According to first paragraph: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinians as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Third sentence is incorrect citing the source. [10] says that According to the IDF, 162 additional names of men killed during the operation "have not been yet attributed to any organization." (Emphasis by me, Sceptic). I suggest the third sentence is corrected as following: The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] This correction is consistent with previous preliminary casualties' report, published on Feb. 15, 2009, in JPost: The 320 names yet to be classified are all men; the IDF has yet complete its identification work in these cases, but estimates that two-thirds of them were terror operatives. (Emphasis by me, Sceptic) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 2. Second paragraph reads that The IDF stated that they have identified 91 women, 189 were children under the age of 15, 21 elderly men, six UNRWA workers, and two medical workers.[10] This is a mistake. [10] does not say this. This sentence is taken from Haaretz, published on March 25, 2009: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073770.html It is important to notice that Haaretz made this publication day before an official statement from IDF spokesperson. I have no idea where did Haaretz get their figures from and I suggest this sentence will be removed. 3. Instead the latter, I recommend going back to [10], which is consistent with the official statement from IDF spokesperson from March 26, 2009: A total of 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women [10]. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Moreover, I strongly suggest merging this sentence with the three from first paragraph. The entire section should be like this: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] According to IDF, out of 295 Palestinian non-combatants, there are 89 under the age of 16 and 49 women [10]. The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no one reacts, I guess i will incorporate my suggestion in the article during the weekend. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good suggestion, go for it is my reaction.--KMA &quot;HF&quot; N (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Unless anyone has anything to add, this section can be archived. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. There is another piece of information I want to include.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Women count included at least two women who tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Feb 15, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptic, are you proposing adding that to the article ? i.e. that according to someone, I assume it's the IDF via the CLA, the IDF killed 2 female suicide bombers who the PCHR counted as civilians ? That seems like an extraordinary claim. Has it been reported in non-Israeli press ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess you misunderstood a bit. IDF (via the CLA, nevermind) say that in the IDF count of 49 Palestinian women fatalities, 2 terrorist females included. There is no way to check it, cause IDF did not make the list public. We cannot check if those females were included in the PCHR report either, cause no names are provided by IDF. The fact that there were female suicide bombers is documented in the IDF spokesperson site and is reported indirectly here: In an unrelated investigation, it was found that in a similar incident, a woman suspected of being a suicide bomber approached IDF troops, who opened fired at her after repeatedly trying to stop her from advancing. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238409229712&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull The latter was reprinted btw by other sources including this one. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/69413/-idf-damning-cast-lead-accounts-false.html. To sum it up, all I am saying, and I suggest to include it, is that according to IDF, its list of 49 women killed include 2 terrorist females. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no further objections, so I'm making an editing in the article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this belongs to the disputed figures subsection:
 * The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done. The group's Hamdi Shaqoura told Reuters the centre took a long time and employed great efforts to research the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed. He further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite some suggestions. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This section can be archived.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

drive by shootings and reprisal kneecappings
Agada keeps tagging the article for neutrality/factual accuracy/weasel word problems probably for good reason and Cryptonio keeps reverting because driveby tagging without going to talk isn't allowed. They are likely to both be right. What to do ? Do we need the tag ? If so we need to spell out what they are. Okay, I'll start us off by simply making something up. hmmmm....the article is a) clearly biased towards Israel because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was obviously designed to cause maximum civilian casualties/terror and also b) clearly biased towards Hamas because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was designed to ensure that civilians had the best opportunity to see what was happening so that they could avoid getting injured while Israel targeted their oppressors. Carry on.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing inherently wrong with incessant tagging. The point is to draw attention to things so that they can be talked about, and, well, here we are- aren't we? The Squicks (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. Tagging without talk is not allowed. Doing so on a page with discretionary sanctions in place is unwise. From NPOV <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.


 * Missed you all dudes, especially Cryptonio :) There is definite improvement but frankly this article is not FA quality yet. We Shall Overcome, eventually, for sure. I still think that we should encourage editors to improve this article. Let me know if you disagree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this section is here now and you have added a comment I think you automatically evade WP:DRIVEBY. That's what happens when you're civil. I'm in favour of the tag being there too for the time being as there clearly are issues e.g. Dorit Beinisch hasn't got people to change international law and counting casualties yet. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually remove them for aestheticism reasons, pivoting off Agada's 'we should not be denied' dementia. But surely I wouldn't revert Sean. Cryptonio (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean is kind of modern avatar of Titan who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals. And poor me, I had to look up meaning of dementia word. This fact kind of proves your point, Cryptonio ;) Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed figures subsection


There are several additions I think appropriate to the Disputed figures subsection. §1 Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas. In the official statement, IDF made clear that Israel regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009. Israeli Institute for National Security Studies adds further that the civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police are part of the military establishment, as it is under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target. http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 "noncombatant" police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009

§2 IDF claimed that nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. One of the medics is Anas Naim, the nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim (#519 in PCHR list), reported to have been killed on January 4 in the Gaza City. The IDF, however, produced photograph of Naim posing with a Kalashnikov assault rifle that had been posted on a Hamas Web site. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

§3 The PCHR's representative Hamdi Shaqoura reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done in researching the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed; he further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite suggestions from some Israeli security organizations. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Posing with a weapon doesnt mean much, for us here in the states we remember George W in fighter pilot garb announcing that the Iraq War was over. The first part, we should say that Israel considers the police to be legitimate targets (for some reason I thought we did say that), but the from all that I have read most nearly everybody else question the designation. But if there is info missing on the IDF perspective that should certainly be added, but it should not take precedence over what outside observers have said. I think we need to segregate what the Palestinians say, what the Israelis say, and then separately what outside experts say. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The police thing is a perfect example of the problems with this article. News sources have covered humnaitarian issues more than military tactics and reasoning. Attacking the police could be in several other sections of this article since the IDF did consider it a valid target. Like everything else, it has been turned into another way Gazans were the victims. I would love to blame other editors but realistically we are going off RS and more news sources cover what sells (dead babies). Also, too many multiple mentions of anything annoys me due to bloating the article so I guess I am just venting.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we will leave Anas Naim alone. Still, it is important to note that IDF claims nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' This implies btw that classifying them as civilians is deceitful, but we will leave the conclusions to the readers. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That report is also based off the MoH numbers, will place that with women combatants in a sec. Nableezy (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drones
We don't seem to have any mention of the unmanned drones/UAV that were (and are) used extensively in Gaza in the article anymore. They seem notable enough for a brief mention given that they account for quite a lot of the casualties including the cadets (e.g. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/garlasco_li which is also on the HRW site because the authors consult for them). Anyone fancy adding something ? After all apparently "No weapon better symbolizes Israel's indirect occupation of the Gaza Strip"...okay, just kidding...it's from HRW not me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't even need to be in casualties. It is a notable weapon with increased use. If I recall correctly, Israel having drones with rockets wasn't officially verified until this conflict or something interesting like that.Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have link to IDF Youtube site with some drone footages. I and I just bought a huge LCD TV, great disappointment, drone footage not available in HD resolution. And sound - not even stereo. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think this is valuable to the article unless you provide a new section that details weapons and methods of warfare from both sides. BTW, a side remark, for the sake of discussion and not for the sake of article: HRW expert say that "The Israeli blockade of Gaza, tightened in mid-2007 after Hamas took over Palestinian Authority institutions, has created immense hardships on Gaza's civilian population. And just as Israel's control of Gaza's borders allows it to dictate from a safe distance what Gazans can eat, whether they can turn on their lights and what kinds of medical treatment are available to them, drones give Israel the ability to carry out targeted attacks without having to risk "boots on the ground." However, he fails to mention certain things that put this in the proper context. First, Israeli control of Gaza's waters and airspace is accordingly with agreements reached in Oslo accords. Even if Gaza became an independent sovereign state, it is still bound to its prior agreements with Israel respecting Israeli security control, until such agreements revisited. Furthermore, following the disengagement, Israel signed the Crossings Agreement with PA. After the takeover, Hamas announced that it is not committed to any of the agreements between Israel and PA including the latter. Second, Gaza has been unstoppably attacking Israel with rockets, before and after the withdrawal in 2005, before and after the Hamas takeover. The rocketings are acts of war, giving Israel the right to engage in acts of war as self defense. The blockade is a legitimate means of warfare, so long as it abides by the general humanitarian rules of blockades.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how this is really relevant to anything. It seems like a small tidbit or factoid rather than real notable information. And where is the news coverage of the issue? (Not that I have anything at all against the users for bringing it up). The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think a weaponry section would be fantastic. Although some people looks at this conflict as a horrible injustice to human rights (I actually do understand and agree to some extent) this article is also covering a military conflict and should be treated as so when appropriate. Unfortunately, those evil bastards in the media (kidding) have only written about how the weapons kill kids.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Can you pick up the glove? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's relevant and valuable to the article in the same way that the weapons used by Palestinians are relevant and valuable to the article isn't it ? The article deals quite extensively with the weapons used by armed Palestinian groups, rockets and mortars. If the Palestinians were using drones would they be relevant and valuable to the article ? Drones were (and are) one of the key components in this conflict both in terms of surveillance/target selection and for the attacks themselves in some cases. JPost noted just before the conflict "It plays a vital role in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip". They've been used in attacks on civilian and humanitarian/medical targets according to several reports. They play a key role in propaganda/hasbara efforts. They appear quite frequently in media reports outside Israel. They're used in targeted killing which is one of the reasons cited by armed Palestinian groups to justify rocket and mortar attacks. Here's some refs.
 * Quite a nice overview of IDF tactics in Gaza which may be useful in general. Cptnono may like it.
 * Guardian article
 * The Nation/HRW article already mentioned
 * The IDF talking about their central role in operations
 * Here's a BBC piece about the weapon
 * Here's a BBC piece about it's post-ceasefire use. This caught my interest by the way because it's an example of where the IDF would probably count the casualties as combatants where others would count them as non-combatants.
 * I realise that military censorship prevents the Israeli media from talking about attacks by drones but it seems rather odd not to even mention them in this article given their important role and the consequences that follow from their use. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Drunky opens his mouth and you guys ask me to put it where my money is? :) Wanted to mention that Aviation Week has some great info but it will come up with some of the disputes we have with some human rights sources (RS enough but still needs to be used with caution). A really good source to work from and find googlable terms, though, so great find. Are there any bullet points that really jump out? If so, is there a way to work it into sections already in the template we currently have or is a new section better?Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the bullet point is 'drones are good' or 'drones are bad'...one of those 2. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Drones are drones just like tank shells are tank shells. Realistically it is a tool in a war and is designed to kill. Any ethical concerns regarding that aside, any  badness or goodness is at the discretion of the operator. I prefer poop as a munition.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

women combatants


I made a change here that was challenged so I restored the prior wording. But I do have concerns about the wording. I do not see the need to make specific mention of these two women, 'included women combatants' seems to be enough. If the issue is the attempted suicide bombings we can work out better wording then combatants, but I really see no need to make specific mention of 2 unnamed women. Nableezy (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) actually, I am not even sure about the inclusion of the line, it is from old numbers that the IDF later revised. The newest numbers I have seen, and the ones used elsewhere in the article, specifically says 295 combatants, among them 49 women. Beyond the the specific mention of these two women, I am not sure that the numbers that the IDF used include those women which is how the article stands right now. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it into the disputed figures section, and cited it explicitly to the CLA. Also removed specific mention, just said includes "female terrorists" used as a direct quote. Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff doesnt look all that good as I also cleaned up a ref that was taking too much space; the relevant change was removing the line from where it was and including this in the disputed section:

The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi said that of the names the PMoH had released, 580 had been identified as members of a militant group. The CLA also reported that among the women the PMoH had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists." Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence should be deleted, since 580 was merely the preliminary count. We know now that the final figure of those who IDF identified as members of a militant groups is 709. The second sentence is a misunderstanding. It should go like this: The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi reported that among the women the IDF had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists". Placing it in the disputed figures subsection is fine with me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about that, the cite says the CLA was basing their identification off of the PMoH names, not off of the numbers the IDF later gave. Will remove first sentence though. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'said Col. Moshe Levi, the head of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), which compiled the IDF figures.' Basing its work on the official Palestinian death toll of 1,338, Levi said the CLA had now identified more than 1,200 of the Palestinian fatalities. Its 200-page report lists their names, their official Palestinian Authority identity numbers, the circumstances in which they were killed and, where appropriate, the terrorist group with which they were affiliated. You see, your mistake here might serve pro-Israel side even better, but for the sake of fairness this is not the case. Levi refers to the list he compiled.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing. 'Combatant' has a connotation of a legitimate fighter. 'Terrorist' or 'suicide bomber' has a different connotation. CLA claim there were females who tried to blow themselves near the forces. So please be accurate with the wording here. Terrorists is the least I can accept here. Combatant is misleading.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptic, if you can't understand why 'terrorist' is no more or less misleading than 'combatant' then you shouldn't be working on this article because you have a conflict of interest. You should be familiar with WP:WTA by now and so I would urge you to think about why you think "Terrorists is the least I can accept here" and whether that is consistent with our policies and guidelines ? What is the objective ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point in where the names come from is that the IDF final tally is different from the PMoH final tally. The IDF has given a number for total killed, the PMoH has given a different number. The CLA report was analyzing the PMoH report, saying that of the names on that list, we have verified that these people have died and some of the circumstances. The reports that the IDF issued as its numbers says specifically 49 noncombatant women. I find it extremely hard to believe that the IDF would themselves classify women they believed to have been killed in an attempted suicide bombing as noncombatant. As far as the use of the word 'terrorist', the source says they "tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades"; I am sorry, but even a lose definition of the word terrorist does not include attacks on military personnel during an armed conflict. Also, "militant" is the generally preferred NPOV word around here. I would prefer using the word militant, but as long as we specifically cite the "female terrorist" I can deal with it. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the attacks by these females occurred during the conflict, they were combatants in the sense that since Hamas is not a 'standing army' even its 'regulars' can't be called soldiers. This of course by the nature of 'insurgency', to put it mildly in this context of ours.  Terrorist and the hope of its inclusion is the main word that receives minimal attention. Cryptonio (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)One thing we need to try to stop doing somehow is perpetuating the opaque talking-at-cross-purposes in the article e.g. X says "there were 20 civilians and non-combatants". Y says, "No because 10 of those people were terrorists/members of Hamas" etc etc. It's nonsense. It's like X saying there were 20 people sleeping and Y saying "No because 10 of those people belong to a fitness club". X and Y are talking about completely different things. We're not helping readers by allowing this lack of clarity to spread into our article. We need to fix it...somehow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ..another thing we need to stop doing is mixing up 'hasbara' and 'neutral encyclopedic information' because they're not quite the same thing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that 'PMoH had counted as noncombatants were female terrorists' is hasbara. Saying that 'The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Moshe Levi said that among the women there were "female terrorists." is encyclopedic information.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias distinguish between 2 kinds of thing, information (which is supported by evidence) and disinformation. They tend to exclude the latter where possible. In this example it's difficult to tell whether this is information or disinformation. The risk of it being disinformation is 50% for our practical purposes so we should treat it with the respect and weight it deserves which is not much. How do we draw a line that separates neutral encyclopedic information from participating in the disemination of what could be disinformation ? What would help greatly I think and make me feel better about this being included would be if this had been reported on in multiple reliable sources not written by Yaakov Lappin, if the IDF had named the women and provided evidence so that PHCR could respond to the statement which we could then include. As it stands we have no way to balance this statement. Attributing it doesn't really help with that. If there is consensus to include a mention of these 2 women then it's probably wise to also mention that the IDF provided no evidence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence was added (and not by me btw) and I find it appropriate. You might want to add another sentence in this subsection: The Israeli military did not provide list of names to reporters. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wanna leave PMoH? Fine, so be it. I suggest this discussion is resolved.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced POV 'female terrorist' with actual alleged actions by these two females. Cryptonio (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'terrorism' is referred to actions taken. To include that perspective would be POV, instead we can include the actions and let readers decide what to label them.  An encyclopedia shouldn't be a repository of views and 'labels', it is a place of facts and information.  Nothing is set on stone to use a quote that clearly is bent on providing a POV.  Two women are counted as non-combatants and their actions were to blow themselves up.  Even a passive reader, would take from that, that if it is true, the actions of the women constitutes act of aggression or involvement in hostilities, and perhaps, by the narrative, shouldn't be counted as civilian casualties.  What should be added then, and not the 'terrorist' moniker, is the reason given by the PMOH as to why include those two females in their civilian count.  I am reverting this for the last time.  Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the issue here is "body count", a simple sentence that these two females death are disputed is more than enough. If something else is added a balancing act is more than called for then.  Travesty.  Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They aren't disputed. Who are they ? To include anything is POV because it's unverifiable until the CLA publish their list of casualties. Professional journalists from reliable secondary sources that we rely on to fact-check for us can't verify this information until details are published. The PMoH or the PCHR or anyone else can't respond. No evidence has been presented that shows that these woman were suicide bombers and that the PCHR classified them as civilians. That to me is a far bigger problem for an encyclopedia than using the attributed term "female terrorist". The CLA may as well have said that a UFO landed. If we are going to lower the bar for inclusion in this article to this extent then why not just let the IDF and Hamas write it themselves ? It would save time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On point. Cryptonio (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point was to not include specific information on these two? Why these two? What makes them special? There is no encyclopedic value in including the details of 2 casualties. I would ask that you self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, I think it is fair to include criticisms that each side has made of the others numbers. We have the PCHR criticizing the inclusion of police in the IDF militant count, we have the IDF criticizing the PMoH numbers for including people they feel are combatants in the civilian count. I think it is both fair an reasonable to present the information that these numbers are disputed and why. We dont say who is right. Crypt, I reverted you again, please do not include the details on two deaths, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in doing so. Nableezy (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with Nableezy in that it's completely valid to mention criticism of the PCHR about women but it's unneeded infocreep to go into detail about the women. The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think it's fair to include criticisms that each side have made of the others numbers. The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere. Female suicide bombers in Gaza sounds like something journalists might be interested in. I'd like to think it's because journalists try not to publish something unless they can verify it We already say that the IDF's position is that terrorists were counted as civilians. What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere. If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman that said that 2 women in the civilian casualty count were raped and shot by an IDF soldier but the spokesman/story didn't supply any names or evidence that the IDF could use to investigate the claim and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a good point. But we do specify how many females per each source and (i think) classify them as non-combatant. Nableezy (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere.
 * Could you be more specific about what you're getting it here? I'm lost...
 * Sorry Squicks, what I mean is that we need to have sensible criteria to decide when to include information and how specific we get. It needs to be verifiable. We can feel more confident about including something reported by 10 RS than we can about something reported by 1 RS. This story only appears to have been reported by 1 Israeli journalist. Maybe it has been reported in other RS by different journalists. If not why not ? See WP:REDFLAG. I don't know but to me Sceptic should make the effort to demonstrate that this information is reliable as a prerequisite to it's inclusion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere.
 * Yes, exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.


 * If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman... and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ?
 * Isn't this almost exactly the same as the situation that just happened? Haaretz reported some hearsay about some atrocity stories about the IDF that are largely without evidence? The Squicks (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and I would apply the same criteria. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, seems like you simply overlook the initial intent of the piece of info I entered here. It is true that the IDF claim that Palestinian sources count militants as civilians is mentioned in the article. But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. Now someone had edited the sentence again, in a unreadable way. Finally, why don't you distinguish between 'to engage in hostility' and 'try to explode'? I fail to understand. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jan 14, 2004 - Four Israelis - three soldiers and one civilian - were killed and 10 wounded when a female suicide bomber detonated a bomb at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed joint responsibility for the attack. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm?DisplayMode=print would you call this woman as 'engaged in hostilities' against zionist entity?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * cmon, nobody said 'zionist entity', no need for the perceived hostility. An attack on a military location during an armed conflict can hardly be called a terrorist act. I said I was fine with the direct qoute "female terrorist" others objected. I also think that the proper word to use is militant, that is the generally preferred word representing a neutral medium between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"/"martyr" (and if need be I can probably find a source describing the women as a martyr). Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptic, 'hostilities' is just a standard term like 'civilian' or 'combatant' from the Geneva Conventions. Could you explain this a bit more ? I don't follow you.
 * But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I actually was the one who read the source differently, and had meant to ask somebody else to read it and let us know what they make of it, but got sidetracked by the above. The source is here. I read it as the CLA issuing a report based off the PMoH names released and made the noted observations. The IDF later issued a final tally and made a specific mention of 49 "female non-combatants" here. My contention is the CLA info is saying the PMoH numbers included these "female terrorists", not the numbers released by the IDF. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'female terrorists' is fine, 'women who tried to explode themselves near forces' is fine. However, saying about someone wearing civil cloth and an explosive belt under it as 'someone who is engaged in hostilities' is wrong. You can say that Hamas perceives it as a legitimate way to resist the occupation. But this definition will not stand up to the standards of Geneva Convention, won't it? Again, we have no solid evidence it actually happened, this is why attributing the words to CLA is important. But it is important to understand that he was not talking about militants engaged in hostilities, instead he specifically mentioned cases of women terrorists.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox rethink ?
How about changing the infobox casualties and losses info from

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR),[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10] Militants and policemen: 491* (PCHR),[9] 709 (IDF)[10] Civilians: 926 (PCHR),[9] 295 (IDF)[10] Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR),[9]

to

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR)[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10] "Combatants" 236 (PCHR)[9] "Hamas terror operatives" 709 (IDF)[10] "Civilians and non-combatants": 1181 (PCHR)[9] * "Uninvolved Palestinians" 295 (IDF)[10] "Men not attributed to any organization" 162 (IDF)[10] Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR)[9]

Why ?


 * This approach is closer to the sources and the terminology they use which I suggest we put in quotes. I also suggest we cite this IDF primary source in addition to the JPost secondary source as a reference for the IDF figures.
 * The classifications used by the PCHR and the IDF are utterly different. The PCHR classification approach is based on International Humanitarian Law. The IDF classification approach is based on whether someone is a "Hamas terror operative" and that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target". We need to make this clearer somehow.
 * PCHR classify casualties as either 'civilians' or 'militants' in their named list of casualties. People whose occupation is listed as 'Policemen' are classified as either 'Civilian' or 'Militant' presumably depending on whether they were assessed as non-combatants at the time e.g. #49 a Policeman is classified as a 'Civilian' whereas #50 another Policeman is classified as a 'Militant'. I suggest we follow the same schema for the PCHR figures. Note that I've added the 255 'non-combatant' policemen to the civilian total and note that there are 282 policemen in total (civilian+militant) in the named list. PCHR use the term 'Combatant' in their press release and 'Militant' in their named list to describe the same type of casualty. I suggest we use 'Combatant' because it's less ambiguous (even though it's technically incorrect) or alternatively we could use 'Combatant/Militant'.
 * The IDF use different classifications. "Hamas terror operatives" is used to describe casualties who they say were members of militant organizations. They don't say what those people were doing at the time they were attacked so they can't be classifed using a standard combatant/non-combatant approach. They describe civilians as "Uninvolved Palestinians" and then there are the men they haven't classified.

The bottomline for me is that we need to do something to make it clearer to readers that the PCHR and IDF are neither counting or describing casualties the same way. Thoughts ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree 100% with the bottom line, this must be described clearer, putting the categories into quotation marks seems to me to be too unusual for a military history article and I'm not sure about doing it. The Squicks (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Disagree, the infobox is in wiki's neutral voice and should use neutral descriptors, not each sides chosen language. But a bigger concern to me is juxtaposition of the PCHR nos and the IDF nos, the IDF nos are more easily compared with the MoH nos (each sides government nos) whereas the PCHR is an independent (if not neutral) institution. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that we "should use neutral descriptors, not each sides" is dead on. But I don't agree at all about the PCHR verses MoH distinction. PCHR is a pro-Palestinian political action group. It is completely focused on one side. (Iin terms of the exact numbers, they are close to the MoH anyway).
 * The ideological point/counterpoint application of NPOV here means that the PCHR is a good counter for the IDF. If there was a pro-Israel political activist group that came up with its own count contradicting the IDF, then things would be different. The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats why I said 'if not neutral', they certainly do focus on Palestinian issues. But they are not associated with the government. I do however think the PCHR nos are more reliable than the MoH nos so it isnt a huge deal to me, just putting an independent organizations nos next to a governments nos seems off. But again, it isnt a huge deal to me. Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One way of making clear that they are counting differently is not having militants and police combined; for the IDF nos have combatants and police, for the PCHR nos have police and non-combatants. Info on why they are counted differently is in the casualties section. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think of the MoH point. Good point but I'm not sure it matters as you say. The problem for me is that it just doesn't seem to be possible to use a standard wiki approach with neutral descriptors without lengthy qualification/explanation e.g. a PCHR 'militant/combatant' is not the same thing as an IDF 'combatant/militant', a PCHR 'civilian' is not the same thing as an IDF 'civilian' etc etc. We have to deal with that. It seems to be difficult to avoid introducing ambiguity unless we use the language of the sources or at least terms that unambiguously represent the meaning of the terms in the sources e.g. IDF says "Hamas terror operative", we could say "Member of militant group". I see the neutrality of terminology here as less important than ensuring that the terms we use (and hence the figures) are meaningful and unambiguous. The IDF have been quite careful in their use of language/terminology in their press releases/statements. It's difficult to avoid distorting things and misrepresenting what the IDF have said unless we are equally careful to use language that mirrors the IDF usage i.e. member of Hamas etc/uninvolved/uncategorized. As for the police, neither side treat Policeman as a seperate category so I'm not sure we should either. The PCHR put 255 policemen in the 'civilian+non-combatant' category and 27 policemen in the 'combatant/militant' category and policemen are "Hamas terror operatives" to the IDF. Anyway, my proposal was kind of an extreme starting point position. The key thing to avoid as far as I'm concerned is using the same word to describe different things. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lengthy qualifications is what the casualties section is for. As long as we say the IDF says x civilians and the PCHR says y civilians I think it is clear that we are their definition of civilian. We can break those definitions down in the casualties section. I dont want to treat policemen as a separate cat, just combine them with militants for the IDF (as they do) and civilians for the PCHR (as they do) and say militants and combatants for the idf nos and militants and non-combatants for the PCHR nos. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree more with Sean here. It should be clear from the infobox that the two groups have different defintions of the same terms.


 * In the Wikipedia voice, something like 'Member of Militant Group' verses 'Combatant' works well, IMHO. The Squicks (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Im cool with that, but think it should say includes police for where each respective side includes them. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't any reader who sees the term 'Member of Militant Group' automatically think that it includes all members? By definition, wouldn't it include police? The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think so, given that the PCHR counts police as civilians. I would typically associate police with civil service, part of the government not the 'military', in this case 'militant group' Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If we are going mention policemen specifically then I'm in favour of retaining the '* <some comment about policemen>' but not the current comment because it's a bit misleading. PCHR don't treat policemen any differently from the way they treat taxi drivers, students or anyone else in their list. It's just an occupation and they assign either civilian or militant status to policemen on a case by case basis. So the note '*255 policemen were killed (240 during initial airstrikes)' should perhaps be '*includes 255 policemen' and the PCHR combatants figures would have '*includes 27 policemen'....we would need to add the ref for the named list of casualties. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would also associate police with civil service and most and foremost the force that preserves law and order. Like for instance stop dudes which fire rockets not really in accordance with International Law. Local laws might be different and more valid, what's considered illegal, even by international law, might be legal locally. So police for instance might preserve law and order in which dudes could continue firing since it's right and legal thing to do. Welcome to cognitive relativism, Nableezy. And there are plenty of RS reporting about Hamas police catching thieves and burglars. As for armed force part, here is reliable source which describes Hamas police starting laying down law in streets of Gaza, aftermath of event described by this article as 2007 Hamas military victory. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556185/Hamas-police-lay-down-law-in-Gaza.html
 * Hamas has bolstered the police force with about 400 members of its so-called Executive Force and militants on loan from its armed wing, the Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades.
 * They (policemen) slammed ammunition magazines into the butts of AK47s and piled into blue police Jeeps, pickup trucks and a battered white van with no side door.
 * During this conflict, in a matter of days after cease-fire declaration, RS reported Hamas police was back on street in full blue uniform and armed with AK47s.
 * Prior to this conflict intensification, Hamas declared end of cease-fire, making rocket fire (considered illegal by international law) an official policy. It might be reasonable to consider that Hamas armed forces were providing security infrastructure (law and order) for implementing this governance policy. I'm not an international law expert, but according to civilian article, armed forces members unconditionally excluded. Armed forces term does not include police force unconditionally though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a simple as Local laws might be different and more valid, what's considered illegal, even by international law, might be legal locally. Other states have legal obligations to uphold international law in other countries not just their own which is why it is possible for a human rights group to take the UK to court for failing to take action to ensure that international law is applied in the occupied territories. States can't just step out of the system and do anything they want....in theory. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you suggest that it is not an obligation of Hamas/police force in Gaza under International Law to stop violations, like rocket fire? Who's responsibility is it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agada, that you don't read this article is non-forgiving. Check it.


 * "Rocket fire decreased by 98 percent in the four and a half months between June 18 and November 4 when compared to the four and a half months preceding the ceasefire.[65] Hamas denied responsibility for the rocket fire during the 'lull'. However, Human Rights Watch reported that while Hamas security forces demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire, some people detained for firing rockets were summarily released without explanation. [57]"


 * Challenge that man. Cryptonio (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cryptonio, thank you for acknowledging Hamas has some responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. I guess the point of my comment was that while rocket fire is against International Law the problem is that some people detained for firing rockets were summarily released. Normally I would expect that court legal system should deal with such people. And there are courts in Gaza, independent of Israeli legal system. Unfortunately both for people of Gaza and for people of Israel, violence against Israelis is OK and legal under Hamas law, also when the violence crosses line of International Law. Hamas police force is armed with AK47s to preserve this kind of law and order. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both sides are breaking international law according to someone. Both sides need to stop according to someone. I think we say that in the article but probably not briefly enough... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This started as what we should be writing in the infobox, can we get back to that? Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oka, one more and then back to the infobox. You know Agada, I won't extend here.  The Israeli operation wanted to accomplish with military action, what the ceasefire achieved without a bullet fired from either side.  Yes, of course, you will know say that even ONE rocket that falls in the pits of useless terrain(desert) is ONE too many rockets that the people of southern Israel is willing to accept.  SO they sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and increase the danger on the civilian in order to stop ONE rocket a month from Hamas.  This, of course could be viewed from a different angle, specially since this operation was in the making almost from the day the ceasefire took place in june(yes, it seems as if both sides really meant it as a ceasefire.  Yes the men firing rockets were released, after being detained.  were you part of the investigation etc? but even more importantly, ONE person could have fired those 5 rockets that landed in Israel during the first four months of the ceasefire.  YES ONE PERSON COULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED AND LATER RELEASE AFTER SOME LASHINGS(as is the custom in backward law system as is the case of Palestinian 'redneck' justice').  Thanks for making dull that sticking point of men being released after firing 5 rockets at israel, at the same time, mind you, that Israel was getting jiggy wit it.  Cryptonio (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Palestinians are anaologous to the rednecks, than what does that make the Israelis? Are the Middle East's latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, Obama-supporting metrosexual limosine liberal elitists? The Squicks (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is the most wily, witty, jocund, genius thing you have every posted in here. I don't even have time to laugh is making me feel so good in the inside.  I was beginning to think you were a robot or something.  Nicely done.  Cryptonio (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we separate a title for Smuggling Tunnels
Do smuggling tunnels need a standalone title. Some sources for Smuggling Tunnels. a recent Al Jazeera article says the tunnels are used for consumer goods impossible to acquire due to Israel's blockade.Gaza's tunnel economy stumbles by Al Jazeera, for the situation in 2003 Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF Kasaalan (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That info belongs in the articles Blockade of Gaza and 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links, also Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists, I will try to add information there too, but Blockade of Gaza has a wider scope, yet we should add this as a separate title in a summary style here too, since it is extremely important case and deserves its own title. Kasaalan (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Blockade and Tunnels

Past


 * Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF 2003 comic story
 * Palestinians face Gaza hardships 2006 article
 * Capturing Gaza's Hell TIME Multimedia 2006 photo story about situation in Gaza

Recent


 * Gaza's tunnel economy stumbles by Al Jazeera

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop arguing about the real world issues here?
In no less than 3 sections on this page right now there are ongoing arguments about the real world issues that this article is supposed to cover. Now while many of you are very smart and articulate, I think we would all be better off not getting into who or what is actually right and focus on the article and the sources. We really dont need to have arguments on what is a civilian, what is a legitimate target, why Hamas or Israel are evil, why the sky is blue, or why cant the Bulls make a layup. Can we please try to restrict the discussion here to specific changes in the article based on reliable sources? Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the general tone of your post, I don't see how it is possible to completely disintangle the broader issues from the article. Wikipedia guidelines are based on avoiding undue weight and presenting both sides for a neutral point of view. The 'Who is a civilian' commentary has gotten completely off track, but the central question- 'How do we weigh the IDF position when it is so contrary to what the rest of the world thinks? Is this non-neutral to give them so much attention?' is completely germane. The Squicks (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You said it better than me, we can talk about the issues as it relates to the article, but lets try to not argue about the actual issues. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is civillian and who is not is the core of the discussions. That is why the numbers differs, don't they. Kasaalan (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter. We say the numbers differ and what each side says is the correct definition, with outside views from notable third parties where possible. We dont argue over and decide which side is actually right. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree on the casualty stats. There isn't any right and wrong here. There are different methods that produce different results and those methods have different levels of support. We just have to explain it a bit and leave it alone. It's pointless to include information from sources that try to discredit one method by using the other method. It's like arguing about whether red or blue is better. It's red. As for arguing about the real world issues, I suppose it's unavoidable when the words we use often have ambiguous meanings in the real world and our RS are using the same terms in different ways. This is especially the case if people simply splice together strings of words from different reliable sources and assume that the meaning and information content is preserved unchanged. Examples would be to assume that HRW 'armed forces of a party to a conflict' = IDF 'Hamas armed forces' or to assume that ICRC 'directly engaging in hostilities' = IDF 'directly engaging in hostilities' or to assume that ICRC 'military target' = IDF 'military target' or to assume that HRW 'human shield' = IDF 'human shield' and on and on endlessly culminating probably in an utterly pointless discussion of what 'occupied' means. Whenever we use these terms, rather than pointlessly arguing over who is right we need to either very briefly explain the difference in interpretation or avoid the terms and use different words. 'Civilian' is one of the worst as it means different things to different people in different contexts which I assume is why the IDF prefer "uninvolved Palestinian". What I would like to see is a ban on all advocacy and moralising and a lot more 'writing for the enemy'. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The general tone of the Nableezy post is fine with me. However, I usually disagree with what some of the participants say, and this thread is no exeption. Small example. 'Who is civillian and who is not is the core of the discussions. That is why the numbers differs, don't they', asks Kasaalan. No, they don't. And this is not the core of the discussion. The core of the discussion is who really were killed and by whom. The article mentions the name 'Abu Zakaria al-Jamal'. I could not find him on PCHR list. Maybe you can?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That isnt the core of the issue either, the core issue is what do RSs say about the topics and how we should incorporate that into the article. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. Couldn't help teasing a bit. My constant thought is how to incorporate more reliable info in the article, to make it better. I got one problem. A lot of iseful (in my view of course) info can be found on NGO sites like INSS, that present authentic reliable information. That info doesn't make it to the mainstream RSs. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Reports and News

 * Human Rights Watch Reports, Rain of Fire, Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza (2009) (PDF, 6.08 MB) and Indiscriminate Fire, "Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip" (2007) (PDF, 4.11 MB)

First of all I am against removing HRW report from links, because their reports are high quality and referring civillian issues, while they don't even fond of Hamas. Under Cover of War Hamas Political Violence in Gaza Also a 2007 indiscriminate fire report should be added as a link, since the report explains happens before the crisis.

Second as a third party sources the relevant reports from all big Human Rights Organisations should be added including HRW, PCHR, Btselem or UN constitutions OCHAOPT


 * Israel Gaza Strike Main Page
 * Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) Events of 2008 World Report Chapter: Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (PDF)


 * Israel/Egypt: Choking Gaza Harms Civilians US, EU, Security Council Should Demand Greater Access for Food and Fuel
 * Israel/Gaza: International Investigation Essential UN Should Ensure Impartial Inquiry Into Serious Violations by Both Sides
 * Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City Effect of 155mm Artillery Indiscriminate in Populated Areas
 * Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes Indiscriminate Attacks Caused Needless Civilian Suffering
 * Key points by labour.net UN: Gaza Humanitarian Situation Report


 * UNOSAT: Damage Assessment Overview For The Gaza Strip
 * UNOSAT: Damage Assessment Overview For Gaza City - Update 1

Do main page map includes above update. Kasaalan (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Female terrorists and medics - time to reach resolution
1. As I said on numerous occasions, CLA intent was to point out there were female terrorists, who tried to blew themselves up near the forces. You can not misquote him and argue they were female combatants or women engaged in hostilities. This is because someone who is not wearing uniform and hides an explosive belt beneath civilian cloth do not fit that paraphrase. They can be referred as women terrorists. This is what IDF argues and it belongs to disputed figures subsection. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Another current sentence in the article is: 'The CLA also stated that 9 of the 15 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives".' This is disinformation. If you read carefully the article, you will see that it should be either 'CLA also stated that 9 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives".' or 'CLA also stated that 9 of the 15 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives", while in [some] other cases the reports of [medics'] deaths turned out to be false'. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

3. The update on the medics' issue: An IDF investigation, conducted by Col. Erez Katz, focused on the targeting of health facilities, vehicles and medical teams. The probe discovered that out of seven medical personnel claimed to have been killed by the IDF, five were Hamas operatives, including a nephew of the Hamas health minister. Two were civilians. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Four editors in my estimation were against(or showed disinclination - Myself, Sean, Nableezy and Squicks) the simplest of mention of these two females whatever. So i wouldn't keep on pushing this without further support in addition to you.


 * 2. I don't care for your hair splitting. In a civil decor, I have no objection to your 'clarification'.


 * 3. And the song remain the same. Do as you please in this matter. Cryptonio (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. For now, women terrorists go down. Medics will be updated according to #3.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick clarification though. It says Hamas Health Minister.  Is that as in Gaza Health Minister or as in Four Stars General in charge of major surgery for the Hamas military wing? Cryptonio (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Health Minister in Gaza. http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/51-2009.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course this won't be counted as evidence, but attempts of sucide attacks are reported below on Jan. 6 and 10. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Aerial_strike_weapon_development_center+_Gaza_28-Dec-2008.htmSceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would love to see that clarification in the article, even if it says Hamas Health Minister in the source. Perhaps put it in brackets or something accommodating of that nature.  As I write this i haven't check your second para, but as i close this i will check out what you took the time posting for us to see, i'm sure is of some worth.  Thanks bud.  Cryptonio (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway I won't be doing it now. Maybe tomorrow or on Sunday. No problem, Na'im senior will be addressed properly.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue of legitimacy of attacks on the police
I know everyone is tired of the matter. However, this is the most comprehensive definition issued by HRW: Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center present evidences, indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to add the Israeli claim that these police stations are militants. But we do not make the judgment that those claims are true. Can you find a better source (reliable third party), I can in the morning if you dont get to it. Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptic, I think this kind of misses the point. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center doesn't make legal decisions for the IDF so I don't see what this adds to anything. The IDF have their own lawyers who authorise these kind of attacks and can speak for themselves. The IDF have explicitly said that anyone and anything affliated with Hamas is a legitimate target as far as they are concerned. Whether that is formally or informally is of no interest to them. See ref 206. They are complying with their interpretation of international humanitarian law. In fact they believe that if you do something often enough it becomes legal as stated just a few days ago by the head of the Israeli Supreme Court in her campaign to get international law changed. The ILD (IDF's international law division) authorised the attack against the cadets "with no difficulty" because of their "categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals". They were not regarded as police. They were regarded as part of the "enemy's armed force". The ILD approach is that "the way Hamas operates is to use the entire governmental infrastructure for the organization's terrorist purposes". The ILD have all sorts of interesting opinions that determine what the IDF can do e.g. "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting". This is a piece about the ILD and the source of my quotes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ..so in summary, anyone can be categorized as part of a resistance force if necessary and then killed legally from the IDF perspective. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's make it sentence by sentence. The current sentence in the article says that 'Under international law, combatants include only those directly engaged in hostilities'. And later, 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, and if police officers do engage in hostilities they may only be attacked while doing so. I suggest to replace it with the more comprehensive definition, provided by HRW as well: 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.' This has an important distinction, absent before: '... unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict'. I want to include it in the article. Objections?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the official statement, IDF made clear that Israel regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009. I want to include it in the article. Objections?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli Institute for National Security Studies adds further that Israel sees the civilian police in Gaza as part of the military establishment. http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center presents evidences, indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both organizations has nothing to do with the IDF. The latter presents some examples that are supposed to provide basis to the Israeli claims that police in Gaza is actually incorporated in 'resistance forces'. It has authentic names, photos, publications. I don't think these are cited elsewhere. In my opinion, it is important to provide it to the reader of the article, so he can understand better the Israeli view on the matter. Right now, the subsection leaves an impression that attacks on the police were wrong. This is to balance it. I abstain from inserting a conclusion whether these attacks are justified or not, but I think it is important to present Israeli view, including access to evidence.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have objections in principal. It's the details I'm concerned about. HRW are using legal speak. What do they mean by 'armed forces' ? Are Hamas legally defined as 'the armed forces of a party to a conflict' ? I doubt it given that that would make them an army and give them combatant status under international law with all the benefits that go with that. The HCJ (and everyone) have explicitly stated that terrorists are not and can never be combatants legally. An armed Hamas guy firing a machine gun directly at an IDF soldier is at that moment legally defined as a civilian, not a member of the armed forces, not entitled to POW status and not entitled to protection anymore as a civilian because they are trying to kill someone. So my understanding of the HRW statement is that police can be attacked if a) they are formally part of the armed forces=military or b) they've lost their protection as civilians because they are fighting. IHL is black and white, no gaps, you are either a) a combatant=army or b) a civilian=not army. Every Palestinian is a civilian all the time, no exceptions. If they fight they can be captured or killed under IHL.
 * You see, you yourself are falling into interpretations. This is not our task, isn't it? I guess that those who are times more proficient than us can not resolve it unequivocally.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Right now, the subsection leaves an impression that attacks on the police were wrong". If the subsection indicates that the attacks on the police who were not directly engaged in hostilities are regarded as illegal under the norms of IHL according to pretty much everyone apart from Israel it would be accurate. That is the key point. There's a difference between IHL and IDF's version of IHL. Let's make sure we don't make a false balance here. We should explain the Israeli view of course but please let's keep the hasbara and legal stuff in general to a minimum. Israel is a state that has legalised assassination. They are exceptional in their views of what is legal. Let's not forget that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, Sean, leave the 'hasbara' alone. You agree we are entitled to present Israeli view of things, are you not? I have already said what I suggest. To insert the more comprehensive definition by HRW (without interpretations); to insert quote from official IDF statement; to insert INSS report, presenting evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. Each reader would judge for himself. Agreed?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the article. "The IDF justified the strike, which killed at least 40 trainees, claiming that Gaza police were 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. [212]"


 * That IDF says "We can attack those policemen who 'moonlight'(as per actual source, if not 212 somewhere around here) as Hamas operatives". HRW in turn says, what it says there.  We are not judging this thing, we are simply stating what has been stated.  If there is a magic lawful wan, that will give 'you' peace of mind at night, then use it.


 * Now this "To insert the more comprehensive definition by HRW (without interpretations); to insert quote from official IDF statement; to insert INSS report, presenting evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. Each reader would judge for himself. " is already included in the article. The problem here is as it may seem, is this "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." But notice that this explanation (and counter points) only covers the policemen(or the trainees rather) that were killed

at the start of the conflict. I don't see how it extends to the actual disputed 'overall' casualty count.


 * In other words, HRW are not actively engaged in 'helping' actual policemen that were or were not killed while engaging in combat. Cryptonio (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't see any objections over this "'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.'" Stronger language is always encouraged. No need, IMP to include how international standards would influence Hamas and its operatives. THe little HRW protection or wording matters very little in actual circumstances. I believe that the current sentence already in the article that says "policemen are target if they are engaging in combat" more than adequately gives Palestinian view point etc. Cryptonio (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any objections over this "'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.'"


 * If you look back into the archives, you can see that I strongly disagreed with that wording (I think others did as well), but we were overruled. Personally, I had strongly argued for "Groups such as ____ interpret international humanitarian law as saying that police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities." for NPOV balance... but I deferred to the consensus. The Squicks (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sceptic, if you point out a public perception problem based on morality and characterise it as an impression that attacks on the police were wrong and then seek sources/edit in order to explain that it wasn't wrong, that is hasbara because it 'seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified'.


 * Now, as for the proposed edits. I have no objections to something like "According to HRW, under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes."


 * As for interpretation, the legal term "armed forces of a party to a conflict" is a direct word for word quote from the Third Geneva Convention. It's not 'my interpretation' that Hamas are not legally defined as "armed forces of a party to a conflict". It's the legal opinion of Israel's Supreme Court.


 * "The terrorists and their organizations, with which the State of Israel has an armed conflict of international character, do not fall into the category of combatants. They do not belong to the armed forces, and they do not belong to units to which international law grants status similar to that of combatants. Indeed, the terrorists and the organizations which send them to carry out attacks are unlawful combatants. They do not enjoy the status of prisoners of war".


 * So I would say that there should be due care, attention and explanation given when quoting legal terms because they can be misused, misunderstood and quoted out of context. Once again, just like 'civilian' we have the same words being used with different meanings in different contexts. When that happens I think it is part of our role to interpret and disambiguate them for readers if we can or we will find ourselves unwittingly participating in a shitstorm of misinformation and propaganda from both sides. As for www.terrorism-info.org.il and Israeli Institute for National Security Studies I regard them as pretty worthless sources. The IDF's lawyers very clearly and eloquently spelled out their position on this specific attack (and many other issues) in the Haaretz article. It seems like the perfect source to me to explain Israels official position on this matter. These are the guys who actually authorised the attack. There's no complicated legal word games about incorporation or whether they are "armed forces of a party to a conflict" as per the Third Geneva Convention and therefore automatically entitled to POW status etc. They just come straight out and say that they "are the equivalent of the army".


 * The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. "Underlying our rationale was the way Hamas used the security forces," says a senior ILD figure. "Actually, one can look at the totality as the equivalent of the enemy's armed force, so they were not perceived as police. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target."...my bolding


 * It doesn't really matter whether INSS has evidence that policeman Y was in Hamas etc because the ILD have already said information about individuals wasn't used for their legal decision. It also doesn't matter whether the INSS thinks the police were incorporated etc because their opinion is worthless compared to the IDF's lawyers when it comes to explaining Israel's position. This is what I mean about keeping hasbara and the legal stuff to a minimum. Why not keep it simple and just let the IDF's lawyers speak for themselves based on the Haaretz piece ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:34, 24 April 2009 (
 * Sean, seems like we are making progress here. 1. If we include in the subsection 'disputed figures' ILD decision that you provided, this is a good start to present the Israeli view on the subject. 2. It is true that IDF does not need some NGOs or anybody to make decisions. Still, what's the use of presenting someone's view based on nothing? INSS provides, as I said, some evidencies that support this view. I repeat, all this evidencies are meant to say one major statement: in Gaza, police is routinely incorporated in the Hamas' military wing. INSS report is all about that. It indeed presents some indivisuals with double affiliation, but it has much more. You want to make it simple? So do I. I suggest two things. First, to include the full definition, citing HRW. period. next paragraph. Second, to say that IDF perceives Hamas as body that uses security forces in Gaza as the equivalent of the army, citing Haaretz. Since IDL's quotation in Haaretz are plain words, I want to include some evidence from NGO INSS, saying that INSS report provide evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sean's right on the money. My personal concern is not that information should not/ should be be included. I'm just worried about putting thes arguements in the voice of Wikipedia. Something like The police are civilians or its twin The police are combatants are simply not acceptable. Something like According to ___, the police are defined as non-combatants if ___ is well worth including. The Squicks (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. That is what we are talking about. The question is, do you think it is appropriate to insert that according to INSS report, evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)