Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 51

Geneva Convention/Protocol I
I am proud to announce that Protocol I of 1977 was inserted to WikiSource and can be cited. I would add some wikilinks to the articles. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags in infobox
Hamas are the elected government of Gaza, just as Kadima are of Israel, so why do the 'commanders' of those one side have Israeli flags in the infobox, and the other Hamas flags? Shouldn't it be either Kadima flags vs Hamas flags, or Israel flags vs Gaza (ie PNA) flags? The latter is the convention, of course, seen in articles such as World War 2 and others, so I would recommend changing the Hamas flags to PNA flags. Rayizmi (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Does Kadima have an army of its own? In PNA however we have Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other countless fractions, all having an armed group of its own. Besides, there are separate governments in the West Bank and in Gaza. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the proper way to have the flags in the infobox is to use the IDF flag for the Israeli commanders, that would provide some sort of consistency with the Hamas flags. Nableezy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be appropriate - IDF is the army of the state of Israel and it is under state's full control. This is something that couldn't be said about armed groups in PNA - they were not bound by any sort of control even before the 2007 split. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about MOS. Looking at a few actual articles I notice that, when there is only one belligerent on a side they either don't include commanders flags at all like in Siege of Madrid, Battle of Gettysburg and the epic Battle of Duck Lake or they use the country/organization flag like in Battle of Liège and Battle of Kursk.  I think it is kind of stupid to see ten Soviet flags like in Battle of Stalingrad but it does make some sense on the other side with commanders from different states. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a consequence of having one of the lamest flags in the world for his country, JGG is against the use of both flags and infoboxes (his opposition to the infobox is that every one involving his country would say decisive defeat of Canada) Nableezy (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think they keep on losing Russians in hockey because of the flag? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well since you asked, I guess we should keep the flags for Hamas since the infobox says there are other parties on their side. I'd be fine eliminating the Israeli flags although I'm sure some people would be unhappy for the asymmetry so I guess we may as well keep them all.  Actually I wonder if we should include figures from the other parties we mention (Al-Aqsa, PFLP, IJ).  I noticed the other battle articles tend to list the commanders for all parties on each side, even the minor ones, like the Stalingrad example I gave.  Although I'm sure some users would think that upsets balance/POV/karma and I really don't care that much.

But I also have to say that I kind of like our flag. It is not as lame as Nableezy's own flag of Wisconsin which I believe inspired the Village People. I also don't think there are articles that say decisive defeat of Canada. Canada usually fights alongside allies. In fact I think Nableezy "forgot Poland". I'm just saying. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know how many times I have to repeat myself (maybe the snow is blurring your vision), but I am not a Wisconsinite. I have two flags. Now go shovel the sidewalk (typical summer day in Canada. Nableezy (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't have to shovel my driveway -- in Socialist Canada the Army does that for us. If there was an infobox the Blizzard of 1999 article would say "decisive Canadian victory".  Secondly, your flags are all kind of lame.  The only good thing is that the flag of Illinois has a flag of British Columbia in the background. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note, Chicago has a wonderful flag. Wait a minute... is that blue bars and 6 pointed stars! In all seriousness, Google searches will pull up a couple different ones for the Gaza Strip but I honestly don't know what flies atop buildings there. Anyone know or is that original research?Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think that's come up before without a good answer.  Hopefully Google will smuggle a street view camera through a tunnel soon.  WP should probably talk about PNA (West Bank) and PNA (Gaza) --JGGardiner (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, since total strength of armed forces in Gaza relies on other factions as well, I think it is a good idea to have a flag and a representative of those. And of course if we have the flags of Palestinian groups, we keep the Israeli flag too. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

→As for the army strength, [http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3034 one reinforced division was used in Cast Lead: three paratroop/infantry brigades and one armored brigade, plus supporting artillery and special units such as engineering and intelligence. This hardly constituted a "massive assault."]. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel broke the Cease fire
I think it should be noted that Israel broke the ceasefire by attacking tunnels that went into Israel or Egypt. Either way, Israel broke the ceasefire. I'm pretty sure Rick Sanchez of CNN reported this...for about 4 seconds at the end of a piece on the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.222 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is was there ceasefire at all? I think it has been recently discussed extensively, I hope we will not go through this again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I nevertheless went to see what ITIC has to say on the issue. Escalation in the Gaza Strip: the IDF operated inside the Gaza Strip near the security fence to prevent the abduction of soldiers. - 'Since the lull arrangement went into effect on June 19, 2008, the Palestinian terrorist organizations have violated it scores of times , primarily by firing rockets and mortar shells. Occasionally rogue terrorist organizations have been responsible for the violations, among them networks belonging to Fatah, the PIJ and the Army of Islam. Hamas, for its part, did not take part in rocket and mortar shell fire and sometimes prevented other organizations from attacking, although it did not confront them directly and massively or end their continued violations.'; Significant erosion of the lull arrangement in the Gaza Strip. Funny, isn't it - IDF takes action to prevent abduction of the soldiers and kills several militants, then Hamas sends dozens of rockets on civilian population - and the whole world sees Israel as the side that violated the ceasefire by attacking tunnels. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The present scale of smuggling activity is similar to the pre-lull times. Egypt attempts to prevent the smuggling, however, so far it has been unable to reduce its scale significantly. Published on 21 August, 2008. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Following the provocation from the anonymous IP, I decided to add 2 things about the lull:
 * 1) There is a sentence that says ITIC noted that "Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire" until November 4. It somewhat puzzled me that ITIC praised Hamas without any reservations. Then, after reading its reports above, I realized that there are numerous other fractions in Gaza, like Islamic Jihad and Fatah's al-Aqsa brigades, that made attempts of disrupting the ceasefire. So, even though most violations before Nov. 4 came from Hamas, Hamas did little to confront those dissidents. It is unclear whether HRW referrs to Hamas men who broke the lull or men of other fractions. I won't insist too much about it, but I'd like to know what others think.
 * 2) As you know, Israel insisted that the agreement includes an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza. One of the reports above says that in fact Hamas's military buildup actually intensified. It is true that the article says that Israel accused Hamas of smuggling, but I wanted to emphasize that the smuggling rates remained almost the same as before. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * on 1, the report is saying other those from other factions where on occasion summarily released. 2, get a RS that makes that statement of fact, terrorism-info doesnt cut it. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * terrorism-info is a notable source (JGG showed it just 2 days ago) and presents authentic info; i still don't get this policy when mass-media gets more credit than academic sources. As a result I spend hours of my life trying in vain to show actual mistakes in BBC. And i am absolutely sure this is not the last time someone says that 'it was Israel who broke the lull' or 'it is allowed to attack a combatant only when he is directly engaged in hostilities'. til the next time i am provoked, let's just forget it. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable doesnt equal reliable, and when you use it to support a statement of fact you need a reliable source. And a think-tank isnt exaclty what most would call an academic source, it is generally a partisan political source. Now while you may not agree with it, but the mass media is a RS by wikipedia policy, and academic sources are even better, but the definition of an academic source does not include think-tanks. The think-tank does not publish in a peer-reviewed medium, and carries no responsibility to ensure the factual accuracy of what they report. Nableezy (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

IntLaw - Prisoners Of War

 * 1) The main reason I decided to include this paragraph in the article is not because it is important issue for Israel and not because many, including some notable politicians, thought it should have been one of the goals of the operation. If this was the case, then indeed it would be sufficient to mention it in the background and redirect to subarticle. The main reason is that those who held him captive, violate ruthlessly the international humanitarian law. Moreover, they cynically use it to intimidate soldiers and build pressure on politicians in Israel. For the last 3 years, ICRC has repeatedly asked Hamas to allow the exchange of Red Cross messages between Gilad Shalit and his family. As i wrote in the article, these are clear and undisputed violations of specific paragraphs of Geneva coventions, that regard the prisoners of war. The fact that he was captured before the Gaza war, doesn't make it irrelevant here.
 * 2) There are constant attempts to draw a comparison between Shalit and hundreds of Palestinian detainees in Israel. Perhaps the reasons for their detention are disputable. Perhaps. But the terms of their imprisonment do not violate IHL. As far as I can tell, the ICRC does not accuse Israel of any violations of prisoners' rights, although they have called for Israel to allow visits from family members. Depriving visits of the family members is not a violation, as long as personal messages sent and delivered through the ICRC, i.e. ICRC knows where they are held, visits the prisoners, can estimate their well-being and deliver a personal message. All these Shalit family is denied. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptic, if that is the main reason it does not belong in this article. The section should cover international law violations as relates to this conflict, not just international law violations committed by Hamas at any time preceding or during. If it isnt related to this conflict it shouldnt be in this article. And even if it is not a vio of intl law with how Israel detains their Palestinian prisoners that is the reason given by Hamas for holding Shalit. To comply with NPOV that reasoning needs to be mentioned as well. But if it isnt about this conflict it shouldnt be there at all. Nableezy (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * going backwards: 'that is the reason given by Hamas for holding Shalit. To comply with NPOV ...' - we are not talking about the reasonings and justifications (even though i advise you read hamas response to icrc). we are talking about terms of captivity, which in this case amount to violations of int-law regarding pow. they are more than relevant, i'll tell you in a second how. however, if you know that palestinian pow's are held in israel in the same way - please bring it in. 'not just international law violations committed by Hamas at any time...' - this is why i refrained from inserting additional paragraph that says hamas actions violate genocide convention (even though i intend to mention it elsewhere - it is an actual justification to attack govermental infrastructure). now for the relevance. idf new what would be the treatment for other pows, they knew that hamas would try to kidnap them and if hamas did that was the end, they were finished, . . . "so we took no chances".. i already mentioned in our previous round that Shalit is a major issue in Israel, and some notable politicians asserted the operation must go on until he is brought home. following the end of the fighting, there was huge wave of protest, not to leave him there. why do i tell you all this again and again? this is not just a pow, captured before the events covered in the article. the way he held - in a way that violates each and every article of ihl about pow - has an enormous effect on israeli public, army and politicians before, during and after the war. in a way, it effected the agressiveness of the ground forces. on several occasions during the war there were rumours that he was released. the expectations, the atmosphere, the flags on the cars and petitions for his release at any price - it is all part of what israel is today, for each and every single day throughout last 3 years, including the war and after the war. i don't ask to include all this in the article, but the least should be done with the relevance to the war itself - is to mention the violations of the ihl. don't think i can convince anybody with the above. but i would like to know what others, presumably neutral, editors think. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing any of that (well some of the non-Shalit stuff I do, but what you said about Shalit specifically). But it is its own topic, covered fully in its own article. The violations here are beyond the scope of the article, because as you say, this as has been a major cause before, during and after the war, and will likely continue to be so until some resolution to it is reached. As far as I can tell, Shalit was brought up primarily as relates to the ceasefire negotiations, in fact there are sources commenting on how it was specifically not made an issue as a part of this war, in contrast to Lebanon where the return of the captured soldiers was the primary goal of the attack. And much like we include reasoning from Israel for whatever actions they are accused of doing, we need to do the same with Hamas. If we have to mention Shalit we need to also include what Hamas presents as its justification. Let me give a corollary example; Hamas has said that they fight Israel to free all Palestinian lands from illegal occupation, not just Gaza but also the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). Would you object to including sections on the illegality of settlements in the West Bank, the illegality of the annexation of East Jerusalem, the illegality of the "Separation barrier", the illegality of denying a right guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right of return) in this articles international law section? Because of all of these issues have been raised by Hamas as justification for firing rockets into Israel, and those are all violations of international law that are easily sourceable and continued to be committed during the conflict, as well as before and after. We cannot cover the entire I/P conflict on this page, we have to limit it to certain topics, but if you are willing to open it up like that for Israeli issues I would hope you stay consistent and say that these issues can also be included on the same grounds. If so, let me know and I'll get cracking on assembling the sources and prose for those sections (which would likely double the size of the total page) Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not active in this issue, but the UDHR does not advocate on behalf of the "right of return" agenda. Just wanted to correct that SOAP/factual inaccuracy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Article 13, and if you dont know what you are talking about then stop typing. Nableezy (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And for you of all people to accuse me of soapboxing, well, thats just funny. Nableezy (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is funny. UDHR does not explicitly advocate on behalf of the Palestinian "right of return." Here is article 13:


 * (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
 * (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

A)I don't really see how this border rule applies. B)Palestinians were not citizens of Israel, and the west bank and gaza strip are territories, not countries. I'm all for legalism but the article is so ambiguous and vulnerable to extreme interpretation that I don't see why we should romanticize it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am not going to get into this with you, you do nothing but give us your own personal views on everything, and truthfully I do not care what you think or how you interpret international law. Because you are both ill-informed and you have a tendency to make proclamations based on absolutely nothing. Now, please, if you have nothing to add to the conversation besides your own views on these matters go away. I can provide sources for what I said, matter of fact here is one on the issue you are disputing, while you cannot provide much more than a fart in the wind. All this is doing is deflecting from the topic of this thread. You should realize that Sceptic is much more capable than you of arguing these points, because it appears that he has actually read a book or two in the past ten years. Let him as you are not adding anything to the discussion. Nableezy (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax. The link you gave offers no logic behind listing the article in regards to right of return (two sentences) outside of linking to the original full document at the UN. Majority of supporting links are provided by the United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, Le Monde, activist magazines such as Z Communications and Electronic Intifada, and a few Haaretz. Essentially they pick and choose a series of 3rd party editorials/essays/articles to affirm an existing agenda. A fair assessment, no? There might be some original analysis but I have not checked yet. And btw, contrary to what you might believe, I do read. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

→Nableezy, you realize I hope that the size of the page would be trippled, not doubled, because I'll show easily (maybe not so easily but nevertheless) that there's nothing illegal in that justifications you mentioned. Some are legal, some are debatable at most, but of course we won't expand it here and cover the entire I-P conflict from the times of the second temple and before. Clear to all that we are ought to concentrate on the int-law violations that are specifically relevant to the course of war. Now the first sentence of the preamble to int-law section (and I think it was your sentence) says 'Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of violating international law during and prior to this conflict.', and I agree to the wording. It s inevitable some issues that provides immediate pretext go through. For example, the issue of 'collective punishment'. I don't see how exactly it is relevant when the full-scale fight erupts, however I agreed to leave it and it is my intention to construct a separate paragraph on it in the int-law section. Back to Shalit. I admit - as much as Shalit is a motive to many Israeli actions, so are 'occupation' issues provide context to Palestinian ones. Still, there are two differencies. First, Hamas used this matter during the war to affect the Israeli side. As I wrote in psy-war section, Mashal and other Hamas reprisentatives made several statements in the course of the war, in an attempt to build pressure on the Israelis. On the contrary, I am not aware of the fact that the Israeli side made reciprocal threats. If you have info that right before or during the war Israel threatened to arrest more Palestinians in the West Bank/move the separation barrier further into PNA territory/expel more Israeli Arabs from Israel/build more settlements and more roadblocks - just to make Hamas stop firing rockets, then either we include each such issue and its legality analysis or drop both. Second, those violations fall within the definitions of the IHL and this is what I think should guide us through the Int-Law analyses relevant to the war - what violations/accusations of IHL were committed by the sides during or right before the war.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible I won't be able to participate in the forum for the rest of the weekend including Sunday. This is what I suggest. We set a time frame for this dispute, say a week. If not resolved by next Friday, the paragraph by default goes down. Deal? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, Nableezy (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, here are my points:
 * 1. Despite that Israeli government abstained from declaring this as an aim of the operation, Hamas and its allies cared to make this an important issue during the war: "If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, who knows, we may have a second or a third or a fourth Shalit," said Meshaal; At the start of the Israeli offensive, Hamas claimed that Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire. The message was clear: If Israel wanted to see Shalit return alive, it should stop the war. Then, last Sunday, the Gaza Islamists claimed that Schalit's health was no longer important. "He may be wounded or he may be fine. This question is no longer of any interest to us," said Hamas politburo member Mussa Abu Marsuk. Since the terms of his captivity violate norms of IHL regarding POW, it deserves a paragraph. If you know that Israel made similar use of disputable issues (like expanding settlements in the West Bank) to threaten Hamas - it would be suitable to cover them in the Int-Law analyses as well.
 * 2. As a general policy and fair compromise, I suggest we remain focused on breaches of laws of war, i.e. International Humanitarian Law, and leave UN Charter/resolutions/treaties behind. Still, as said above, if you have the info that Israel threatened Hamas with one of the issues you mentioned during or just before the war - they would deserve the para. in Int-Law section and not simply redirection.
 * 3. When contemplating about the issue, it suddenly occured to me that I overlooked to include another paragraph in the section: international humanitarian law expressly prohibits any state or organization from performing extra-judicial executions. - so I guess another subsection is imminent. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 is already covered, it has its own section in the article (and if found guilty of treason in a war, it is not against intl law to kill them). 2, disagree, if people who are qualified says it is a violation of intl law I think it can go, but it is an editorial decision as to how high a threshold we have for the qualifications of the people who say. 1, none of those quotes have to do with violations of intl law. And Israel didnt threaten Hamas with those issues, they just continued to commit the same violations, drawing criticism from intl bodies. My point here is that the international law vios as regards Shalit, and Israel for things that are not directly related to this war, are not in the scope of the article. Yes, Shalits name has come up during the war and during the negotiations. But that does not make for violations as a part of this conflict. Yes violations took place during the conflict, but again that does not make for violations as a part of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree with your argumentation regarding Hamas political violence, but I'll start separate section about it. Now about the Shalit matter, you keep saying that it is not directly related to this war. Even when I provide you concrete statements from senior Hamas representatives that went on exploiting the issue during the war. Moreover, I wrote in the paragraph that Shalit's abductors breach several provisions of the Third Geneva Convention, e.g. Art. 13. Let's read the Art. 13 - '...Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and...'. Since we know nothing about the actual treatment he gets, and taking into consideration that from the perspective of Int-Law, intention (and not the result) is what truly matters - I conclude that one of the exerpts above amount to the breach of this particular Article. (Then, last Sunday, the Gaza Islamists claimed that Schalit's health was no longer important. "He may be wounded or he may be fine. This question is no longer of any interest to us," - his well-being should be important according to the Third Geneva Convention, and efforts must be done to put him out of harm's way.) Still not convinced Hamas made it directly related to the war? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a disconnect in what I think I am writing and what you are reading. I am not saying Shalit himself was not part of this conflict, he was raised by both side, by Hamas during the war and by Israel during the ceasefire negotiations. What I am saying is that the international law violations are not related. If there is a source saying that Hamas saying they no longer cared if he lived or died is a violation of intl law then by all means include that. But the specific violations you are citing are not related to this conflict. Do you dispute that? Are you willing to say that Hamas refusing to allow for ICRC visitation is a war crime relevant to this conflict? Because I do not see it. Nableezy (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

→I'll copy-paste this for the third time already: '...Then, last Sunday, the Gaza Islamists claimed that Schalit's health was no longer important. "He may be wounded or he may be fine. This question is no longer of any interest to us,"...'. Would you argue that this conduct is not a violation of Art. 13 of the 3rd Geneva Convention? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think there exists any publication that says that this specific saying is a breach of IHL. But this conduct surely violates Art.13 as shown above. Besides, NGO Monitor placed Shalit issue on the first place in its article The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law published on January 21 2009. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We need a source saying it is a vio. We cannot conclude that it is, we need a source to do it first. But to the question I just asked, do you say that the denial of ICRC visitation is a war crime related to this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'We need a source saying it is a vio. We cannot conclude that it is, we need a source to do it first' - we are back to square one. Monitor link above says that 'International humanitarian law was enacted to guarantee the rights and protections of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention lays out these rights unequivocally:  the right to humane treatment (article 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (article 23); the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis (article 71); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (article 126), and others.  Hamas has flouted each of these provisions...'. We actually have a source, entitled 'The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law', saing that Hamas violated numerous provisions of POW treatment, including Art.13. True, they don't elaborate, but still they say that '...Shalit is entitled to the rights and protections of prisoners of war guaranteed in the Third Geneva Convention'. I showed exactly how protections, enshrined in Art.13, were breached. As a bottom line, since Monitor ties this issue directly to Gaza war, despite the fact that they produced numerous publications about the issue and had more than enough material to cover, seems sufficient to me.
 * 'do you say that the denial of ICRC visitation is a war crime related to this conflict?' - the intuitional answer you expect is no. But. Here are some points to consider, more loose than the above, but still. First, on January 15, in a release devoted to Al-Quds Hospital incident, the ICRC president still found appropriate to stress 'the importance of granting the ICRC access to all persons detained, including to the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit'. The access was not granted, neither before nor during or after the operation. Second, as I already showed you, it affected some military concepts and orders. Third, in February 2009, the security cabinet unanimously decided that the release of the soldier Shalit is a condition to any agreement with Hamas and the opening of border crossings. Forth, Goldstone team is intended to investigate violations during as well as before the war - why shouldn't we? We agreed to keep in the 'collective punishment', even though it is not directly related to the war itself, so why remove Shalit? Sixth and final, before you write your next answer, think about this: by following your line of thinking, no POW will ever be in the scope of the war article, except of course for the single precedent of 2nd Lebanon war. Anyway, denial of ICRC visitation is violation of Art. 126. I showed you above how Art. 13 was breached. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I was hoping for something better than NGO monitor, and that source doesnt say much about the not caring if he is dead or alive, but about the ICRC access. And that source uses Shalit as a way of impeaching the NGOs it speaks of for not giving that issue the same attention, not, as I am reading it, saying it is a war crime as a part of this conflict, rather it is a long term situation that has not been given enough attention while claims, which they see as fallacious, against Israel are given too much hype. 2. I was actually expecting a yes from you, though I obviously think the answer is no. But thanks for the ICRC source, think much of it can be used in the Israel section. But again, I do not see this source as providing that the denial of ICRC access is a war crime in this war. I see it as saying that a war crime is ongoing and we again ask that it be resolved. It affecting Israeli military tactics should go in the section on the military aspect, I dont see how the war crime part affects the tactics. The ceasefire, that is already in the section on the ceasefire, but again the war crime part of not allowing ICRC visitation is beyond the scope of this war. Nableezy (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing amazes me in this discussion. You repeat constantly 'denial of ICRC access'. Don't you understand that 3rd Geneva Convention is all about POW, and access is just one or two paragraphs in the whole convention? I'm telling you again, Monitor says Hamas violates numerous provisions, including for example Art. 13 (that has nothing to do with the access). Read Art. 13 - it requires among other things to make all possible efforts to keep POW out of harm during war. Now your interpretation of the Monitor is obviously correct. However, there's one thing that leaves me a legitimate cause to use it without breaching Wiki policies. As I noted before, the title of Monitor article is: 'The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law'. Do you have explanation why they chose to put Shalit matter as the first bullet here? What I'm trying to say is - they are my source (the best I got), they saw the connection, and even if we agree that the connection is loose - it exists. Finally, you ignore 2 more things: 1) by this logic, POWs will be never be in the scope of war article; 2)We agreed to keep in the 'collective punishment', even though it is not directly related to the war itself, so why remove Shalit? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me go backwards from that comment. If a POW was killed during this war that would be a part of the article, if a POW was captured during this war that would be a part, so not no way a POW was a part. But a POW continued to be held during the war does not make for it to be a part of the war. 2nd, equate my saying ICRC access to anything about Shalit that stayed the same from before the war to this point. Last, the ngo-monitor piece. I dont see them saying that these violations were a part of this war, rather they are using that to say that there have been violations by Hamas for whatever number of years and the NGOs have not made as big a deal about that as they have with the vios in this war they are accusing Israel of committing. Not so much a report on vios committed, but rather a criticism for not giving Shalit more attention over the past years. And really, if ngo-monitor is the best you got, cant you see the connection is lacking? To the collective punishments, I think that belongs because it forms part causus belli for the Palestinians and people have called this operation itself collective punishment. The same reason the rockets from prior the war should be in, that is the reason Israel gave for the attack so they inextricably linked to the war. Nableezy (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Monitor is the best connection between Shalit and int-law. You know, I've searched a Maariv site in hebrew about the matter - not a single day of war and afterwards that didn't mention him. Including reports from Hamas at the onset of the war saying he was wounded, then another statement from Hamas that Hamas is not interested in his well-being any longer, then rumors he was rescued, then numerous opinions from various notable figures in Israel saying fighting must go on as long as the matter not resolved, then another Hamas statement in february saying he was injured and there's special Hamas representative that cares for his well-being. It wouldn't be exaggeration to say most of the people and politicains feel desperate he wasn't brought home during the war. So, no, I don't see the connection is lacking. The anticipation he would be rescued and the cynical exploitation by Hamas, as shown above, are the connections. Have you read Art. 13? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ease of editing break
made a subsection just so we dont have to keep scrolling. I dont think we are going to convince each other of anything here as we keep going in circles, you repeating the same arguments, me repeating the same arguments. But, just for fun, could you explain for me one more time what this sentence: "Palestinian groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit hostage and without contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. JCPA states that this is a violation of international law concerning prisoners of war." has to do with this conflict (it is also why I keep saying ICRC access as you noted above) Nableezy (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing. Well, almost nothing. Provides background information to an incompetent reader, who might think 'what is the hype surrounding one soldier'. You will surely reply that for such purposes we have wikilinks and you will be correct. If by some miracle we'll decide to leave the paragraph in Int-Law section, I wouldn't mind to provide the link to subarticle and leave this sentence out. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You never told me, did you read Art. 13 of 3rd Geneva Conventions? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, but my reading and interpretation really doesnt matter here. And as of now that is one of two parts of the Shalit subsection, if that goes there isnt much of a subsection left. Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source (please dont bring the ngo-monitor again, much like you asked me not to bring the PMoH numbers, try to find a source that makes an explicit mention of something that happened during this war) that says the not ensuring the safety as evidenced by the not caring quote is a vio then I think that can go in, but the two parts currently in the article I do not think belong. And it looks like you may agree that the first sentence is not needed. Nableezy (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's sum this discussion up. 1. Shalit is held in Gaza for 3 years, terms of his captivity violate numerous provisions of 3rd Geneva Convention. 2. Shalit matter was an important case for Israel before the war (as a part of lull agreements), during the war (even though political leaders refrained to formally include it in the list of objectives) and after the war (as a necessary term of ceasefire agreement). Many Israelis and notable figures expected the fighting to go on until he is released. 3. Hamas made at least 3 public statements concerning Shalit in the course of the war itself, as a part of psy-war. I consider them a breach of 3rd Geneva Convention, but I do not have a decisive RS that makes legal analyses of this particular conduct. 4. Shalit is mentioned in 3 separate sections of the article, not including the int-law section. 5. I believe all the above is sufficient connection to include the paragraph in the int-law section as well. Moreover, alleged accusations against Israel include issues both before and during the war - I fail to see why it shouldn't be the same for Hamas. 6. As I see, you're still reluctant to include the paragraph because no source makes legality analysis that refers specifically to the war. 7. I'm afraid at this point I've run out of arguments. Giving credit to your proficiency in wiki editing and policies, I step out. Do as you see fit. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I can think of what you are referring to as far as past Israeli vios are brought up so the same should be with Hamas is the 'collective punishment'. I think there is a distinct difference with that, as that has been raised specifically as a causus belli, and we do indeed do the same with Hamas when talking about the legality of the rockets and their reported releasing of other groups who continued to fire the rockets during the prior ceasefire arrangement. Both of those things are inextricably to this conflict, so I think it is important that we discuss the legal arguments for both. I think we are treating the two sides the same in that regard, and putting Shalit up there makes me think that if such seemingly extraneous information is included why not the arguments on settlements and the rest of the areas under occupation, which have been raised by Hamas. And the fact is the fighting did end before he was returned, if it had not been and this had been a specific objective then of course it would be relevant to give greater background on Shalit, but that is not the case. I would rather try to get your agreement then just do as I see fit, but the way I see it, as it stands, the end of point 3 (where you say you dont have a source making that argument) and what you said earlier about the first sentence of the section having almost nothing to do with this conflict I think the section has to go. But it is just you and me in this discussion (has been from the start as far as I care to look back), so I will hold off to see if anybody else has something to say. Nableezy (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree on what you're saying about 'collective punishment', but we'll leave it til the time will come to construct a paragraph about it. Anyway, it was never my intention to remove the issue. As for trying to get my agreement, it won't be the first time when I say I appreciate your ways - let's say you have my agreement. It was my suggestion to remove the paragraph if not reached a positive resolution. I took the challenge to convince you, I failed this time, I'm ready to keep up my word. I understand your arguments, I partially agree, I see the loose ends, but I still believe the matter of such importance (importance understood and exploited by both sides) deserves not only mentioning but also legal analyses. You think otherwise - ok, let's find a way to move further. The info won't go away, there's an article about Shalit after all. So, in the end, let's wait till Friday and if no one would emerge - the paragraph goes. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Expanding humanitarian aid
After reading this article I felt compelled to learn just how much aid is flowing into Gaza via Israel. I ran across the government website, here. It enumerates the amount of aid given each week since the start of the war, with the latest week being June 14-15.

Brief overview:


 * Per week, approximately 13,430 tons of humanitarian aid are escorted from Karni crossing.


 * Per week, 1.5-2.5 million liters of diesel for power stations and generators are given.


 * Per week, fuel for domestic purposes range from 300 tons to over a 1,000. This is not including the thousands of tons of gas used to transport UNRWA and Israeli vehicles to Gaza.

It should also be noted that the reduction in grain was due to a lack of Palestinian demand (they have enough). Is this in any relevant to the Aid section?

I would also like to know the degree of influence the neighboring Arab states have over the humanitarian situation and how much aid comes out of Egypt. I can't find any references for that.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with this article, or did you just want to tell everybody you read something? Nableezy (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the response. What does this have to do with the war? Serious question? Want to weigh in Sceptic? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit. I see I was too vague. This aid is packaged around the latest war and is not simply part of the usual weekly donations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand - I already wrote there that 'Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid were allowed to Gaza from Israel and that numerous efforts for providing medical help took place during the war.[312]' and the source is MFA. The numbers of aid that flow after the war - maybe relevant in 'Effects' section, I don't know. I am not there yet. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. But this reference is in regards to aid directed at post-war recovery, starting January 19th to present. Is that relevant in any way? Also, we could easily confirm the Israeli numbers with UNRWA/3rd party corroboration and get rid of the weasily "claimed" term used. I just thought this might be pertinent...or not, I don't know. Doesn't hurt to try. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly there is a new article that I just read on BBC which says that Israel destroyed the only flour mill that had been operating in Gaza. The article also mentions a cookie factory that was destroyed.  That might also account for a decrease in demand for grains. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's strange because this press release by the UN and numerous other orgs doesn't mention the cookie factory at all.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the UN is dependent on BBC "exposure," because the article was posted yesterday while the pres release is almost 10 days old. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still, the press release does provide an informative international perspective on Israel's performance in facilitating the supply of international aid provided for post-war recovery. The MFA source by itself lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The MFA source is meticulous and precise. Whatever credibility the UNRWA has left should respond accordingly and without Shakespearean pathos and romanticism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I guess it's not easy for the humanitarian orgs to recruit and keep dissocial staff motivated enough to write their press releases for them. I guess they could outsource. Packing the supplies more neatly wouldn't hurt either. Nevertheless, the statement signed by those 38 or so orgs provides context for the meticulous and precise MFA figures.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those 38 organizations have pre-established relationships with the UNRWA. And the UNRWA has been under scrutiny by the US government (the principal financial support until recently) under accusations that it has aided Hamas politically. But again, the references aren't comparable. The UNRWA releases a generalized letter whereas the Israeli government provides a very exact and detailed list of supplies being shipped out. I'm trying to find a similar list provided for by the UNRWA or United Nations but there is such a lack of transparency that's it's becoming increasingly difficult. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Commanders
This has come up before but I wanted to revisit it: The commander box is silly (to me at least). I think last time it came up someone actually said Israel's were listed just to balance the Hamas commanders. Per the Military Conflict Infobox template: "commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed...". Since this looks to me to be more of a battle (in the sense that it was a few week long operation instead of a full-on "war") maybe we should get rid of some of the Israeli "commanders". I know this is sticky so I don't know what level of influence in the actual planning, staging, or attack command is needed to warrant a mention. I know we are calling it a war per RS and that is cool but keep in mind that we could go the other way and get rid of the guys on the ground. Unique conflict so a unique info box maybe? Any thoughts? Also, "Ranks and position titles should be omitted." per Template:Infobox Military Conflict. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I care too much, but Ashkenazi would suffice. Moreover, 176500 (total) is misleading. It would be useful to find and cite the actual number of troops. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In Archive 38 I suggested that we keep Eisenberg I think the three generals are fine but I'd drop Barak.

I'd also note that the little icon that suggests Said Seyam is a pirate actually links to the Killed in action article. That's kind of interesting because I think Hamas would say that isn't exactly the case.

I also brought up the total force number the last time I complained about the infobox. I also thought the Hamas number might be misleading if it was for their total force, as in all of Palestine. But it seems that's the number of fighters and police combined. Here's Tim Butcher's mention of it in the Telegraph. It seems to ultimately originate from a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel. Here's the NY Times on it. JPost says the Center gets their info from Shin Bet though. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd drop Barak too. Don't mind keeping other commanders. Seyam - if there's a way to mark him as killed in war - good, if not - whatever. We won't start now whole new dispute was he killed in action or not (even though following my thread with Nableezy above, it should be crystal clear that he was indeed killed in action - as a minister he was in charge of police, and played dominant role in The Executive Forces, read Said Siyam - Internal affairs and National Security Minister).
 * This sentence I like, we would use it - 'The study says Hamas has about 20,000 men it can mobilize under arms, about half from its military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam, which, it says, includes a special suicide bomb unit. The other half consists of a combination of police and other internal security services and other militant groups, like Islamic Jihad, that take part in big operations.' As for The Executive Forces, which are part of police btw, 'In May 2006, the Executive Force was born and overnight 'police' with black uniforms and hats, carrying Kalashnikovs appeared manning road junctions in the centre of Gaza City.' Well, maybe PCHR and AI regard it as normal when police carry Kalashnikov in the center of the Gaza City, who knows.
 * Can you take care of the IDF forces used in operation? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ahmed al-Ja'abari and Eyal Eisenberg are sufficient. They commanded troops on the ground and if the the reader wants to get into the chain of command and politicians they can look that up.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Herzi Levy of the paratroopers brigade; Avi Peled of the Golani brigade; Ilan Malka of the Givati brigade; and Yigal Slovick of the 401st armored brigade.Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional paragraph to Int-Law-Palestinians section
I came across this B'Tselem paper: international humanitarian law expressly prohibits any state or organization from performing extra-judicial executions.... The fact that we already have a separate section for Hamas internal violence is nice, but whenever one of the alleged actions amounts to a suspected breach of IHL - it deserves a paragraph in Int-Law section. We also have an entire subsection regarding rocket attacks - nevertheless we cover the issue in Int-Law section too, the same is true about humanitarian issues. BTW, executing extra-judicial executions is prohibited even if those executed were indeed found guilty of treason in a war. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to the HCJ. :)  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have source to this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean Israeli HCJ? Very amuzing. If indeed this was you intent, then two things. First, you've been absent for some time, so welcome back. Second, in the upper section we (Nableezy and me) resumed the discussion about the police... I placed there a recent publication from ICRC. I strongly advise you to read it, hoping this would correct some of your misinterpretations about combatants (both legal and illegal), direct and indirect participations in hostilities and so forth. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the Israeli HCJ. I'm just joshing. I just find the linguistic nuancing when it comes to legal terms related to killing quite entertaining. I'm waiting for someone to start using 'precision retirement' in the near future. Thanks for the welcome back. I had to go to London, apparently to vastly increase Starbucks' profits. I'll have a look at the ICRC stuff when I get a chance.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you read the discussion but did you read the ICRC report? Do you, Sean, understand now when a fighter or a civilian can be directly attacked? I don't ask to agree with me, I don't want to start another debate on the interpretations. I want a simple answer - did you read the ICRC report? Another question: what do you think about the matter raised here? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I read the ICRC report.
 * Do I 'understand' when a human being can be directly attacked under IHL ? No, because given a set of circumstances I cannot make a verifiably true statement on the legality of a killing. What I 'understand' are the meanings of the words and the sentences to me. I can interpret those statements in many ways according to the set of circumstances and have many opinions on the legality of a particular killing (all of which are irrelevant to this article). That's quite a different matter from understanding in the way you mean it. If the ICRC report contained a red cross and said "This is a cross. It is red." I would understand it.
 * What do I think about the matter raised here ? I think courts determine the legality of an event according to the circumstances retroactively. So the best we can do as an encyclopedia is to simply state the opinions of key sources and be careful to avoid applying our own interpretations to those statements either directly or via our selection of sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

→An extensive body of international treaties, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, prohibit these abuses. 'During periods of armed conflict, Hamas, as the effective authority in Gaza, is entitled to take appropriate measures to ensure security, including by detaining individuals who pose a genuine security risk. But detentions cannot be arbitrary or target a group or category of persons for political as opposed to security reasons. Physical abuse against detainees, including torture and summary executions, is strictly forbidden under all circumstances.'

The abuses documented in this report, including extrajudicial executions, torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, and arbitrary detention, are prohibited under international human rights law and international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which were applicable in Gaza during the Israeli military offensive, 'The laws of war also prohibit unlawful killings and ill-treatment of persons by a party to the conflict. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, applicable to states and non-state armed groups, prohibits, “at any time and in any place whatsoever” with respect to civilians and combatants no longer taking part in the hostilities, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

Off-topic, just to tease a little, 'Hamas, as a non-state armed group, is bound by the laws of war. As a de facto governing authority, Hamas cannot be party to international human rights treaties, but it has publicly indicated it would respect international standards...The Gaza authorities consider themselves to be the lawful government of the Palestinian Authority and therefore should be bound by the PA’s repeated commitments to respect international human rights law. In any event, Hamas de facto governs a specific territory and therefore should govern in accordance with international human rights standards' - where's the definition of military occupation, so I could show HRW, AI, UN and all the rest Gaza is not occupied? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely wrong
Fresh report from HRW, Gaza Civilians Killed by Israeli Drone-Launched Missiles. Haven't read it entirely yet myself. One thing about the report is for sure: 'In the incidents investigated by Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, apparently setting an unacceptably low threshold for conducting attacks, or they failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only the former. As a result, these attacks violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war).'. So far I would say nothing more, except that it will be used in the Int-Law section. Just one simple request - read the whole report, beyond the headlines. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IDF doubts credibility of Gaza report, but unfortunately provides so far nothing but empty statements. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to read the report. The media are mostly picking up on the 87+ civilians killed but, according to the report, that is just repeating the number that B'Tselem and the PCHR have already been using. I also see that HRW now says the cube-shaped shrapnel weapon was indeed (most likely") the Israeli-made Spike missile.

But most interesting to me was this: "This report does not examine the drone attack with the highest number of casualties during the Israeli offensive: the December 27 strike on the police headquarters in Gaza City that killed about 40 people, including several dozen police cadets at their graduation ceremony. Human Rights Watch's limited time in Gaza prevented a full investigation to determine how many of those killed were policemen performing civil functions, and therefore not valid military targets, and how many were involved in military operations, or whether the police academy served a military function that rendered it a legitimate military target."

I'd also note that the article on this in The (London) Times (of London), which is what I came here to report, mentions investigating one of the mentioned attacks and that "independent analysts say that that it would be difficult to prove that the missile which struck the rooftop was fired from a drone." Although HRW's Garlasco says he is certain it was. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think, JGG, that the independant analyst contributed anything. I've read the report. I personally think that no decisive conclusions can be reached without looking into IDF records of the attacks. It is conceivable all the findings presented are correct, but the deductions of HRW are somewhat speculative. Again, it is possible that the incidents described happened in the way described and all the 6 indicate IDF failure. Maybe. Since some of the conclusions of the report are speculative, I'll allow myself to make some of my own speculations (and will surely be reprimanded) - not about the report but about the author. All the below says nothing about the report, but there's something fishy in the case study below.
 * So here's the case study of the The blast on the Gaza beach, June 9, 2006. a HRW statement released on June 14. And of course, Revealed: the shrapnel evidence that points to Israel's guilt. Then, comes We came to an agreement with General Klifi that the most likely cause [of the blast was unexploded Israeli ordinance," Garlasco told The Jerusalem Post]. And on the same day, “An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. “The IDF’s partisan approach. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread that. The Times (of London) says that other analysts (not with HRW) think that nobody could know if a drone was really used, at least in one particular incident and they are speculating and on their own. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also like the line: "IDF says account unreliable, propagandist in nature". I reasd this yesterday on an AP release and today @ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3739125,00.html . The article needs to mention that Israel has a rebuttal as brought up by Sceptic Ashdod above. The report has received enough coverage that we don't even need to use it as a primary source since there is enough info already. Also says some different numbers here: (note: "The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem claims 87 Gaza civilians were killed in more than 40 drone strikes during the war, but Human Rights Watch investigated only six of those attacks." and "Human Rights Watch charged Tuesday that Israeli pilots failed to verify targets of drone aircraft at least six times during the Gaza war, firing missiles that killed at least 29 civilians."Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a rebuttal, Cptnono, but I don't. The HRW report raises some questions both to IDF and to HRW. I don't understand for example how does HRW conclude that no Palestinian militants were anywhere around the strike sites. As I said, without seeing the footage of the attacks and knowing the intelligence and operative info, making such deductions is problematic. On the other hand, it is of course possible this particular attacks were indeed reckless. Of course the article from JPost could be mentioned, saying that the IDF questioned the credibility of a Human Rights Watch report and that IDF did not intentionally attack innocent civilians, but this statements have little encyclopedic value. Anyway, I'll be merging this report and AI report below into Int-Law section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some information is needed. As long as it isn't given too much weight it should be fine.05:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Forces
This has come up but has never been started that I can see. As mentioned above, Israel utilized three paratroop/infantry brigades and one armored brigade, plus supporting artillery and special units such as engineering and intelligence. Does anyone know of a source that mentions specifics? If so, should it be included as a list (might be too short) or woven into the preexisting prose (" On whatever date, x amount of tank type y attacked such and such..."?Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There was this which has some specifics.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything quite like what you're looking for. But back during the war I included some anecdotal media info on Cerejota's Cast Lead page.  Be warned though -- clicking the link may be dangerous: the only other contributors, Cerejota, Omrim and Nishidani have all mysteriously disappeared.  So there might be some kind of curse involved with that subpage. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I forgot all about the aviation week one. I think you (Sean or someone) mentioned that one a month or so ago. I don't think this needs 1000 words of expansion. Anyone care one way or the other where and how info is included?Cptnono (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a few lines. Couple requests for input:

Cptnono (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where should naval warfare go? "The Israeli navy attacked Hamas coastal targets and boats... indicate that for the first time vessels are equipped with Rafael’s Spike ER electro-optically guided missiles... Super Dvora fast-attack craft... stabalizing turret..."
 * Spike missiles: "Spike ER missiles... fired from helicopters, land vehicles and ground positions, and... gunboats..."
 * Drones: A few firsts. Would like to see a mention of UAV's not related to war crimes if possible but it could go in there if it fits better. "Each brigade combat team was assigned a UAV squadron for close support... Aerial surveillance from Heron and Hermes 450 UAVs [plus a quick mention of attacking capabilities}... A high degree of situational awareness was achieved by maintaining at least a dozen UAVs in flight over Gaza at all times."
 * Where to put medical operations

BBC lovin Amnesty
"Independent Human Rights Group" determined Israel committed war crimes...etc... Guessing this should be merged in the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess we do not have any choice. Couldn't find the report on the AI site yet. Here's JPost publication. Very interesting: 'One section of the report rejected Israel's charge that Hamas systematically used medical facilities, vehicles and uniforms as a cover for terrorist operations, saying it had provided no evidence to prove its case.' - why nobody told them to look in the wiki article? Btw, they apparently cite PCHR casualties figures. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, you should have cited me for providing that piece of info, not JPost... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have, but wikipedia is not a RS. Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Human rights section can absord the new AI release and the Jpost article should balance it out. sounds fair? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody read the report yet? I couldn't find it on AI either. The Times says it isn't much though: "The detailed report broke little new ground, concentrating on issues, cases and problems that have been dealt with in other frameworks." Although words like "wanton" are always in demand around here so I'm sure we'll find some use for it. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, I am not sure we need another section. As the link provided by JGG suggests, large parts of the report concentrate on issues already covered, like the attack near the UN school. Sentences about those incidents could be merged to those sections where due, and 1-2 headline sentences would go into Int-Law section (that I couldn't find time during last 2 weeks to push further). At least, AI this time condemned Hamas too... this is more than could've been expected. Since they continue blaming Israel for death of dozens near the UN school (despite numerous testimonies that there were militants near it - we placed some in that article) and rely solely on PCHR casualties numbers, it is no surprise they couldn't find any evidence Hamas used medical facilities. Btw, about the incident that killed 3 daughters of the doctor, IDF issued an investigation where they admitted tragic mistake, that resulted from observing suspicious figures on the upper floor of his house that was adjacent to the place where fighting took place.
 * JGG, do you know what was the most surprising thing in the Times page you provided? An Israeli-sympathetic response from someone from Spain.

→A question to the forum. This is the second time I read that Goldstone's team was 'Hamas security often accompanied them, raising questions about the ability of witnesses to freely describe the militant group's actions.' In the subsection devoted to investigation, we wrote that 'The Associated Press reporter noted that Hamas security had often accompanied the team during their visit to Gaza, suggesting that the ability of witnesses to freely describe the events is questionable.' So, can we drop the first part of the sentence ('The Associated Press reporter noted that....')? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Times might sell a lot of papers in the Costa del Sol these days but I'm pretty sure their offices are still in the UK. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently AI do not read terrorism-info. Using civilians as human shields: additional evidence shows Hamas and the other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip established bases, military installations and rocket and mortar shell launching positions near schools, some of them run by UNRWA. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of mosques for military and political purposes by Hamas and other terrorist organizations and Islamic groups, Evidence of the Use of the Civilian Population as Human Shields. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443696703&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the report "unbalanced, unfair and unprofessional," blasting what he said was a comparison of the aggressors to the victims. Zuhri called the firing of rockets "self defense," saying it was a legitimate response to Israel's actions.]. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

lol Cryptonio (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer
Is this necessary: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, an independent research group that has close ties to the Israeli military establishment" Can we utilize the wikilink for further info on the group. If not, should we put such a disclaimer on all commentary groups or figures that potentially have a bias. If a rebuttal from Hamas says "hey those guys are dicks and you shouldn't trust them in regards to this situation" (similar to Israel boo-hooing about the recent report on Drones) it is OK.Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * remove the qualifications except for the first time mentioned say something small like "an Israeli NGO". This is not comparable to AI or HRW where most people know who they are and we dont need to qualify that with anything but their name, and the qualifications others were pushing for in the past (for people like Falk) was a judgment (like saying the anti-Israeli Falk). This is just taken from the first line of the wikipedia article on them. But we do need to identify them by more than the name the first time we mention them. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need to mention Falk's position twice?Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the same section, but if he hasnt been mentioned in a while it doesnt hurt. Nableezy (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the first and last subsections of Israel Intl law. This is an aesthetic change if it is made and nothing more.Cptnono (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

→Another question. This is the second time I read that Goldstone's team was 'Hamas security often accompanied them, raising questions about the ability of witnesses to freely describe the militant group's actions.' In the subsection devoted to investigation, we wrote that 'The Associated Press reporter noted that Hamas security had often accompanied the team during their visit to Gaza, suggesting that the ability of witnesses to freely describe the events is questionable.' So, can we drop the first part of the sentence ('The Associated Press reporter noted that....')? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Image request
Someone raised concerns with the bias of images in the article. I was thinking that a good way to correct this possible problem and vastly improve the article would be to add an image or two based on Israeli jets or tanks or even a Gaza based squad. After reflecting on it, the images aren't exactly biased but they are bitchy. It comes across like: "You blew up a building" "Yeah, well you blew up a school" "Oh yeah, well look at this explosion". Can anyone find an image of a tank not in the act of running over children or something similar during the conflict?Cptnono (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: These are some of the best images I have seen of the conflict. It looks like they have the appropriate license: http://soljournal.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/scenes-from-the-gaza-strip-and-israel/ Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont think so, nearly all those photos are copyrighted, most of what I am seeing is identified as being taken by either AP, AFP, or Reuters, three companies who do not make their pictures available under an acceptable license (we would have to claim fair-use which I dont think can be done under WP:NFCC). The ones without saying which company own the copyright also are likely copyrighted. The ones credited to Uriel Sinai may be copyrighted by Getty (a quick google search shows that he works with Getty, not sure if it is freelance or what), others cannot tell. Even if the site has a creative commons commercial use license they cannot license files that they do not own the copyright for. And finally, the site does not have an acceptable license. We need a license that allows for commercial use, the site linked only allows noncommercial use. Sorry to say but these images cannot be used. Nableezy (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0" in the upper right hand corner of the page. Am I looking at it wrong or does it make it unacceptable?Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does, but we need it to not say noncommercial. It is all moot though, those images arent the intellectual property of that blogger, they are taken from the Boston Globe which licensed them from AP, AFP/Getty, Reuters . . ., Nableezy (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That sucks.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A side remark - Cptnono, you did an outstanding work yesterday, giving the article a new dimension, as it should to the article covering the warfare. If you'll manage to insert some of the images or similar ones into the article, it would be fine, I liked them. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would love to find similar images that meet guidelines. I also would like to see the military info get more play here but understand there has to be info on the suffering as well. Here's to hoping JGGardiner (above) was goofing since (oh, I see) it looks like there is less bickering than there was a couple months ago!Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're patient Obama will probably meet with an Israeli door-breaching grenade at the White House sooner or later. Then we might get a free image from the handshake. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

perfidy
This subsection in the intl law/palestinian section says something that is easily verifiable through other sources, but it doesnt actually make an accusation. The original text from the source is as follows:
 * At the same time, it is clear that Palestinian actions in conducting military operations from within built-up civilian areas, thereby increasing Palestinian casualties, constitute war crimes. It is important to note that Israel is not required to refrain from attacking Palestinian combatants simply because they have chosen to hide behind civilians. As Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear, the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” The article also makes Palestinian attempts to use civilian shields unlawful.
 * Additionally, the fact that Palestinian terrorists dress as civilians in carrying out attacks does not render them immune from attack – it simply makes them lawful targets that are also violating international law. International humanitarian law forbids perfidy, which, for example, means that it is forbidden to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant. The fact that Palestinian terrorists often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks makes it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed. However, the war crimes here are Palestinian, and not Israeli.

I would like to see a better source that says the Palestinians (insert favorite word for terrorists here) dressed as civilians in this conflict to support the section, not just a blanket statement that they do the end. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get it, prior constructing paragraphs in int-law section I tried to make sure all those issues are covered in the article. In the Palestinian military activity - Engagement with Israeli forces section, I inserted the following sentence: 'Several reports stated that Hamas fighters shed their uniforms shortly after the start of the ground incursion.[162][163][164]'. Isn't it enough?
 * I was thinking actually to substitute the source used now with its full PDF document. While the wording on p. 14 is the same, it refers to particular Art. 37 of the Protocol I. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasnt really saying the section should go, but one of those sources should be in the intl law section backing up the very premise of the vio. Nableezy (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't do it for the fear of redundancy, but if you think it is necessary as a premise, we can simply copy-paste the sentence. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for a complete duplication, taking care of it now. Nableezy (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP link
Anyone know how to fix the "Further information: White phosphorus#Gaza War and White phosphorus: Gaza War" link? Unless it is supposed to look like that.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my bad, didnt look at the template thought the pipe would allow for alternate text. Guess not, used to add multiple articles. Fixed. Nableezy (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that a few months ago. Was hoping there was a way to get that pipe link in there, dammit.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * got it further Nableezy (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * nice. that has been bugging me when I see it in other articles.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamas attacks fall within this definition of genocide
The Weiner/Bell piece "International Law and the Fighting in Gaza" posted at the the JCPA site is used 4 times in the international law section and yet there is no mention of their legal opinions expressed in the "Illegality of Palestinian Attacks Under the Genocide Convention" section. How come ? It seems notable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I refrained from noticing this particular violation since it is very difficult to connect it directly to Gaza War. The fact is that I failed to convince leaving a para. on Shalit, which has much stronger connection. If, though, anyone thinks it deserves mentioning here - I'll construct such a paragraph. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * speaking of which, it is Friday, nobody else spoke up so the Shalit section in the international law section has been removed. Nableezy (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They're explicitly saying that the Genocide Convention legally obliged Israel to attack Hamas in Gaza to “prevent and punish” genocidal acts. I think the connection to the Gaza War is unambiguous. They conclude
 * "The Palestinian-Israeli fighting in Gaza has been characterized by the extensive commission of war crimes, acts of terrorism and acts of genocide by Palestinian fighters. On the other hand, Israeli counter-measures have conformed with the requirements of international law, with the possible exception that Israel may be legally required to cut off aid to the Palestinians. Israel may continue to impose economic sanctions and engage in military strikes including a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip, as long as it continues to abide by the basic humanitarian rules of distinction and proportionality."
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a better source for this. Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, Sean, I'm going to use the anti-terrorist and genocide conventions as rationale for Israeli attacks on govermental targets in Gaza. But I couldn't find any sources saying that during the war, Hamas strived to kill explicitly Jews or sought to destruct the state of Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and I'd like to see a reality TV show where Weiner and Bell relocate their offices to Gaza City for a month. I'm not sure that there are better sources for these kind of legal opinions from the Israeli perspective. What kind of sources are you thinking of Nab ? To Sceptic, I guess these are just legal opinions and they aren't rationales in the real world unless someone says they were used as rationales for actions. Nevertheless, Weiner and Bell regarding any attacks by Hamas (including those during the war obviously) as acts of genocide is surely worthy of a sentence or 2 in the intlaw section as a legal opinion. We already cite them 4 times. If we are going to use them as a reliable source for legal opinions then this opinion seems to be at least as pertinent and notable as the other 4.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To use the word "genocide" to justify Israeli actions in Gaza would be an extraordinary claim and thus would need an extraordinary source. If there isnt a better source then it shouldnt be included. For the type of source, it would need to be a reliable secondary source which the think tank in question I do not feel is. Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, hmm, Sean, you're preaching the wrong side. If there's a consensus on this, I'll be honored to write a paragraph. However, bear in mind - the same source mentions Shalit as another vio; it took me a week to try to convince Nableezy to leave it, but in vain. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, this is not the first time you're suggesting of something virtually impossible. Btw, I could provide some sayings/statements of Hamas-affiliated officials from recent years, that fall within the definition of genocide intentions. But I already know what the reaction would be. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do hope you realize my reaction would be the same if somebody presented primary source evidence of what they felt falls within the definition of genocide for acts of Israel against the people of Gaza. An accusation of that level needs a rock-solid indisputable reliable source, and if no rock-solid indisputable reliable source has said such a thing neither should WP. Trust me, you do not want to open the flood gates, there are plenty of unqualified people making the same accusations. Such accusations need to be from the best quality sources, if that cannot be done they should not be included. Nableezy (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I have some questions following your post: 1. Thought Al-Jazeera falls within the definition of RS, does it not? 2. You imply that D'Escoto, a former Roman Catholic priest and Nicaragua foreign minister, is unqualified. Kasalaan would have argued on this one (echoing my conversation with him as to whether include words of Richard Kemp - he wanted to balance them with the sayings from Sir Gerald Kaufman) 3. What is 'WP' in this context (cause it is not white phosphorus)? 4. Can you give an example of rock-solid indisputable reliable source and a case that illustrates its use? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1, yes AJ is, but they are not reporting this as a fact. 2, no he is not qualified, a priest and a foreign minister do not an international law expert make. 3, WP=Wikipedia (I get lazy when I am baking), 4, the International Court of Justice would be the best, the ICRC would also be very good. Nableezy (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that we aren't lawyers presumably we can't reliably assess the validity or extraordinariness (assuming that's a word) of any of their statements. Couldn't someone therefore argue that either all or none of their legal opinions require reliable secondary sources on the basis that the Weiner and Bell piece is either a reliable source for the IHL section or it isn't ? It's a reliable source for their opinions of course. Do legal opinions that come out of the JCPA enhance a readers understanding of the issues ? If so that means the more we have the more enhanced a readers understanding of the issues will be. How do we decide which of those opinions make it into the article ? We have some but not others. It seems arbitrary. Plausible statements make it in because they seem okay, crazy extremist views don't because they seem crazy and extremist. The term 'better source' was used but I'm still not sure what that means when it comes to providing an Israeli perspective on IHL. I personally don't think Wikipedia should be using the JCPA as a source for anything other than information about the JCPA but that's me.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * JCPA is notable independent non-profit institute for policy research and education, they're definitely proficient in matters discussed. Take a look at the conference they organized. I feel lucky, Sean, that this time your opinion is inconsistent with wiki policies. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sean on the last sentence, but what we currently are using them for isnt at all that contentious and I think would easily be sourceable to AI or HRW (which I think would be ideal), but to say that they can be cited for the oft-repeated human shields for firing from populated areas is one thing, it is quite a stretch to say for anything related to international law we should use them as a source. I dont think anybody can doubt that the claim of genocide is an exceptional claim and if it has not been used by higher quality sources or reported in more mainstream sources I dont think it should be included. Per WP:V: "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" require exceptional sources. The JCPA is not such a source and if this has not been picked up in more mainstream publications I do not feel it should be included. Nableezy (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sean on this one. Claims that actions violate the "genocide convention" are common enough in conflicts that they don't require inclusion.  I also don't think that proper weighting requires us to include it.  We can, of course, include anyone's opinion if there is a good reason to do so but I don't see it here.

I'm also a little ticked of that the JCPA clearly stole the Government of Ontario's trillium logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGGardiner (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * JGG I hate you you caused an edit conflict that wiped out my best work yet on WP. And I am too far gone to remember what I wrote. If what I do write is at all unclear trust me that it was perfect before the ec and blame JGG for the problem. Nableezy (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry if an edit conflict eliminated your work but Wikipedia must have felt that my contribution was better than yours. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

a reminder
The abuses documented in this report, including extrajudicial executions, torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, and arbitrary detention, are prohibited under international human rights law and international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which were applicable in Gaza during the Israeli military offensive, 'The laws of war also prohibit unlawful killings and ill-treatment of persons by a party to the conflict. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, applicable to states and non-state armed groups, prohibits, “at any time and in any place whatsoever” with respect to civilians and combatants no longer taking part in the hostilities, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

A paragraph, actually one sentence, is to be inserted. Any objections? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * where? as a separate subsection under Palestinians or in an existing section? Nableezy (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * as a separate subsection under Palestinians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * not a fan of single sentence subsections, but no real objection. Nableezy (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * done. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloat and citation templates
I'd like to ask the editors of this article to reconsider their use of citation templates, and multiple citations. It makes the page impossible to edit well, leading to poor writing. Below was the lead in edit mode before I copy-edited it. You can't even see where one sentence ends and another begins.

It's much faster and easier to write the citation by hand. It requires fewer words than a template, and there is therefore less bloat in edit mode. Also, where two citations are needed, consider combining them between one set of refs, so that we don't have lists of footnotes after sentences, or sometimes within them. All of this will make the page easier to edit, and therefore better written, and therefore more likely to be read. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza War, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, commenced when Israel launched a military campaign in the Gaza Strip on December 27, 2008, codenamed Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה), with the stated aim of stopping Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel and arms smuggling into Gaza. The conflict has also been called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world (مجزرة غزة). *
 * "Diplomatic race to stop the Gaza massacre" -
 * "Victims of the Gaza massacre of nearly 3,000 in the ninth day of the aggression" -
 * "Gaza massacre roused anti-Semitism in Europe" -
 * "Victims of the Gaza massacre of nearly 3,000 in the ninth day of the aggression" -
 * "Gaza massacre roused anti-Semitism in Europe" -

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008. Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported tunnel, crossing the border into the Gaza Strip from Israel on November 4, which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce. Israel accused Hamas of violating the truce, citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli cities.

The Israeli operation began with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip, targeting Hamas bases, police training camps, police headquarters and offices. Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools, were also attacked, as Israel stated that many of them were used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets. Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting previously untargeted cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod. On January 3, 2009, the Israeli ground invasion began.

International reactions during the conflict included calls for an immediate ceasefire as in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid. Human rights groups and aid organisations have accused Hamas and Israel of war crimes and called for independent investigations and lawsuits.

Between 1,166 to 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died in the conflict. The number of combatant and non-combatant casualties is a subject of ongoing contention. Casualty figures have been difficult to verify due to the limited amount of journalists allowed in Gaza during the conflict. In the days following the ceasefire, the BBC reported that more than 400,000 Gazans were left without running water. The BBC further reported that 4000 homes had been ruined, leaving tens of thousands of people homeless.

The conflict came to an end on January 18 after first Israel and then Hamas announced unilateral ceasefires. On January 21, Israel completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. On March 2, it was reported that international donors had pledged $4.5 billion in aid for the Palestinians, mainly for rebuilding Gaza after Israel's offensive.


 * I collapsed the info (might have done it wierdly since I am not too familiar with it) since it was a little obnoxious. Good point with the multiple refs being under the same. However, some people prefer the templates and if done properly they are't too bad. Have you tried the editing module which color codes the text while editing? Follow-up: after taking a look it is obvious that you had the best intentions in mind. Can you point me somewhere that shows a better way to do the refs without templates?Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I uncollapsed it, because the point is to show people how awful it looks. Using different colors makes very little difference. The point is there are too many unnecessary words getting in the way of the text. All you have to do to write a citation without a template is:




 * Or better still &mdash; &mdash; then add the full citation to a References section at the end. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SV, specifically the "Gaza Massacre" references need to be there, it has been challenged and removed too many times in the past for it to be there without any references. Nableezy (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you add one, and post the rest on the talk page? I can't see anyone questioning it now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Proving your point comes across obnoxious but that is the point I guess! I have relied on wikipedia reference generator.com or what ever it is too much. Thanks for the example. Is there a specific wikipedia guideline regarding preferred format that I can reference for different styles of refs to make sure I am following the best standars? I tried looking but can't find a help page or essay specifically on preffered styles. Thanks againf or holding my hand,. it must be annoying.Cptnono (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can look at WP:CITE, but when I last checked it was more or less unreadable. :) It offered templates as an option, but warned that they're not popular with some editors.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen that so fiddlesticks. Going through and standardizing the citations to a more edit friendly format might be job someone wants to take on (you volunteering, Slim?) but if nothing gets done I think an important thing to at least try is getting the multiple citations on lines under a single cite number. I know there are a couple like that already but good call bringing that up for use throughout the article.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Can this please be collapsed out of sight? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate info
Tons of info is duplicated throughout the article. Any idea on the best way to reduce this? It looks like the primary culprit is debate in the page and sections that were not updated. An example is the police getting attacked. Concerns are in the international law section so do they need to be mentioned above?Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The general pattern I'd like to eventually see is: whenever reported/alleged action has an implication to Int-Law, it is given an analyses in the Int-Law section as well. Duplicate? Maybe, but we can't shrink the whole article to int-law section. Vice versa, it is illogical to provide legal analyses to each sentence in the article. As for police, I strongly suggest to leave it as it is - it is mentioned it the initial strikes, in the disputed figures (because one of the key points of the dispute is how to categorize them, as civilians or as militants) and in the int-law section (giving an analyses when it is legal to attack them). I do not see any redundancy here, each section has its own connotation. If you have other examples, go ahead, we'll discuss it, but I would be grateful if we take a break from police. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Police was the first one jumped out but I hear ya on that one. My concern is that this article reads like an argument for who is bad. I was going through the Israeli offensive sections earlier and it was like a bunch of copy pastes that were never moved into the internaitonal law section. One person put in an edit from a headline then another person put in a rebuttal and then another person but in a rebuttal. It has been cleaned up but that general tone still comes across. This article is about a military operation as well as something that caused pain and suffering. Let me see if I can find a couple more examples for now.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Breaking the Silence and rebuttals paragraph in the Ground invasion section could be in the Destruction of homes and property Intl Law section. The ground invasion section is done chronologically and the paragraph comes out of nowhere.
 * Having no place to flee is mentioned twice.
 * Civilian infrastructure is mentioned in detail in 5 sections it looks like. That one will get extra weight obviousley but should it get trimmed in a few of the sections if not removed?Cptnono (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My view for interest is that the IHL section should be spun off to a separate article and the IHL section in this article should contain no more than the current 2 sentence intro and a brief mention of the UN inquiry. The spun off article is likely to grow as events unfold. It's mainly a question of due weight for me. The important topics are what happened and it's effects.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking something along those lines earlier today. Other conflict articles don't analyze the way this one does.  It is a legitimate subject but perhaps not as much for the main article. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was thinking it before you. The consequences of the conflict on people's sewage seems at least as important as legal opinions.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know. I do think the effects of the war should be given greater space, but the international law aspects of this conflict has been the subject of most of the commentary. Perhaps it should be split off into its own article just because of the size of the section and the amount of material that has been published about it, but I do think the current first paragraph would be an inadequate summary. I think we could probably get away with condensing it to the current overview paragraph and 1 additional paragraph for each side briefly stating, not explaining, the bulk of the allegations (might even be able to get that down to 1 paragraph total). Nableezy (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think information on the election should definitely be included in the effects section if a source relates them.
 * It could easily be argued that a split is appropriate to create a new International Law article. Unfortunately, I don't think it would work out from the history of the article. The concerns with Intl Law are also so prevalent in the sources for this conflict (the belligerents obviously have a large role in that) I don't see how we could gauge what should stay in as a summary and what should go into a new and linked article. If someone wants to tinker with the idea I would be interested but just don't see it working. For now, I would love to remove some of the Intl Law fluff (sorry, I know that comes across poorly) from the other sections.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Testimonies from some Israeli soldiers paragraph
I see Cptnono inserted it in the Int-Law - Destruction of homes section. I have some reservations. You see, it was my idea, backed up by Cryptonio in the past, to remove the mentioning of the case from int-law section, leaving it elsewhere out of int-law. My reasoning was that you don't build a case out of 2 dubious testimonies. Moreover, the paragraph says that Breaking the silence have similar testimonies, but 4 months passed and they were not published yet. To balance my rationale, I removed a sentence from int-law, saying that one of the rockets landed in Israel contained WP - you do not build a case based on single incident. So, as before, I don't think the placing of the para. is appropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for Int-Law section
I regard it as a second in importance after the casualties section. You see, all the attention from media and especially NGOs like AI and HRW, brought it to another dimension never seen before. In this aspect, you can't compare it to any conflict in the past (maybe 2nd Lebanon war - again, Israel vs. you name it). If you want to make the article shorter, Gaza humanitarian crisis is one of the longest sections, and with all my respect to hard living of Gazans, its coverage is inappropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to split this thing the more I think about it. It is too long and every perceived violation receives too much weight. Maybe an article devoted to potential war crimes would be best while a couple lines summarize that it was a concern. It isn't even a matter of IDF troops getting shit for graffiti while there are real concerns like the possible disregard for the lives of civilians. The attempt to balance instead of neutralizing makes the Palestinian section just as bad. It has been bloated to the point that this article makes both sides look like blood-sucking demons compared to Pol Pot.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lead
The third paragraph in the lead is hilarious: Airstrikes, complaint, rebuttal, counter complaint, "On January 3, 2009, the Israeli ground invasion began". Next paragraph: "International reactions during the conflict". It reads like editors debating eachother. Is there a way to break this into better prose? Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * New editors perhaps? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming it was something that got passed over during the initial flood of informaiton coming in.Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was actually more of a suggestion. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Took me a second. Nice.Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that was a personal attack on the editor who compiled the most edits to the article and the talk page (that is insane, more 2.5x as much as Cpt). Shame on you JGG, that was quite uncivil, and if the editor in question wasnt such an ass I would personally take this to AE. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness I thought that the plural form was vague enough to protect against NPA concerns. --JGGardiner (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not amused Nableezy (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this paragraph?Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * it doesnt exist anymore, so not much to say about it Nableezy (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet. I should have paid more attention!Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph
Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons, when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate, citing Article 52(2) of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which defines a site being used for military activities as a legitimate target.[104] Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence; moreover, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations".[302] Amnesty International points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL. AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip.[50]


 * First of all, the para starts with Israel's justification instead of the accusation being made(which in this case is no longer part of the body:WANTON destruction of property, which has nothing to do whether a target was targeted by mistake or not).


 * In that case, the adequate Israel response would be, that houses were used to store weapons etc. But this "(JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence;" does nothing for the actual charge being discussed, because this "asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets" is hanging on DUH!.


 * This "Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations".[302]" is not addressing the actual charge, but merely accuses Palestinians of this action and thus they were responsible for Israel's action of WANTON destruction of property.


 * This is the charge that needs to be on top "AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip.[50]" and the ADEQUATE Israeli response. At the moment is a maze.


 * If all of this proves problematic to understand, inserting the previous AI wording(Wanton) along with placing the accusation first would get us half way there on this matter. Cryptonio (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem of reversing the order. As for JCPA assertions, they would be more adequate in the subsection of indiscriminate and unproportional attacks (under construction), so no problem of removing it. One reservation - AI made no use of the word WANTON.


 * Amnesty International notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. AI points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL.[50] Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons, when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate, citing Article 52(2) of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which defines a site being used for military activities as a legitimate target.[104] --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the phrase "striking homes that may be used to store weapons" could be improved. Any building may be used to store anything smaller than the building so the sentence kind of implies that the IDF can destroy any building that could conceivably be used to store a weapon e.g. any building larger than say a handgun or perhaps a bullet. I'm sure that's not what they meant. Removing the 'that may be' means that we stick to what the source says and don't put words into the IDF's mouth.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct observation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost, I think we need to differentiate between what the IDF thinks are used for storing weapons and what were used. I think it should say "striking homes thought to be used to store weapons" would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make a big deal of it, but from perspective of laws of war, this differentiation is not necessary. If an army has enough info and no doubt to assume that it is a legitimate target, the strike is legal, even if in retrospective it was based on faulty intelligence and resulted in higher than expected death toll. This is a common mistake Human Rights NGOs do - they outcry the consequence, without having intimate knowledge of the considerations prior the strike. Am I soapboxing again? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a tad, but when we use wikipedia's narrative voice to say "striking homes used to store weapons" we are implying that the homes were used to store weapons, not just that the Israeli military believed with whatever intelligence they say they had that the homes were used to store weapons. We need to be careful as to what we present as an absolute fact and what we present as what either party believes to be an absolute fact. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "striking homes supposedly used to store weapons"?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

→I was wrong about the WANTON: AI concludes Israel committed war crimes and carried out reckless attacks and acts of wanton destruction in its Gaza offensive. I also overlooked that the BBC article has a link to full report. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * sentence to add: The destruction of homes, businesses and public buildings was in many cases "wanton and deliberate" and "could not be justified on the grounds of military necessity", the report adds.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph
I see Cptnono inserted another paragraph, a case of soldier's testimonies, in the Int-Law - Destruction of homes section. I have some reservations. You see, it was my idea to remove the mentioning of the case from int-law section, leaving it elsewhere out of int-law. My reasoning was that you don't build a case out of 2 dubious testimonies. Moreover, the paragraph says that Breaking the silence have similar testimonies, but 4 months passed and they were not published yet (so, is there any encyclopedic value to it?). To balance my rationale, I removed a sentence from int-law, saying that one of the rockets landed in Israel contained WP - you do not build a case based on single incident. So, as before, I don't think the placing of the para. is appropriate. It has almost nothing to do with destruction of homes and in my view does not amount to being inserted in Int-Law section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see many have recently returned from vacations/business trips, edits and talk happen in fast pace and it is hard to follow all the occurences. Since I got no answer so far, I'm removing the paragraph - but I don't seal off the discussion. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware it is breaking the sequence of occurences in ground invasion section. But after all, in parallel Palestinian section there are reports of misconduct. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both sections should be free of this stuff in my opinion. I would actually prefer to merge both sides military actions into a single seciton but that might be a tall order. In all reality, certain things that would be good to include (Naval, UAV's,and other stuff mentioned above) don't really fit in the timeline format of the section so a paragraph like this will fit but these allegations do fit better in Intl law. Also, it reads like a couple rebuttals and nothing more so overall I am not impressed with the paragraph no matter what seciton it is in..Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you won't do it - no one will. Now all the stuff, for example Hamas fighters tried to hijack ambulances or placed rocket launchers on roofs of tall buildings - we can't flood int-law section with all those details, but they are the basis on which accusations are built. As for the paragraph - I don't know whether you're aware of the hysteria this report made, both in Israel and abroad. But it is made out of testimonies of 2 soldiers who participated in one particular meeting of one pre-military course. That's it. And it is good assumption that they are based on hearsay. Let's leave it meanwhile where it is, and if all the mess there would be reconstructed, we'll think of a better place for the para. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about - Second (?) paragraph
It's no sense for me where this information will find its place,

(Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Simply to mark, that "2nd paragraph" finds a new place : "Ground invasion"'s end, remaining the same lowest % of Truth.

but...

Can somebody explain me why the details about the fate of these testimonies have already been erased twice by Nableezy with those so strange (for me as min) remarks:

- "put it in the haaretz article"

- "nytimes is fine by itself" ?

I do not want to think that a reason is to leave here in article one opinion only (Haaretz + NY Times) what may be suitable (or biased) for one side only.

But the following one for me is simply nonsense: "unreliable and unneeded sources removed".

As I always think if one wants really to understand what's up, he should receive a full (as possible) picture from the different sources and points of view.

This is why I'd like to receive here any feedback, before I return the following to the article: (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I've opened the reference to clear, what my opponents concern to a "reliable sources" and what - no.

Testimonies from some Israeli soldiers admitting indiscriminate killings of civilians, as well as vandalizing homes, were reported (BBC: Israel troops admit Gaza abuses). An Israeli NGO Breaking the silence confirmed it had also taken testimony, from soldiers who took part in the Gaza assault, of a similar nature (times: Israeli soldiers admit to deliberate killing of Gaza civilians by James Hider). Soon after the publication of the testimonies, reports implying that the testimonies were based on hearsay and not on the first-hand experience started to circulate in Israeli media (Israel Disputes Soldiers’ Accounts of Gaza Abuses, The NY Times, March 27, 2009)
 * ("reliable" for those ones) (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Charges of IDF "Wanton Killing" Crumble, March 27, 2009 by Alex Safian, PhD, including Israel's Channel 2, defense correspondent Roni Daniel's report in Hebrew (English subtitles by CAMERA)


 * not "reliable" :) (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

...

Consequently, the head of the Rabin Pre-Military Academy Danny Zamir told Jerusalem Post that he believes the IDF operated in a way in which it tried to protect civilians in the crowded Gaza Strip and that described acts of vandalism do not make the IDF an army of war criminals Rabin Academy head: Isolated vandalism not war crime, Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2009).>
 * My opponents already do not want to see Dani Zamir (as that Moor, who has already made his work...). (May be) after his fiasco, or after he now writes the not "reliable" for them words ? (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

After Israeli military prosecutor’s decision 65 reservists who served in Operation Cast Lead, sent the letter to Attorney-General Mazuz and asked that he launch a criminal investigation against Haaretz on charges of slander for reporting on the testimonies as if they were fact and not hearsay |title Reservists ask Mazuz to probe 'Haaretz', Jerusalem Post, April 7, 2009)

- Igorp lj (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A group of reservists who are upset with Haaretz has nothing to do with international law and this conflict. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in the Haaretz article, maybe Media and the Gaza War, but that a group of reservists want criminal charges brought against Haaretz has nothing to do with this page. Nableezy (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, the unreliable source I was referring to was the camera source. Nableezy (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. The objective is "to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage" and as such we are obliged to use reliable sources. CAMERA isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I alredy lose my courage and only repeat after your "reliable" sources? :) (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I dont understand what you are saying. Should you use reliable sources? Yes. Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "dont understand" ? :) It was my simple reply to Sean.hoyland's threats. (Igorp lj (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC))


 * "CAMERA isn't a reliable source"? Only because of your with Nableezy opinion? If you have reliable sources about, please let them here. (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No, it isnt a RS because it does not pass WP:RS. Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let more details why it doesn't pass. As well as for and comparing with Breaking the silence NGO - why it does pass (not speaking about remaining lie at its site I wrote about).
 * Any way, mentioned there Israel's Cnannel 2 (Israel), Ynetnews, Maariv pass it in the same manner as well as Haaretz. (Igorp lj (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Those are RSs. Breaking the Silence isnt a RS, but we dont source any fact to them, we source their opinions to them. Nableezy (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surprised that your imagination, Sean, is so inflexible. But seriously, I recall there was a report in Maariv in Hebrew with a contents similar to Channel 2 video, I just can't find it now. As for the last sentence, it provides no new info relevant to the war conduct and contributes little. I wanted to see how it is reported in 2009 timeline article... and couldn't find it. If it is found, more details would me more appropriate there. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps I overstated it given that 2+2=5 for very large values of 2 (but it's important that I don't blow my cover as a CAMERA recruited editor....oops, damn it). I should have said that there are usually better sources available...  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like BBC that reported balanced and fair coverage of the I-P conflict, proved themselves as experts in Laws of War and provided accurate citations from HRW and ICRC. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some facts about "reliable" and do reliable sources: - Till today, when lie about "testimonies" already died, the Israeli (that's the pity, but it's true) NGO Breaking the silence has at its site the same old one, without any addition: Haaretz Publishes Gaza Testimonies. - This is the same "Israeli" NGO, what was not squeamish to receive money from Arabs to make their propaganda in the USA: ‘Refuseniks’ sponsored by Jewish, Palestinian organizations tour US, speak against IDF policy in territories, Itamar Eichner. - And yet about it from NGO Monitor: A Harvard Settler, Student and Soldier a response to ‘Breaking the Silence’, Asher Fredman, July 22, 2008 ...

And what was so "terrible" in the Camera's article, what my opponents do not want to see here (besides of above-mentioned Channel 2 (Israel)] report and link to NY Times)? - The brigade commander’s findings were reported in the Israeli newspaper [[Maariv, in a story titled IDF Investigation Refutes the Testimonies About Gaza Killings. According to the story (translation by CAMERA): ...  - Questions Raised about Charges of “Wanton Killing” in Gaza -  Counter Evidence Ignored ''Ha’aretz, the New York Times, and most other outlets covering this controversy have ignored detailed statements by other soldiers of the strict rules of engagement that they followed, and of their acts of kindness towards Palestinians. (The Times devoted all of one sentence to a soldier who said that Israeli soldiers put their own lives at risk to avoid harming Palestinians. And the lone sentence was buried towards the end of the article.)

- The Israeli newspaper Ynetnews recounted some of these in reaction to the Ha’aretz stories:... ... - ''Another soldier who had fought in Gaza, Yishai Goldflam, circulated an open letter to the Palestinian family whose home his unit had temporarily occupied during the fighting. His letter, titled “I am the soldier who slept in your home,” was published in Maariv, and then translated and published in Canada’s National Post... ... - ''It’s unfortunate that New York Times and Haaretz readers are fed constant doses of the anti-Israel story-of-the-day, while the papers ignore the stories of typical Israeli soldiers like Yishai Goldflam. Times editors (and their counterparts at Haaretz) should explain why Danny Zamir is fit to print, and Yishai Goldflam is not fit to print. Through such tendentious choices is news made rather than reported.

In fact, the following picture defines the same sad subject: http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D09405_1.gif

- (Igorp lj (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I am not seeing your point, but can you explain what a group of reservists upset with Haaretz has to do with international law and this conflict? Nableezy (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It is already in other section :)
 * 2. My point is very simple: all this international "furor" and a lot of dirt on these reservists were based on D.Zamir's lie and the articles of Haaretz. It's very useful to know for all of us that (may be & as minimum) Haaretz will receive what it has earned. (Igorp lj (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, but what happens to Haaretz has nothing to do with what happened during the war. Nableezy (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not sure what your point is either. If your objective is to ensure that the article contains accurate information about the actions and behaviors of solders in Gaza that is supported by empirical evidence gathered and published by a reliable source then I suggest you have a look at the recent Amnesty International report. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk
 * It seems me you do not want to read carefully the article itself and the links to same RSs (Channel 2 (Israel), Ynetnews, Maariv ...) as "your" Haaretz, NY Times, etc. And as result, you made the wrong picture. - Igorp lj (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the point (RS is BS) but I don't agree with it. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think it was more BS is a RS, but it is a bit hazy Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This obviously biased AI ?! That Amnesty, what "has lost" 62 Israeli victims of 2006 in its Report-2007 ? That Amnesty, what regularly counted tens of inter-Arab clashes victims on responsiblity of IDF ?! No comments. - Igorp lj (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sean, did you have to provoke me? I only get started reading the AI report, but I can't help reproduce its 1st sentence: 'At 11.30am on 27 December 2008, without warning, Israeli forces began a devastating bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation “Cast Lead”'. Very accurate and balanced sentence. Where is mentioning that on December 20, Hamas officially announced that it would not extend the cease-fire? Where is mentioning of dozens of rockets on Israel between the lull collapse and December 27? Where is a warning Olmert issued on December 25? And why do you think a report, based on 'empirical evidence' collected merely from Palestinian civilians, by an organization that is no privy to military considerations, have only limited expertise in warfare and little comprehension of laws of war, would be reliable and objective? Nobody says IDF and its soldiers are perfect, and it is conceivable that many reckless actions were taken and it cost lives in Gaza. But before going into details, why don't you try and see the whole picture? Anthony Cordesman report is a good place to start. True, it was written mostly on info provided by Israeli side (because Palestinians provided nothing but propaganda), but at least the guy is an expert in military and strategic matters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This article needs to focus on what actually happened and it's effects on real people, real infrastructure etc in the real world in the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel. That's the subject of the article, an actual conflict not an abstraction of a conflict. AI is a reliable source and the report contains factual information that describes what actually happened and it's effects on real people and places. Emotive words are irrelevant for our purposes. The report contains information about how the military operations were carried out. It makes statements and provides evidence to support those statements. Contrast that with all of the information contained in this article derived from the IDF, thinktanks associated with the IDF and media sources that operate under the restrictions of a military censor that make statements and provide no evidence to support those statements. If we are concerned about reliability, accuracy and balance then we really ought to remove information that is inherently unverifable so that the space can be used for factual information about events that have been verified. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't push it further, just one side note. If you really want to open the pandora box and remove inherently inverifable info (and the fact that BBC reproduce them doesn't make them such) - most of AI, HRW and UN findings, statements and reports would go first and it could be easily shown (unless you take them for granted). Read and ask questions, Sean, read and ask questions. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And please, don't confuse Israel with Palestinian Authority. NGO think-tanks in Israel, just as press or TV, are independant and not censored (except for rear cases of security - but that's not different than in US or UK). When other Arab countries, including NPA, will be as transparent and self-critical as Israel, and when human rights organizations will stop singling out Israel as the prime sinner on Earth, then maybe their report will be balanced and reliable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They do not single out Israel, there are many reports from these organizations about violations in Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and so on (though to be fair none of these countries is currently occupying land nor have they engaged in military conflict with another party outside their borders in quite some time, so it is a tad different on the types of violations being reported). And being independent and not censored does not equal reliable, these think-tanks are under no obligation to ensure the factual accuracy of what they report whereas both AI and HRW and especially the ICRC are widely respected for the work they do and have a reputation of accuracy in their reports and making corrections when needed. But you must realize that using a report from NGOmonitor or CAMERA or terrorism-info to refute something from the UN, AI, HRW or the ICRC is not going to convince anybody. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't source information for this article from the Palestinian Authority. Anyway, no need to get defensive. AI have just published a major report about SPDC operations in the Niger Delta (which is uncomfortable reading for me) and these NGOs publish all sorts of reports all the time as Nab says (including scathing criticisms of Thailand) so it's not really the case that Israel is being singled out. I just think this article should describe what happened to the people living on the tiny part of this planet currently designated as the Gaza Strip and Southern Israel as accurately as possible. That seems uncontroversial. Whether those people are 'Israelis', 'Palestinians', fat, thin, atheist, agnostic or misguided theist makes no difference to me. It's arbitrary. I've also considered what you said about asking questions.
 * I've asked myself whether the Gaza Strip border is a kind of event horizon beyond which the nature of physical reality is derived from an entirely different kind of physics and that the human brain consciously experiences that reality in ways that are simply inconceivable to outsiders perhaps even rendering the minds of people living there or visiting for NGOs and the media no longer capable of perception in the way we understand it.
 * I've wondered whether different ontologies operate on either side of the border. For example, do statements like "X's <child/wife/husband/father/mother/brother/sister/friend> was killed" or "Y's <house/business/school/nearest supermarket> was destroyed" actually have different meanings and evoke different qualia on either side of the border.
 * I've considered whether perhaps Hamas have fashioned a device that causes sudden increases in entropy. That would explain the photo on the front of the AI report.
 * I don't like to speculate though and with more consideration and factoring in Occum's razor they seem a bit far fetched. It seems more likely that it's the same physics, stuff happens, people see it, describe it and we read it or look at the pictures. Not sure whether those were the kind of questions you had in mind. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say 'only', but 'prime'. Tell me friends, what do you know about current conflict in Sri Lanka? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm a spelling Nazi but Occam is usually spelled with an A. One should remember that the simplest spelling is not always the correct one. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Occam, Occum, same thing in Arabic/Hebrew. Also I'm just guessing where the keys are most of the time. Plus I can't spell. Originally I had 7 c's and 3 m's. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry. My joke really isn't as funny if you're dyslexic. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get to you when my Braille Writer is mended. Okay, that was bad taste. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)