Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Back to the 'police' issue

Righ now, the 'disputed figures' subsection says that 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]' and 'IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]' I argue that first sentence is POV citation of [223]:http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. This is what it actually says: "Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority, including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties." "Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' [224] is very partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. So, what I propose is that the full definition is given: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' This is significant, since the second part of the definition that I emphasized was simply taken out. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to explain this exact point here. There are some refs there you can use. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the second sentence, [224] I see it as a partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. I am not an expert, but in my comprehension, "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities" contradicts the definition. The definition, provided by HRW itself, says 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. I understand this that if a policeman is at the same time a member of the fighting force, it is not required to catch him launching rockets or engage in shooting. Anyway, for now I can live with the second sentence, but I hope there will be finally broad consensus on the first one.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Mr ex-Nice Guy, this is simply astounding!: http://www.btselem.org/english/Legal_Documents/HCJ_769_02_20061214_Targeted_killing_Ruling_Summary_Eng.doc

I think we can cite whole paragrphs out of there. Cheers.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we agree on the point. Still, I have to emphasize once again: this is not a matter of interpretation. I argue that the first sentence taken from [223] is partial out of context misquoting of the source itself.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You will also notice that here and here HRW says it is legitimate to target the homes and offices of Hamas and Hizbollah military commanders. They don't need to be shooting at anyone at the time. The main misunderstanding here is that some people want to believe that "taking direct part in hostilities" means "shooting someone right this second". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To emphasize it with Summary of Judgment from HCJ:'a civilian who has joined a terrorist organization and commits a chain of hostilities, with short periods of rest between them, loses his immunity from attack for the entire time of his activity. For such a civilian, the rest between hostilities is nothing other than preparation for the next act of hostilities'. The hostilities between Gaza and Israel didn't start in December 2008 and didn't end in January 2009 (unfortunately)Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

'A civilian who violates this principle and takes direct part in hostilities does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy the protections granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject'. It might be OK from PCHR to count policemen with double affiliation as 'civilians' but it is OK to target those policemen and this is of course an important distinction. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe we should take this to combatant where we can get some more eyes which are not involved in this specific conflict, and once we get the whole thing hashed out there, we can apply the conclusions to other articles where relevant. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though I doubt it will be read soon.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. A person is either a combatant or a non-combatant. A person is either a civilian, or a member of an armed force. You can be a civilian and a combatant. You can be a member of an armed force and a non-combatant. The fact PCHR uses "civilians/non-combatants" is misleading in and of itself. How do they classify civilian combatants like (to give an extremely obvious example) someone who's not a member of any organization who takes his personal hunting rifle and joins a battle? They can put him in either column and still be technically correct. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the deepest knowledge about the issue, yet try to reconsider the status of a policemen in Palestine first, and I am not very sure the Palestine policemen even do carry guns. So that might be a reason, I will check the issue. Also even if they do carry guns, policemen in no country has any heavy-weapons that can object against armed troops like IDF, which carry heavy artillery that can even resist to any soldier that equipped heavily. The result would be instant death, against bullet-proof jackets of IDF, or tanks, or jets anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you find, Kasaalan, some very original arguments. Whether or not police in Gaza carries guns is irrelevant. What is relevant is how come many of the policemen killed have simultaneously double duties in police and Hamas. Go read Obituaries for Fathi al-Kurd, police officer and at the same time artillery unit commander in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Asked an expert about the situation, and Gaza policemen carry guns, and even rifles time to time for various reasons, my mistake. I also sent a letter to PCHR about the issue. Yet, PCHR may not be able to get every record, so while they listed them as policemen, they might not know they were also member of armed wing of Hamas. Moreover since the counter sources also POV, we should also check if their claims are true. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We got carried away. The prime reason this section was started is this: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]', which is POV citation of [223]: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. It should be 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

During the strike noone can distinct, if a policeman is Hamas militant or not, so if the policeman shoots he is not civilian but if he doesn't shoot the policeman should be called civilian. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting fully is more helpful. I agree on taking full quote.

Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.

Also the report you provided clearly shows IDF even bombed graduation ceremony of police students, dozens of students killed in 1 strike. So when they bomb policemen and police students, expecting police to not involve situation is a bit of a dream. They even bombed traffic police station. So how a graduation ceremony can violate international rules for police to be called civilians. So at least we know 40 of the policemen that killed should be considered as civilians. Some rare policemen might have been members of armed wing of Hamas, but that cannot justify dozens of police candidate's bombing in their graduation. Kasaalan (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it right to bomb the policeman? Maybe. Maybe not. But what the heck does this have to do with writing the article? We don't have to decide for ourselves whether or not Israelis are devils or are saints. This is not our mission.

The article says: HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223] and IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]

This fairly represents what HRW thinks. I don't see how there can be a dispute here. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue Sceptic Ashdod brought up here is that [224] which is a newspaper piece contradicts what HRW says in [223] which is its own publication. To wit, "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.". The BBC piece is unsourced in its claim of what HRW says about the issue. That is the dispute. I'm new here. What's the procedure in such a case? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more info from HRW:

extended quote from HRW collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza? Israel has launched repeated attacks on police stations in Gaza, killing and injuring large numbers of police. The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets. Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack.

I think from that we can say the following regarding HRW's position:

Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. (note: I dont think we need to formally incorporated into the armed forces, Gaza has no formal army) If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities. HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilians unless they are being used for military purposes, sush as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur. source

Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're playing fast and lose with the definition of "armed forces". Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza and AlQassam Brigades are their official army, with a diciplined chain of command, etc. You don't really think that they get extra protection because they deliberately refuse to distinguish themselves from the local population by wearing a uniform or insignia, do you? In fact, they get less. They are unpriviledged combatants.
Anyway, both your HRW quote and mine specifically say Hamas fighters are legitimate targets. Also, for the 15th time, "taking active part in the hostilities" doesn't mean "participating in a battle right now", as the fact that military commanders may be targetted in their homes and places of work proves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going on. We need to get past this. No, Nableezy isn't playing fast and lose with the definition with the definition of "armed forces". He's just using the same definition used by the Supreme Court of Israel, HRW, ICRC i.e. the definition in the Third Geneva Convention. No one, not the Surpreme Court of Israel, not the IDF, not the IDF's lawyers, not HRW, not ICRC, not the UN, absolutely nobody has said that Hamas are the "armed forces of a party to a conflict" in the way that HRW use the phrase and are therefore entitled to POW status etc. They are not "armed forces of a party to a conflict". It's irrelevant so it could be excluded because as you say they are a type of civilian behaving as a combatant, an 'unpriviledged combatant' or 'unpriviliged civilian' or 'illegal combatant' whatever term is used, they mean the same thing and can be attacked under certain circumstances. Those circumstances most certainly are disputed and very obviously so. The IDF's views are the IDF's views [1]. They aren't shared by many others. What are some of their views ?

• Is it okay to kill a traffic cop or a cadet on parade ? Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers categorize them as part of a "resistance force in the event of..etc". That is controversial.
• Is there evidence that the individuals actually are part of a resistance force ? It doesn't matter to the IDF's lawyers because it's not based on evidence about individuals. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to kill people (let's say a child) in a house containing a suspected 'illegal combatant' or who re-enter a house after an IDF warning even if those people aren't Hamas people. Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers catagorize them as either "voluntary human shields" or "are taking part in the fighting" merely by their presence. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to assassinate a person because they are a suspected member of an organization ? Yes. Why ? Because they are a "terrorist operative". Terrorists are regarded as being "directly engaged in hostilities" all the time by the IDF's lawyers no matter what they are actually doing. Legalization of assassination is very unusual indeed and is one of the best examples for me to illustrate the difference between the IDF approach and others e.g. you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems. You will see them occasionally assassinating Brazilian people who they think are just about to detonate a suicide belt. That illustrates the radical difference in interpretation of 'directly engaged in hostilities'.

We aren't here to decide/discuss whether the IDF approach is right/wrong, legitimate/illegitimate, legal/illegal etc etc. Things are just going round and round in circles. We just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations and point out the differences between the IDF's lawyers permissive, broad approach to these matters and the opinions of others if it helps to clarify a dispute over the status of a casualty or the legality of an action.

We should also not forget to mention that the PCHR classify 255 policemen as civilians and 28 as militants. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're playing fast and lose with what I said, as evidenced by you bringing up POW status when I said "unprivileged combatants". But never mind that. Your WP:soapboxing isn't of much interest to me either, to be honest. Feel free to erect as many strawmen as you like, and then knock them down if that makes you happy.
I did post in the wrong section though. I was talking about how PCHR catigorzises Hamas fighters as civilian/non-combatant, not about the status of police in general, and for that I apologize. If you have any ICRC refs regarding Hamas fighters' status as non-combatants, I'd be happy to see them, as I mentioned earlier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually actively participating means right now. No more nice guy is wrong on on that. Nableezy (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Bears are actively participating in the NFL despite not playing a game right now. "Hostilities" denotes something ongoing, not a one time event. Again, the fact it is legitimate to target a military commander at his home or office proves you don't have to be doing something right now to be actively involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for appealing to my other sensitivities, but it is a tad different. Below is an ICRC source that spells out what the phrase means, and it does mean while actively participating. You are using definitions that are not in line with what the sources say. A military commander is not equivalent to a police officer, a military commander by definition is not a civilian. We have sources that say "while actively participating" not "once having participated". Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I have no interest whatsoever in soapboxing. My personal views on whether the IDF approach is right/wrong/pragmatic/illegal etc etc are 100% irrelevant. All soapboxing absolutely has to stop on this talk page because it just gets in the way. I was simply providing some pertinent examples where the IDF's lawyers views are a) considered to be controversial by others and b) can produce a mismatch in casualty catagorization. I'll say it again, we just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations. And I mentioned "armed forces of a party to a conflict" and POW status specifically because you said Hamas are the "official army". Official "privileged combatant" armies aren't made up of "unprivileged combatants". Even the IDF's lawyers haven't tried to have that cake and eat it. Shalit is not an "unprivileged combatant" even if the people holding him in effect categorize and treat him as one by withholding POW rights. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems If memory serves me, the British did do essentially that. They had a shoot-to-kill policy of Irish criminal suspects. They even freaking allied themselves with Loyalist terrorists/gangsters to assist them on this. They committed acts against civilian people who did nothing military just because those civilians were connected to the IRA.

This is soapboxing, obviously. But gosh-darn-it I feel offended It's stupid, but still.The Squicks (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am starting it for the third time already, cause you (Nableezy, Squicks, Kasaalan) simply fail to understand what we are discussing here. We are not discussing here legitimacy or justification of some attacks on police, we are not discussing policemen status, we are not discussing here proportionality. We might discuss it in Int. law section. What we are discussing is how can you say (in the 'disputed figures') the following sentence represents what HRW thinks: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.'? Claiming that they dispute IDF is like saying they pick a side here, which is simply intrue. They pick no side. HRW is not disputing anything. They merely say: '"Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' So, again, they say it depends. What we should do here is either provide definition by HRW or full citation of Stork.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that 'HRW dispute IDF combatant classification of the policemen' is erroneous for one more reason. [223] refers to legality of the attacks on police, not their classification as militants or civilians.

If we are sticking to HRW, here is, again, an excerpt from HRW's Q&A regarding legal aspects of the conflict (and not classification issue, emphasis mine): '...The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets.'; 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' 'Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas#_May_Israel_lawfully. Same applies of course to mosques. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What I try to show here, is that HRW is neither justifying nor condemnig the legality of the attacks on the police. They say it depends on number of factors. Attempting to interpret their words in pro-IDF or pro-Hamas way should not be the task of Wiki editors. So, the wording here should be edited to neutral. HRW is neither disputing nor arguing with IDF. Both sentences are wrong.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with what I wrote above? Nableezy (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. For 11th time already, this is not what HRW says. This is what it does say: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Do you notice the difference? This is first. Second, you write 'If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities' and later 'Actually actively participating means right now'. This is interpretation, taken out of context. This is because you omit in HRW statement, 'unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. [side note: from the Israeli side, it is simply irrelevant whether they are taking a direct part in hostilities or not, since from the Israeli perspective they all are Hamas fighters, simultaneously and constantly, because by definition the police there is incorporated in the Hamas military wing, in the same way border police in Israel is incorporated in the IDF.] Third, all the above, and proportionality issue you mentioned, does not belong in 'disputed figures' section but in Int. law section. [223] and all the HRW links here do not dispute or argue with IDF classification of policemen as militants but examine issues of legality of the attack on the police. Finally, and this is important for you and all the others to grasp: when dealing with the police issue (not some particular strikes but the concept in general) HRW are not saying in the links provided IDF was entitled or not. They cite int. law and either we cite it completely or do not cite it at all. Hope I made myself clear. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see the difference. But this is an exact quote from HRW: "Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities." I didnt write "right now" in my proposed text, I wrote it in response to NMMNG. Again, this is a direct quote from the source cited above: "poice who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." How would you phrase "whenever and for such time as actively participating in hostilities". Here is some more from the ICRC: "direct participation in hostilities by civilians entails loss of immunity from attack during the time of such participation and may also subject them, upon capture, to penal prosecution under the domestic law of the detaining state." and later "Within these parameters, little doubt exists that a civilian carrying out an attack would be directly participating in hostilities. In the same vein, legal experts seem to agree that civilians preparing or returning from combat operations are still considered to be directly participating in hostilities, although precise indication as to when preparation begins and return ends remains controversial." It is clear that active or direct participation means for the time they are participating in hostilities. Nableezy (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I deal with police stations in "HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilian unless they are being used for military purposes, such as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur." which is based off "Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities." from the source. Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And I didnt omit anything, I was using a different source, the entire text of which you can see in the collapsed section above. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, friend, I have to run now, stay tuned. Right now, reread this paragraph and we will talk later: 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, we have a consensus on what the sources say. Now let's go back to the reason I started it all. The sentence in 'disputed figures' says: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification' [223]. Can anybody show me (without going into interpretations of int. law) where exactly does [223] dispute IDF combatants classification?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I *think* I see your point, they did not 'dispute' that the policemen were combatants, they disputed the reasoning (which Israel has given as 'anybody associated with Hamas is a valid target'). That is in this quote, again in the collapsed section above: "it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets." I see your issue with the language, how would this work for you:

The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government. HRW has said that an assertion that police and police stations are "automatically valid military targets" is incorrect and that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets. (and also include the PCHR response to the IDF saying that the police are valid targets).

Will get a source for each statement, Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to speak for Skeptic here, but that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets seems to me to be problematic. It's not like HRW was deliberately vague about what those factors are/were. They were quite specific about it, and it seems to me to be a bit confusing or possibly even misleading to the reader not to mention exactly what those factors are/were.

The terminology "is incorrect" also seems a bit... off. What they are arguing about is their interpretation of international law. A spelling test answer is either correct or incorrect. Same thing for a math test answer. As a matter of interpretation of something, one person can make a really lousy case, but that would not make them incorrect in that sense. The phrase "HRW disagrees with this interpretation" makes more sense.

"they are associated with" seems inaccurate. The IDF is not bombing anyone just because they voted for Hamas or because they took a flu shot from one of their offices or whatever tangent association. "they serve" or something along those lines would be more accurate.

This is the worst sort of nitpicking, I know. But I hope that you can see where I am coming from. The Squicks (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to avoid bloating the casualties section, my thinking was the 'number of factors' can go in the international law section. But if yall want it here too that is fine by me. Re 'they are associated with', we have a source explicitly saying that as the given reason by Israel, will look for it later tonight, but if you have better language by all means put it up. Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news, guys. We are, at last, making progress. Yes, Nableezy, in [223] HRW are not disputing classification of the fatalities. They are addressing the issue to what extent are attacks on the police are lawfully justified. So, we are kind of agree this belongs to the int. law section. Next, 'The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government' is misleading. It is true that IDF targeted many government installations for that reason, but to say that policemen and police facilities were targeted merely because they are associated with the Hamas government is oversimplification. The main reason, and I will provide you with sources, is because police as a whole is incorporated in the Hamas' military wing and many policemen actually hold Hamas' military wing rankings and command posts simultaneously to their work in police. This is why it is crucial, and I am glad The Squicks realizes it, to mention those factors exactly as they are. Finally, [223] say that 'Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets, Stork said. It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose.' I will repeat again - regarding police and police stations, Israel did not make a neither blanket nor arbitrary decision on this matter. Thus, saying that HRW 'argues' or 'disputes' with IDF is erroneous. Both sentences in 'disputed figures' section are inappropriate. What 'disputed figures' section must say is that 'PCHR civilian count included those killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' (almost there in the text) and that 'IDF regards all the policemen killed as militants' (still missing, but we will work it out). Nableezy, The Squicks, do you understand what I am trying to say? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat paradoxically, but 'The IDF's views are the IDF's views' as Sean said. This is the first (but definitely not the last) of sources to support the above. Go here [2] 'The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target'. I am not trying, guys, to convince you all the IDF attacks on police and police facilities were justified. It can be disputable. But the arguments and counterarguments must be conveyed precisely. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Next, here [3], 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. Not because they are 'associated' with Hamas, but because they are 'equivalent of armed fighters'.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another link here [4]. 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target'. INSS, btw, is The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. Is it neutral? Maybe not. Is it RS? I think it falls within definitions of Wiki RS. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The anything associated with Hamas line is from a BBC source quoting an unnamed Israeli spokesman:

But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

later on it also includes this definition from Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." I agree the bulk of the issue should be covered in international law, but I think it partially belongs in the casualties, as we say that the IDF counted police as combatants while the PCHR and PMoH did not, we should briefly explain why in that section. Will look at your links in a bit, just wanted to let you know I didnt pull 'anything associated' out from nowhere. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And for NMMNG, that source also contains this: "However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities." Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, one suggestion. It would help a bit if you could say exactly what changes you want to make to the section and what sources you want to use. I feel we are going around in circles arguing about slightly different things (and combining the argument on what the intl law section should say and what the casualties section should say). Would you mind drawing up your idea of what to change? Nableezy (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC is nothing if not a reliable source, but the attribution of the term 'affiliated' these is questionable. It's a paraphrase of an off the record anonymous source.

For something with this degree of vehement dispute, I would preferably stick to the official released statements. This goes for Hamas too. Something along the lines of The IDF said that it believes that Gaza police and Gaza police agents as inherently equivalent to or something along those lines. The Squicks (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about= The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza police and police stations as inherently equivilent to armed soliders since, it believes, Hamas has incorporated them into its military wing. HRW has said that police and police stations constitue valid targets only if they are targeted when they actively participate in hostilites. The PCHR (...) The Squicks (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more or less agnostic as to whether or not we should refer to (an) Israeli think tank(s) if we also refer to the PCHR. It depends on whether or not notability can be demonstrated as well as whether or not that group is part of the Israeli government vs really independent. The Squicks (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I really dont think you can compare a human rights organization with a think tank. That said, notability and due weight would be the only real concerns for using them, so long as their views are explicitly attributed to them. Nableezy (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didnt take that as a paraphrase, I took that as a direct quote from an unnamed Israeli military spokesman. Nableezy (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

INSS was named in top 5 think-tanks in ME and North Africa, btw. [5]. Are we agreed on notability? I guess I already said they are independant, but if there is doubt I will search for additional proofs. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We are getting closer. The first sentence of The Squick's proposal is more or less fine. The wording is not perfect, but the meaning is almost accurate. I will provide shortly my version. The second sentence is inaccurate. It should be 'HRW has said that police and police stations constitues valid target only if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities' [6] or '...if the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' [7].--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC). I deliberately omitted 'police stations', they can be addressed in int. law section, but irrelevant to fatalities figures. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let me remind you that if we are (and we indeed are) discussing changes to 'disputed figures' section, it is better and more appropriate to rely on sources released after the fatalities numbers published, and not before. I insist this is more appropriate: 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. [8]. so, actually, the first sentence from the Squick's proposal can go like this: 'The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed soliders fighters, thus including them in the militant's count.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, agree with parts, disagree with others. Much of the commentary on the legality of targeting police came after the first few days of initial strikes, which were largely targeted at police and police stations. Sources commenting on the legality of the issue itself are fine from whenever. But, I am fine with the sentence you put above for Israel's position. I am also fine with "HRW has said that police constitute valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". But I would also add "are presumptively civilians" with a result of "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". Nableezy (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

also, remove the "thus" from your sentence. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC [9] with all due respect to RS, fails here. It says: 'Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities'. However, both here [10] and here [11] HRW actually says that policemen can be targeted if 'the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' Moreover, HRW elaborates that 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' The confusion arises from concentrating on the second sentence, while ignoring the first. This is why, I repeat, it is crucial to provide the exact wording from HRW and not rely on the tetriary source. This is why the second sentence from the article is erroneous.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again, but I dont see a conflict between the two, as the next sentence in the q&a hrw source says: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." The BBC, which attributes this to HRW, is just qualifying what "such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule we prefer secondary sources to primary ones on wiki. See WP:PRIMARY. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh! We are almost there. "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BBC, I wrote and I repeat again, that both sentences are equally important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' BBC says IDF has evidence some policeman launch rockets from time to time. If this is the case, the second sentence you retyped is correct. However, and I will not cease to say it, this is not the only case. IDF regards policemen in Gaza as inherently equivilent to armed fighters. Thus, the first sentence is equally important. Now a side note (and let's not make the whole story from it) - as I understood Wiki policies, HRW here is a secondary source, since they provide the reader with definitions from int. law, which thus is a primary source. BBC, citing HRW, become tetriary and less reliable source. From all the above, I kindly ask to reconsider the sentence from the 'disputed figures' section that cite BBC.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one responds, I will chatter with myself a bit. Perhaps what is confusing here is to realize the simultaneous double affiliation of police in Gaza. I guess what my opponents think is that a policeman in Gaza can sometimes be engaged in terrorist actions and be the regular poliveman all the other time. This is why they cite that sentence from HRW q&a: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Indeed, an individual can't be working at two jobs at the same time, can he? He can go to one at the day shift, and to another at the night shift. However, there is no contradiction at all - one is a son of his parents and at the same time he is a brother to his parents' children. The same with police in Gaza - from Israeli POV, the police there is incorporated in Hamas' military wing, similar to the border police in Israel. Thus, the question 'whether policeman X was killed in combat situation or not' is irrelevant. He could be a orchestra musician or clerk - he is part of armed forces to the conflict. The same applies, as mentioned, to border police in Israel.

I thought of an analogy that might help understand why citing only Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities is erroneous. You are taking driving lessons, and your instructor tells you that if you see a yellow light while approaching junction with lights, you should go on moving if already entered the junction and stop if you are before junction. Would this be incorrect? No, the statement is correct. But what about red and green lights? The same applies here. Citing merely the sentence above is covering the 'yellow light' issue. The previous sentence is eually important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack (red light), while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted (green light).' Since Israel regards police in Gaza as incorporated in Hamas' military wing, all the policemen from IDF perspective are 'green light'. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare

Mo way to graphically describe a disaster of sensibly blending of two roots

Why that heading? Israel spent a lot of money and made a lot of effort making thousands of phonecalls and dropping thousands of leaflets to warn residents of incoming attacks. Why is the 'warning' part left out, that was the purpose. Also, like I wrote in the article, but was removed, the warning mentioned that people who had terrorists and weapons hidden in their homes, or near the area, needed to leave before their houses were bombed. The IDF emphasised this to show that they weren't targetting civilians, that anyone associated with Hamas terrorists (sorry, militants), needed to disassociate themselves, i.e. get out of that area, and not get invlved with militants or storing their weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.35.19 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That heading is there because the sources describe what is covered in that section as propaganda and psychological warfare. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, was just about to start this section. So far, we have 'Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas started boasting that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance' without source. Let me contribute a little:

If you are stupid enough to enter the Gaza Strip, we will fight you. You will face not only thousands of fighters but a 1.5 million people who will fight you, out of their desire to die the deaths of martyrs, Khaled Mashal at a press conference in Damascus, March 1, 2008.http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf

If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, we may have a second or a third Shalit, said Khaled Meshaal. If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you, you will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God. You entered like rats, added Hamas spokesman on Al Aqsa TV. Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4077764/Hamas-threatens-black-destiny-if-Israeli-soldiers-enter-Gaza.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e037.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The exaggerated description of the IDF forces and their abilities was coupled by descriptions of alleged military “successes” which Hamas spokesmen were keen to boast of as the fighting was coming to an end. For example: a false announcement on abducting an IDF soldier on January 12, publications about a rocket attack (which never happened) on an IDF base 50 km away, the supposed destruction of 11 Israeli tanks, taking (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod, and more. Of particular note was the “victory speech” of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades spokesman Abu Obeida (Al-Aqsa TV, January 19), which was rife with false descriptions of the “heroic campaign and war of salvation” waged by Hamas. Thus, for example, according to Abu Obeida, no less than 80 (!) IDF soldiers were killed, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with the terrorists. Abu Obeida claims that the IDF is loathe to publish the real number of casualties, reporting instead that they died in car accidents (according to IDF Spokesman data, as at January 19 ten soldiers were killed during the operation, including four who died as a result of friendly fire ).http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e048.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas strictly forbids the publication of the names of its terrorist operatives who were killed during the fighting , especially since the ground operation began. http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133351/global-terrorism/operation-cast-lead-update-no-12.html. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this section is a POV toxic disaster. Kind of Vulcan mind meld of Propapsywar. Really, Nableezy. Reliable sources has nothing to do with that. Sceptic, thank you for new sources. To make things better we could:

1. Remove redundant stuff about "day before" and "surprise" - it is already discussed in Conflict Escalates.

2. Put relevant "Propaganda" stuff into Media. Calling Israeli media campaign (PR) a Propaganda is far from neutral. Some sources do that - Wikipedia should remain NPOV.

3. Break psywar stuff neutralized with new sources integrated between belligerents and make two Psywar subsection of Israeli offensive and Palestinian military activity.

This section needs serious work. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My aim was to put more weight to psy war Hamas leads. I think it deserves a separate subsection. I would like to see eventually all the headlines I provided: concrete threats and intimidations by Hamas seniors; hiding number of casualties; false claims of success and victory. Of course I wouldn't mind dispersing Israeli propaganda a bit.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to put Israeli psy war in the context. Some believed Israel wanted intimidate Gaza population, however others saw it as warning to civilians in Urban warfare battlefield. Additions of new sourced material usually undergo WP:BRD, so be bold and in case of revert feel free to discuss to satisfy fellow editors concerns. Is there any objection to structural article change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how it is percieved:

Before and during the Cast Lead Operation, Hamas' senior representatives released number of statements designed to intimidate Israeli decision-makers from launching any military operation in Gaza and to cause demoralization among Israelis. Speaking from Damascus on March 1, 2008, Khaled Mashal promised to fight any Israeli aggression with 1.5 million people who will willingly die deaths of martyrs. On the eve of the ground incursion by Israeli forces, Khaled Mashal presumed that if IDF launch ground offensive, black destiny and abductions await Israeli soldiers. Hamas spokesman added that with the God's help Gaza will become a graveyard to Israeli troops.

In an effort to boost the morale of its fighters, Hamas prohibited publishing photographs, names or details of those members of the resistance who got killed or injured in the fighting.

On the video launched on Al-Aqsa TV on January 10, showing the names of Israeli towns hit by rockets, it was implied Tel-Aviv is the next target and that 'all options are open'.

In the course of the operation, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters. For example, Hamas claimed on January 12 that IDF soldier was abducted; declared destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; took (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hit an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. Following the end of the fighting, Hamas proclaimed victory and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with its fighters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Hamas engaged in psywar + propaganda.(been waiting a long time to say that). Sources of course must address these actions as such(pro+psy) to avoid misrepresentation issues. Within the section itself, we could address that multiple RS talk about Israel's actions in other terms other than pro+psy, so perhaps is not necessary to break anything up or add another section, although if done right, and followed through, all options are more than available. Cryptonio (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you are actually trying to say, though seems like you do not have general objection to include the above. I'll try to insert it and if you have reservations, we will discuss it.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the one para where I couldn't verify the sources used had identify practices as pro + psy war. The rest I checked. Cryptonio (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This one darnit "In another report compiled by IITC, evidencies for Hamas’s effort to perpetuate a victory myth in the warfare are produced: in the course of the fighting, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters, claiming that more IDF soldiers were abducted; declared destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; took (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hit an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. [198] Following the end of the fighting, Hamas proclaimed victory and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with its fighters. [199]" Cryptonio (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We would like a response on these two matters please.

Read here: [25]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Related to this posting in the article of course.

A reporter from Gaza stated he had difficultly gathering evidencies as the local population is terrified of Hamas and threatened when not collaborating with the 'resistance'. [199]

If the RS does not address them as pro+psy war, then you are the one who make the judgment to call them that, and that would be WP:OR. I hope that this doesn't take much time to understand. Cryptonio (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue, the paragraph in question cite The battle for hearts and minds (198 and 199 is the same source). To start with, 'the battle for hearts and minds' and 'effort to perpetuate a victory myth ' sound a synonym to 'propaganda' to me. If this is not convincing, here is more from the text of the report: 'Operation Cast Lead was also a virtual war of TV screens, media, and public opinion. The battle for the hearts and minds is now entering its critical stage, with Hamas attempting to create a narrative according to which it has won the war (“divine victory”) or at least was not defeated standing against the fearsome war machine of the IDF. That effort is coordinated by the Hamas leadership in both Damascus and the Gaza Strip and is shared by the Hamas media, Al-Jazeera (which gives strategic support to Hamas's propaganda campaign) and Iran and Syria ' para. 1; 'Those who follow Hamas's propaganda, the statements made by its leaders, and Al-Jazeera TV, may get the impression that the IDF's activity in the Gaza Strip focused solely on harming the civilian population, while terrorist operatives are not seen and not heard.' para. 10; 'the Hamas propaganda emphasizes its ability to continuously fire rockets at Israel during Operation Cast Lead, including at Israeli cities not hit prior to the operation. Hamas spokesmen noted that, before the war, the rockets only reached Ashkelon (up to 20 km from the Gaza Strip), but during the war it reached such distant places (located up to 40 km from the Gaza Strip) as Beersheba and Ashdod. During the war, Hamas's propaganda even bragged that more population centers (up to Tel-Aviv) would be put in the range of fire' para. 13; 'the false statements made by Hamas about the IDF's alleged losses and about events that never happened have yet to create the desired effect in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion' para. 16 (again, sounds like synonym to 'propaganda'); 'the Israeli home front functioned properly during the rocket fire in Operation Cast Lead, not providing Hamas's propaganda with enough “proof” to establish an image of victory' para. 17. In short, the entire report is about Hamas' propaganda. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of propaganda.

Just in case, Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives: 'to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message that Israel's military operations are aimed against Gaza Strip residents and that only the civilian population is being hit by the IDF and is paying the price.' para 3.c

Regarding the second issue. To start with, do you agree the sentence based on Cremonesi report is correct? If not, why? If yes, where do you think it fits best? Or maybe you think it is not significant enough to be mentioned? Lorenzo Cremonesi: 'These Locals are often threatened by Hamas...“This is not a new fact, in the Middle East, Arab societies are missing the cultural traditions of human rights. It happened during Arafat’s regime that the press started being persecuted and censured. With Hamas it is even worse,” said Eyad Sarraj". Now, to say that intimidation, physical violence and censorship are not means of psy-war aganst own population is, in my view, concealing.

While preparing this reply, I came across this:Creating a Citizenry Prepared for Terrorism. I should have thought of it earlier. 'The public must understand that terrorism is psychological warfare'; Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare 'The modern terrorist differs from the common criminal in that he is motivated by a political agenda', 'way to the terrorist’s ultimate political goal runs through a vital interim objective—the creation of an unremitting paralyzing sensation of fear in the target community'; A Form of Psychological Warfare 'Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear in the attainment of political change. It is thus undeniably a form of psychological warfare. Terrorists use violence—or, equally important, wield the threat of violence—because they believe that only through brutal mayhem can their cause triumph and long-term political aims be attained.' Is there any doubt that rockets on Israeli towns, sowing terror, is means of psy-war? Is there any doubt that intimidation of Gaza own population is means of psy-war? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, it seems as the article itself is propaganda, I am not going to touch your explanation either. Since it's 'sort' of sourced, i'm leaving it at that.

On the reporter's statement, I have doubts I exist, so if the reporter's article does not address the claims as pro+psy war, I don't think it belongs on that section and I am not going in the business of looking for a place to put information. By your explanation on the first issue, don't you think that the reporter's article does not belong in pro+psy war? yes, I did not payed much attention to your argument trying to put words on the report's mouth. In conclusion, I personally no longer have a problem with Issue number 1, and I insist the reporter's sentence be removed from the pro+psy war section. Cryptonio (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, I will anyway be adding more sources so it would not be based solely on IITC report. On the second issue, I fail to see how did I 'put words in reporter's mouth'. My source clearly says that 'Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. Nevertheless, since 'Hamas reprisal attacks' section is now renamed into 'Hamas political violence', the sentence is indeed more appropriate there. Are we settled? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I improved the citing and added other sources, including Al-Jazeera and Ma'an News agency that support many of the findings in the IITC report.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone U.N. Investigation?

I was getting together some info on that for another article and assume it is also relevant here. Will either give best links I find or put in a paragraph, depending on my energy levels and if no one beats me to it.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but.. is there really info already? I am not sure he even got started...but I can be wrong on this one. Anyway, accidentally came across this: '"The report of the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur is unbalanced and contributes little," junior foreign minister Bill Rammell said in a written reply to a parliamentary question published Wednesday.' If there would be no objection, it will be placed near Falk.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Exercise in Math

Someone added the following to the disputed figures subsection: 'Cremonesi also quotes Christopher Oberlin, a French government doctor, "the Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that before any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it". First of all, [227] is in Italian. It would be nice to read the translation of the entire article in English. Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report. Let us recall the PCHR data: PCHR puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces; out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. This leaves us with 497 males above 18. I put PCHR list in Excel, and there are indeed 497 males above 18, out of which 97 males above 50 (50 is because the oldest militant/policeman is about 50). All in all, we got 116+313+97=526 children, women and elder males, 37%. Males 18-50 are 236+255+400=891, 63%. How come the group that constitutes less than 25% of the general population (we should have counted 97 elder males to match 25% of the population), comprises 63% of the fatalities? Even if we examine just the civilian fatalities, 400 males 18-50 out of 926 is 43%, closer to 50% than to 25%. Is this an idea of shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it? For those who would say I am soapboxing again and making original research, I would reply that this week ICT released similar report, examining PCHR own data, reaching the same conclusions. Since I intend to insert it in the article, wouldn't Oberlin's words seem somewhat embarrassing? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Just because Christopher Oberlin may happen to not be right does not automatically make him un-notable. We quote Hamas on this page several times, when the vast majority of our readers probably consider them to be full of it. See WP:TRUTH. The Squicks (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, don't look at that. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually made almost the same point about the other Cremonesi article, specially on this "Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report." Dude, believe me, Cremonesi's statement stood in the article for a long time, and it was removed after better numbers came from PCHR and the IDF. That people find use still for it, its beyond me(but not beyond reasoning, since it is inserted now for POV-pushing). This article you are addressing now, was inserted by a fool, but that fool tried and tried not to do it, because it is a travesty, unnecessary really, but nothing like contradicting Cremonesi with Cremonesi. Numbers don't seem to add up on neither of the reports. But, on Wiki grounds I don't see anything wrong with it, specially since there is a link, on Italian, to another of Cremonesi's reports. By the way, Nishidani would be able to translate the rest of the report if he's up to it, don't tell him I sent you though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Oberlin's notability or verifiability of his statement. I think this statement, more political than factual, adds nothing to article's encyclopedian value. However, if there is general consensus - let it stay. I merely try to draw the attention of the editors that his numbers, when compared to those of the PCHR, look ridiculous. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The same should be said about quotation of We’am Fares. According to PCHR, the total number of children below 18 is 22% (313 out of 1417), compared to his assessment that children below 14 alone constitute at least 35% of fatalities. Is someone is interested, I could tomorrow tell the exact number of children below 14, but I assure it will be less than 14%. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that there might be an issue with WP:V? Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Holly mother of God... Cremonesi didn't contradict himself. He just did what reporters usually do: interviewing people. He just interviewed a supposed doctor who told him something, and then he interviewed other individuals who told him other things, and he published all the information he received from others. Maybe all of these statements (those made by the supposed doctor, those made by Christopher Oberlin,...) are false, maybe not. In fact, I think that is impossible to know a verifiable death toll. What I know is that isn't necessary to write that somebody is a fool, we aren't kids, I think.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. As I mentioned before, 'The PCHR's representative Hamdi Shaqoura reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done in researching the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed'. Too bad no one inserted it in the article yet, maybe I will.

One of the Wiki goals is (set me right if I am wrong) is to put things in proper context. According to PCHR data, total number of children below 14 (0-13) is 171, 12% of total fatalities. However tragic in itself, the death toll of 12% vs 35% (at least, according to Fares) provides somewhat different context.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Follgram, you need to take a deep breath and read, not just look at letters. I didn't called you a fool. Don't act as if you like what we have now in the disputed section regarding Cremonesi. Cryptonio (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with what we have now in the disputed section regarding Cremonesi. Also I agree with the inclusion of the ITIC and the ICT reports.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How about adding another sentence in the middle of Cremonesi: 'Talking to BBC, Cremonesi speculated that lower than expected filling (occupancy? can someone help me with a proper word?) of hospitals during Gaza war could be attributed to the Hamas tactics to take their casualties to secret hiding places rather than hospitals, making it impossible to know how many of them had died.'--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for letting us know you aren't Cremenosi. i was really convinced that you were, you know...

That misconstrued paragraph says nothing about what Cremonesi said. He said, that hospitals weren't filled to his expectations(not everyone else's). It leads (by the reporter reporting on Cremonesi, with the word However) that a reason could be that Hamas wasn't taken their casualties to the hospitals. This is of no use anyways. Cryptonio (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question regarding fatalities classification

The article currently says that 'PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[43]' However, 43 says 'The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes, said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team.' I am not 100% sure the meaning was expressed correctly. Opinions?

Next, PCHR says 'PCHR consider the IOF’s classification of police officers as combatants illegal: this classification constitutes a wilful violation of the principle of distinction, a key component of customary international law. Hamas is a multi-faceted organisation, exercising de facto governmental control of the Gaza Strip. As an organisation, it cannot be considered an armed group. Rather, a distinction must be made between Hamas’ armed and political/civil components. The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL. However, Hamas’ political and civil wings are comprised of civilians, who are legally entitled to the protections associated with this status, provided they do not take an active part in hostilities. Civil police, and governmental officials cannot be considered combatants. Attacks intentionally directed against these individuals constitute wilful killing, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a violation of customary international law.' They don't say they count members of armed group as civilians when killed in non-combatant situation, don't they? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to repost the HRW articles about how it's legitimate to target military commanders in their homes? PCHR is deliberately fudging IHL (again). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Seems like we (you, The Squicks, Nableezy and myself) managed to work it out in the 'police' rubric (I interpret silence as consent with my latter posts there)and I am about to make some improvement to 'disputed figures' subsection based on our discussion. I was simply wondering about two issues: 1. Does it infer from [43] that PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations? Cause the actual sentence in [43] is somewhat ambiguous. If it did, then comes second question: by doing so, did PCHR not contradict itself? Cause they say that indeed 'The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL', without making any differentiation between 'combatant' and 'non-combatant' situations.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say. In one they say "Hamas members" in general (but give someone like Nizar Rayan as an example) but in the other they talk about the Hamas armed wing. The way I understand they tally the numbers, they will count someone who's a member of the armed wing as a civilian/non-combatant if he wasn't in a combat situation at the time he was killed. That is, if he was in the street with his rifle, but wasn't actually shooting at anyone at that instant because he took a break to blow his nose, he's a civilian/non-combatant according to PCHR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think you are right, but it is important the article will produce PCHR count method precisely. I will not be touching the sentence until find more on the issue, or someone else will share us with his understanding.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to see, at least for me, that both sides are blanketing themselves with interpretations of statements given by HRW. That some of us take it upon ourselves to prove one side right and the other right, umm...comic relief? Cryptonio (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"war in the south"

does one hebrew source qualify this for the lead? untwirl(talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of sources for it if you do a google search, but i dont think it is really needed and is somewhat unnecessary bloat. but i dont have too much of a problem keeping it. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't help but I have heard it on the radio (mmm... so I say) from a guy who was there. I'm sure there will be more out there if you google it.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this should remove. It is only sourced in hebrew, there's no evidence in english. Plus, it sounds more like a geographical description than a name for the war, there's no evidence they were coining a name. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War — The major sources use Gaza War/Gaza war as the name of the conflict, for a sampling: AP [12] [13], Reuters [14], Washington Post [15] [16], Haaretz [17], BBC [18] [19], The Times [20], The Guardian [21] [22] [23], CNN [24] [25], Newsweek [26] [27], Time [28] [29] — Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support most popular name in mainstream English language sources. Tiamut^talk 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per Nableezy's excellent rationale. Nableezy (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded. I'd also note that this name is not the one preferred by either party, is the most popular one in mainstream English language sources and thus abides by WP:NAME and WP:NPOV. The names preferred by each of the belligerents should remain in bold in the lead paragraph as usual. Tiamut^talk 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fine Not a name that I prefer but I can live with it. It is a name that is commonly used in English RS. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • Hear you Falastine fee Qalby, beating in my heart loud and clear, but the "War on Gaza" while used by Al Jazeera English (and more accurate given Gazans have no army to speak of in the conventional sense) was not as widespread as Gaza War, and we have to go to with what the English sources say here. Tiamut^talk 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So are you guys only voting yes purely as a temporary stepping stone to change the title later? The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading that again, that sounds more like a personal attack than an honest question. I absolutely didn't mean it that way. I'm just asking whether or not ya'll would like to put that to a vote as well, and make arguements about that as well, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though not loudly ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If only it was this easy to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree elsewhere... The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks like this is what it's being called by major English speaking news outlets. I hope this solves the stupidity in the lead, too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Should it be 'Gaza War' or 'The Gaza War'?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid definite and indefinite articles at the start of names. It does not constitute "the title of a work", and "the" is not normally capitalized within a sentence.google:"The Gaza War" 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too ambiguous. Several wars have occurred in Gaza, and many have been referred to as the "Gaza War" by mainstream media. I think we are taking their naming out of context. I'd prefer 2008-2009 Gaza War, though I'm totally ok with the current title. At least we won't have to change it when the next "Gaza War" erupts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of another event known as the Gaza War? Nableezy (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support About timeCptnono (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is too long, this one is shorter, and the conflict term, is too small for a big scale war like this anyway. If the name is too ambigious maybe we can call it as 2009 Gaza War or 2009 Gaza Strike. Yet a naming convention is required. Kasaalan (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Far much better and more descriptive than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Are we going to be changing 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict as well? What about the other pages in the series? The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't treat this as a part of that 'series'. Here we have a clearly defined event and the scope of the article shows that. If there are any other articles in that series that deal with a clearly defined event then those should be renamed to whatever the event is known by. Here we have a pretty clear answer, those not as much. Nableezy (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A naming convention is required, he has a good point. If we don't have a naming convention that might lead to confusion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just have to mention that history prevailed on this one. How many times was this title floated? Hope all the other bullshit gets fixed sooner or later (3-8 mos) and pro-whatthefuckever editors won't be so butt hurt when changes are made that make their side look bad. Thank whatever God the headlines are done with on this issue. While I'm humping my soapbox over here how about you forget about this article so the littlest garbage that is not important such as the title, the 1ooMkb , irreverent images, the fucked up law section, and whatever else is on the mind of some idiot who wants to use wikipedia like a blog is reworked into an actual piece of work that doesn't favor one side or the other. How many times was this title floated?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Also just noticed that peoples votes were changing: Grow some balls and stick to your convictions or at the very least stop warping articles to suite your ideas.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what was that? Please strike out that horrible personal attack immediately. The Squicks (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to The Squicks and Sigmund Freud it would appear as gay group sexual activity. And "gay" of cause could mean Happiness like :). Thanks for improving WP:V of my user page, mate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The Squicks (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Do we have consensus for the move? Imad marie (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wanton killings and context

There is a paragraph, poorly written, that ends with 'However, according to the Jerusalem Post, a recent IDF investigation concluded that these reports were false.[292] The IDF claimed that the soldiers only repeated rumors and what they read in the media without having seen anything themselves.[293]' I think one detail is important for the context. The IDF investigation was released about 10 days after the initial publication. However, the reports that soldier's testimonies are based on hearsay, appeared almost immediately in Israel. Too bad only Camera gathered them together. I guess I will be told it is not a RS. Anyway, here the authentic video from Israeli channel 2 is provided, saying that 'Channel 2 defense correspondent Roni Daniel reported that the soldier who supposedly witnessed the sniper shoot a mother and two of her children has now admitted to his brigade commander that he didn’t see any such thing: "I didn’t see it myself. There were stories like this. I wasn’t in that house and everything I said was only on the basis of rumors. At the gathering it was a friendly talk, and that's how I related to it." The only other source I found so far, suggesting that testimonies were hearsy, is by Maariv, second largest daily newspaper, here, but only in Hebrew. To sum thing up, IDF didn't claim in its report that those testimonies were based on rumors and not first-handed evidence - that was already known. The IDF in its report concluded that those cases didn't happen, or happened in completely different way, restating that indeed the cause for all the fuss was hearsay.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "claimed" here blatantly violates Wikipedia guidelines about words to avoid.

But as for your major point, that Maariv article seems to merely repeat the beliefs of the IDF. The Squicks (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn;t understand your first remark. Where did the term 'claimed' (neutral in itself) violated the policy? Anyway, there would be no problem to restate anything I wrote so far.

My major point is exactly the other way round. Pay attention to dates. Maariv first reported that 'the soldier has now admitted to his brigade commander that he didn’t see any such thing', and only a week later IDF issued a formal statement, claiming those incidents didn't take place.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how could I forget. Danny Zamir, the head of the Rabin Pre-Military Academy, puts the whole story into context. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting things in a context and challenging PMoH figures

The article says: 'The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health (PMoH), has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians [41]'. And later, 'The PMoH stated that 437 children under the age of 16, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists were among those killed. The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.[211]'. However, it is important to realize and emphasize that, according to [41], 'The [Health] ministry [in Gaza], like most Gaza government agencies, is run by Hamas'. Later, in 'disputed figures' subsection, 'UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes has stated that the PMoH figures have not been seriously challenged.[222]' OK, it is indeed what he said, but to state that PMoH figures 'have not been seriously challenged', is (excuse me harsh language) laughable. [41] says that 'Zakout [of PCHR], asked about the discrepancies in casualty tolls, said she believes there has been some inadvertent double counting at the ministry, an outcome of the chaos of the war'. Indeed, 437 of 1324 (33%) vs. 313 of 1417 (22%) is a challenge. Yet another group, The Al Mazen Centre for Human Rights, ( Counting casualties of Gaza's war ) counts 1,268 people killed, among them 288 children and 103 women. Strangely enough, BBC says their 'numbers are much closer to those of published by the Ministry of Health', while they are really closer to those of PCHR. Not to mention that Israeli sources challenge PMoH numbers even more. Finally, BBC produce other insights into Cremonesi report: 'Mr Cremonesi later told the BBC the doctor had told him the dead also included youngsters aged 17 to 23, described by the doctor as "Hamas recruits who were literally sent to be massacred". .. However, he pointed out that Hamas fighters killed in the conflict may not have been taken to hospital, but to secret hiding places - and that it was impossible to know how many of them had died.' For the sake of neutrality, I would add that 'Mr Cremonesi stressed his article was not meant to diminish the impact of the Israeli bombardment, which he said appeared to be "collective punishment" on the civilian population'.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything more Cremonesi will be challenged as WP:UNDUE.

That there discrepancies between Palestinian groups is of no concern since they all are at odds with IDF numbers. This is funny though "One of the problems with the PCHR’s methodology is their claim to precise knowledge of the circumstances of every Palestinian casualty." Claims made by the 'precise' accounting by the IDF. Israel has claimed many 'firsts' in this war, but none are more remarkable than the distinction of knowing the names of the people who they killed. At many levels, that has to be a feat of great proportions.

That figures weren't seriously disputed cannot be dismissed, simply because they could be confirming them(the UN could). Cryptonio (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to know the names of casualties. I hope you understand that. As for the circumstances, this is disputable. One interesting thing you should know. I've been wondering, is hailing somebody as 'martyr shahid' indicates he was a militant. The answer I got is that so far, on al-Qassam message boards, no women or infants were referred to as "shahids." Of course this is not a proof yet, just the first indication. It's funny in itself you chose one specific sentence from the report, when it has so many others, for example 'PCHR claims that all 239 policemen killed should not [be] considered members of armed forces (combatants), unless explicitly recognized as such. However, our research into Hamas websites has revealed that a considerable number of these policemen were also members of the Hamas resistance apparatus — and thus were explicitly recognized by Hamas as combatants.' Anyway, I didn't like your rephrasing of the (4), so I copy-pasted it from the report. The report doesn't say if any of those 314 (including children) were actually fighting when killed, or not.

As usual, I got carried away. Seems like we can write the entire article on Cremonesi, what did he report, what he was told and what did he tell others.

I still don't get something. According to PMoH, 33% of the dead are children. According to PCHR - 22%. And you say the figures are not challenged?

Going back to the initial reason of this thread. Context. Until yesterday, I didn't realize (and so would any other average reader) that PMoH doesn't refer to the entire Palestinian authority, but rather it is a Health Ministry in Gaza alone, and, as [41] puts it, is run by Hamas. This is not to contest or ridicule their statement. But it should be mentioned explicitely in the article that PMoH is a part of Gaza government agencies, under the rule of Hamas.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That Hamas doctors(and this is childish, is Israel's Health ministry run by Hamas as well?) are placed in administrative position(if that's actually the case) doesn't mean anything negative, so no need to add such mundane information, unless of course you continue to push POV. The ministry is run by doctors, similar to any other country in the world where Health is run by people who has nothing to do with health(lawyers, HMOs, etc etc.) And as to the further 'lawyering', i am not in the mood. I've said from the beginning, i was not personally interested beyond the initial killing of policemen on day 1 of the operation and don't think HRW was protecting them all, if at all.

Health ministry in Israel is subjected to Israeli government, this is trivial. Health ministry in Sweden is subjected to Swedish government, this is also trivial. PMoH is subjected to Hamas government in Gaza (and not PA government in Ramallah), and this is not trivial. Nothing negative or positive, just a context. In the same way, if someone says that 'according to Korean Health ministry, the Koreans are the healthiest people on Earth', it should be clarified was it a statement of ministry in North Korea or South Korea.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad you understand what's trivial and what is not. Too bad Gaza is not a divided peninsula. The distinction of Health Ministry IN GAZA was included to address the trivial concerns you are now addressing. I am pretty sure that if Ramallah has something to say to anyone in Gaza(or about Gaza), no one is stopping them. Hamas this Hamas that, this isn't Israel's POV, this is including information concerning Israel and it's relationship with Gaza(in this instance). Can we stay on point? BTW, a discussion on Hamas legitimacy to govern(without "preciosity") is located up. Cryptonio (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, can you please adapt somewhat more constructive attitude here? I am not questioning Hamas' rule legitimacy or trying to imply that PMoH under Hamas is unreliable. Every one judges for himself. As you might know, Norman Finkelstein puts his trust in them completely, and he is entitled to do so.

Try for a second to get to my point, thinking as an average reader. As I understood it so far, Health Ministry IN GAZA meant a branch (or representative) of PA Health Ministry. I failed to understand it is not related to PA in Ramallah and means Health Ministry as a part of Hamas Government in Gaza. If I misunderstood it, every average reader will. This 'distinction' is not distinct enough. BTW, is there a reason why PMoH figures are separated between two paragraphs? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How in hell does an average reader reaches that conclusion? "Health Ministry IN GAZA meant a branch (or representative) of PA Health Ministry"

That you make this point in order to put the ministry under Hamas rule is not good enough. WP:OR. Cryptonio (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And who's saying that Health In Gaza is not part or even UNDER Health at PA? Cryptonio (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No OR at all. Follow the link in the article: The Gaza based Palestinian Ministry of Health. It explicitly says that it is lead by the Hamas government. Now go to 43 cited in the text for PMoH numbers: 'The ministry, like most Gaza government agencies, is run by Hamas'. Seems like you are trying to grasp to OR in order to leave things vague. What are you afraid of? Why not to say explicitly, 'PMoH, part of Hamas Government in Gaza, has stated that a total of 1,324 Gazans were killed of which "most" were civilians'?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary? The Health Ministry in Gaza, Hamas is the government of Gaza. the Health ministry in Gaza, if it has public officials appointees, the government of gaza would be in charge of appointing them, right? If the office if of regional significance, then the PA does not meddle in those appointees, or maybe it does, this is the whole point, how do you know that the PA does not have some sort of presence or authority in the Health ministry at Gaza? What is your intend to say, "Hamas controls the Health ministry?" that is done with POV purposes. The distinction is not needed, because the issue of who runs the ministry is of no issue to this conflict. Period. Cryptonio (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an issue, Cryptonio. The minister is a political figure who has a boss. By trying not to make explicit distinction you are engaging in POV yourself.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Did not proof read. But you are connecting one point here, another there, hoping that everything magically comes together, in favor of certain party. Dude, yes...okkaaa, he is a political figure, and...he has a boss?...and...???...the one sentence article, here in wiki, on the Health ministry says that is run by Hamas, with no sources given. Then, you bring a source, that also says the ministry is run by Hamas(as it should, no special distinction at all, they are responsible for it), but the article is not about whether or not the ministry is run by Hamas. SYNTH? Cryptonio (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Context, my dear Cryptonio, it is all about the context. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PMOH by itself, gives YOU the impression that is 'independent'. PMOH, controlled by Hamas, is said to imply that it's numbers can't be trusted. "PMOH, a Gaza governmental office, ..."? And this is not either or, this is a compromise where none is needed, but hopefully you'll see a tad beyond it as well. Cryptonio (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can when you want. "PMOH, a Gaza governmental office, ..." sounds good enough to me. Now how about combining two sentences regarding their nuumbers together?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That would look like a run-on sentence. right now is one sentence over the other. what's wrong with that. Cryptonio (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian military activity

Some additions I consider to insert:

1. Palestinians told Cremonesi (yes, Cremonesi again) of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances. A woman spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets.

2. For military purposes, Hamas operatives wear paramedic uniforms and commandeer ambulances. An ambulance driver told there was no problem to co-ordinate with the Israelis before picking up patients, ("because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us"), while the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety.

3. 'Anyone who stands up to Hamas is killed'; 'Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip'here. Members of Gaza family told official PA newspaper that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them. Those who tried to object were shot in the legs. here.

4. A nice map.

5. They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups. Suicide bombers are another hazard. On Saturday a man wearing an explosives belt sprang from a side alley in Jabaliya as an Israeli patrol walked past. They shot him seconds before he could detonate himself. Hamas has yet to capture an Israeli soldier — a top priority — but is trying hard. Another Hamas tactic, said Mr Ben-Yishai, was to spring from tunnels concealed beneath floors, or behind sinks in houses where Israeli troops were sheltering, and open fire. here

6. Much of the same here and here. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

7. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. [30] Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new here, Number 7 is related to roof knocking and it was included at some point in the article. I don't see why more information on roof knocking could be inserted.

israel already makes mention of parademics being hamas members. What else do you want? WP:OR?

There is already a section on Hamas political violence stuff. More of the same is not needed.

I don't read maps.

And much of the same is much of the same. Mebleh. Cryptonio (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking is one thing, and putting residents on the roof to prevent attack is another. This is a part of 'human shielding' tactics that (regardless of voluntarily or not) contradicts IHL.

IDF said that some paramedics killed were part of fighting forces. What does it have to do with general tactics to wear paramedic uniforms and commandeer ambulances? Nothing. No OR here, just citing sources.

Tactics to wear civilian clothes, to try to kidnap soldiers, to execute suicide attacks - all these things are not mentioned at all.

Political violence - I see now someone deleted the relevant sentence from there. It will be reinserted.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That civilians climbed to the roof, is mentioned IN THE SAME paragraph as roof knocking. And not only that, civilians climbing to the roof, was also a practiced by regular civilians in order not to be harmed by Israeli attacks. So was the case of the Doctor's family, who climbed to the roof, thinking they were going to be safe. And this is totally documented. I'm not going to go off on this because you have not said anything useful.

"general tactics" will that be a new section?

Civilian clothes? umm yeah, didn't you bring up a source that says many Hamas fighters ditched their uniforms and went home? Oh they were trying to kidnap Israeli soldiers, how dare they! how rude!. Ohh the magical and deadly suicide attacks, can't be use in wars, oh no. Berated dude.

If you are referring to the sentence on Cremonesi in the Political violence section, I removed it because you had inserted something that was not included in the source. check the edit summary. Cryptonio (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

'That civilians climbed to the roof, is mentioned IN THE SAME paragraph as roof knocking' Would you be kind enough to show me the sentence? Maybe it is the early hour that hinders my sight.

Your feelings or justifications are irrelevant, in the same way as my personal attitude to Hamas. There is a section in the article 'Palestinian military activity', that partially covers the tactics. 'Militants booby-trapped houses and buildings and built an extensive system of tunnels in preparation for combat' is already there, regardless of our dispute.

'Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you' sounds like a threat to me. You can't, Cryptonio, have them both. There are evidencies of Hamas intimidation of the local population. So, either it goes to psy war section, or to political violence. Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That civilian interviewed by Cremonesi were terrified, yet they talked, has nothing to do with political violence, since Hamas is making the case that they are contributing to Israel and not FATAH!.

Those are not tactics, they are military operation, thus 'Palestinian military activity'.

Things keep sounding like 'something' to you, can we make this clear, what you 'feel' whether hunches or sensations, does not belong in the article. Hamas accusing Fatah members of collaborating with Israel is already included in that part of the article. check it

"The Hamas government in Gaza endorsed the killing of Israeli collaborators but denied allegations it had attacked members of Fatah during the conflict. A Hamas spokesperson said that the internal security service "was instructed to track collaborators and hit them hard."[231] Hamas also said that "the government will show no mercy to collaborators who stab our people in the back, and they will be held accountable according to the law...if any collaborator is sentenced to death, we will not hesitate to carry it out."[232]"

see?

No I referred to the actual source, when said that mention of civilians climbing to the roof was already in the "article". That actual part actually, was in the article, right in the mix with roof knocking, and it was eventually removed etc. Let me tell you something dude, what you are doing, is adding information that some editors have added it and later removed. This is one of those cases. The way the article looks right now, is because all editors have avoided doing the same thing you are now doing. i'll let you know, as i've been doing, every single time you try to add information that was already added, spent some time, and then removed. all because the state of the article was more important than POV pushing. you'll see. Cryptonio (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Members of a Gaza family (whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters) have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. This is slightly different from executing collaborators, don't you think? Gaza victims describe human shield use.

An order to 'remove unform' is not a part of military operation? Luring the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety is not a part of military operation? Concealing those reports is blinding an eye on the realities of the assymetrical warfare, a regular army vs. irregular. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources you brought did not addressed them as military operations. Human shields allegation are made in Inter Law(with sources that address the allegations as Inter Law violations). Not every single article on the subject belongs in the article. Can you accept that? You want to bloat the article with the same information all over the place. Give the readers some credit, that Israel says A, does not need for you to 'overflow' that point with every single report on the matter that you come across with. You are not putting things in perspective, is not your job, but it is mine to tell you. You think that editors in here does not have access to the same information that you do, the problem really is, that most editors are not in the business of tilting the freaking article towards one way. We are simply presenting the major events plus those that received considerable attention in the media. These trivia bits are not necessary. You make the point of army vs irregular, yet you find it necessary to include that certain hamas members removed their uniforms. Did they even had uniforms in the first place? You have no idea the amount of information that was trimmed by all sides in here, and you seem like you want to add some more. Not necessary? in your view it is, and you are more than welcome to keep bringing all of these stuffs up, but don't be surprised if you keep finding opposition on these matters. Cryptonio (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors here had exactly the same sources, but strangely enough there was merely half sentence regarding Hamas psy-war before I picked up the glove. In several sentences I recited the same sources that are cited about Israel. Why no one included all the pros and cons?

The allegations without a single piece of evidence are pointless. Moreover, in 2., 3., 5. I provided non-Israeli sources that are more than relevant to Hamas 'engagement' of IDF. And all you could say is 'Did they even had uniforms in the first place?'. Very funny indeed. Either you lack the perspective completely or you are even more biased than me.

So, your views, however valuable, are merely your opinions. I would seek someone more balanced to decide on the issues. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. That you picked up a section that needed your "valuable" input, was not my fault, why are you blaming me?

"The allegations without a single piece of evidence are pointless" I dont know what that means, but it sure sounds dangerous.

You were the one who brought up the source that said, Hamas ditched their uniforms and went home. This is the problem with your "work" you bring up these supposed event(s) that could have very well had happened ONCE and you want to mass blanket everything in sight with that ONE event or source. In the words of the great Agada, "exceptional claims requires exceptional sources". In other words, you want to give Undue weight to your POV pushing, and no editor in here who respects Wiki is going to accept that. Again, good luck. Cryptonio (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions surrounding roof knocking

This is what 104 says, from January 2: 'The main feature of the Israeli Air Force (AIF) attacks in the last 24 hours was the escalation in the targeting of residential houses belonging to Hamas leaders and militants. Some 25 such houses were attacked. Most of their residents received prior phone warnings by the IDF, informing them about the intention to bomb the house and advising their evacuation. In some cases the strike occurred only 5 minutes after the call. Additional people received similar warnings that did not materialize, thus leaving families in a state of panic and uncertainty. The estimate on the total number of Hamas leaders’ houses targeted so far is 45. There has been extensive damage caused to thousands of houses all over the Gaza Strip.' At the same time, 'propaganda' section says '37 have been destroyed', on Jan. 3. So, the dates must be inserted and discrepancy addressed, otherwise average reader understands that all in all only 37 warnings did materialize.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some 25 such houses were attacked." 25 who received the warnings. 45 total houses belonging to hamas leaders were attacked, but not all received the warnings. At the propaganda section, 37 houses, belonging or not to hamas leaders, were destroyed after receiving these warnings. Two different topics here. Cryptonio (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic, that might be correct, I would have expected the latter number to be equal or greater.

But there is another point. The dates of the cited numbers should be added (and they were made barely at the 1/3 of war), otherwise a reader understands that during the entire war some 40 warnings materialised.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected the latter number to be equal or greater. Perhaps. Prehaps not. This doesn't really matter, does it? Facts are facts.

The dates of the cited numbers The dates are mentioned- in the references. Any reader who clicks [104] will see the date. The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, who really checks references? Me myself didn't, until yesterday. When you read encyclopedia, do you personally check every reference? Me don't. So, as I repeat, it's all about the context. Comrad Kasaalan, during our conversation about IDF efforts to reduce civilian casualties, wrote '..., yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real.' Truth? Hardly, merely a verifiable statement from a (how did you put it?) NGO with clear political agenda (I refer to PCHR of course). Nevertheless, Cryptonio added a date there. The contents is OK, the language of the sentence is awful (not that my English is perfect, but...).--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, who really checks references? Me myself didn't, until yesterday

So- as you admit- people do look at reference dates. After all, this is what you yourself just did. The Squicks (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sir, I opened the link ...Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Police issue once again, from another section

So far, my posts regarding the police delt with 'disputed figures' subsection. Now I want to address the 'air strikes' from the 'Israeli offensive'. The sentence in the article says that 'Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91]' If 91says so doesn't mean this is accurate. We were discussing it before and I hope reached acceptable compromise. I don't think the issue should be discussed here, it would be addressed in the 'IL' section. However, if there is a general will to cover it briefly, it must be something like:

'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224] 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. I will say it again. The IDF's interpretation of the police as part of Hamas military wing can be disputable. But when regarding police, the justification for the attack must be conveyed precisely. To say that Israel attacked police just because IDF contended they were combatants is wrong, they were attacked because IDF perceives police in Gaza to be incorporated in Hamas military wing. The issues with other political installations are different, and should not be mixed. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Apropos, the indirect evidence, and it would be inserted in IL section, comes from ITIC again,

'In an interview granted by Hussein Abu Azra, commander of the National Security in the Gaza Strip, he elaborated on that service's activity during Operation Cast Lead. At the end of the interview, Hussein Abu Azra emphasized that his forces would be part of the resistance to “any act of aggression against the Gaza Strip” and that they would defend the civilians using all means possible (Al-Risala, March 3). In an interview about the functioning of the Hamas police in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas police chief Jamal Jarah said the following: “The police was able to defend the resistance home front by tracking down agents and arresting them”; “the police took part [in the fighting] alongside the resistance [a commonly used term referring to Hamas's military-terrorist wing] and helped it defend the soil of Gaza” (Pal-media website, February 22).' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, circumstantial evidence accrued through WP:OR, since it does not provide DIRECT evidence that these policemen in fact actively engaged Israeli forces during the Operation(they were targeted, because of Israel's interpretation, and not because of their actions, as prescribed by international law). It has not been brought, to what extend, policemen actions during a military operation would disqualified them as civilian(or in peace time for that matter). It is why, of the distinction being made, that they must be actively engaged during the military operation. That by having policemen training with the military, entitles Israel to void their civilian clarification, is not under any law. Furthermore, in what country, does policemen are totally separated from the military? and at the same time, widely engaged(with their toy guns) in the fighting during a war? That they took part of the [fighting](why would this be in brackets?) WITH their civilian duties, again does void their immunity. Statements made by Police Heads is not evidence, and even if they were, we only include both sides interpretation of the law, and not evidence since that would be WP:OR, because they are not empirical. Haven't you included Israel's rationale for these attacks already? "evidence" is of no use here. This is included "if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party", it is not up to us to present evidence supporting either of the sides, or claims. Cryptonio (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements made by "police heads" are not evidence as to what the police force they're in charge of was doing? You must be kidding. If this guy said they were fighting alongside the Hamas military wing, of course this should go in the article. It gives important background.
It's you who is engaging in WP:OR with your "toy guns" and "in what country..." etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence does a statement constitute? Under what rationale(or under who's?). Point was rather simple. Cryptonio (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgot, WP:OR Cryptonio (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said on numerous occasions, Israel Border Police is the military branch of the Israeli Police. They are incorporated in IDF. Israel perceives police in Gaza in the same way. Is the perception correct? Disputable. But this was the argument to attack the police, and not because they were "combatants" who were or were not engaged in hostilities. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel was looking at their own policies to determine if an attack was legal? Palestinains or Hamas for that matter, have not made that claim though, that policemen were "officially" incorporated into the military wing. That, now, as you try, place them under that label, "officially" by OR is not acceptable. Cryptonio (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not me who's trying, it is the IDF from the link. This is how IDF (not me) sees the matter. As Sean put it, 'an IDF view is an IDF view.' It may be wrong or right, it is not an issue here. To say that Israel 'contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities' is to distort both IDF's view and HRW's view.

This is what HRW says: 'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224]'

And this is what IDF thinks: IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that Israel's view is already included? Good. What we were actually arguing was the OR which you inserted here. My point is, statements made by Israel, explaining israel's views and counter arguments, are more than enough, as they are necessary, but the OR on "evidences" has went too far dude. Again, Palestinians nor Hamas have prescribed themselves to Israeli interpretation. And that "evidence" you presented, is not official, and can't be brought to correlate Israel's view, because that would be...? you know it...WP:OR, not background information. Cryptonio (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not, and that is all the discussion here. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Caution is required here to avoid synthesising potentially erroneous statements and putting words into the IDF's mouth. HRW said 'armed forces' in the third geneva convention sense as is clear from other statements by them and by international law itself i.e. true combatants not illegal combatants. IDF said 'armed forces' in the sense of a resistance force in the event of an IDF incursion into Gaza i.e. illegal combatants. The IDF have never claimed the right to attack any Palestinians on the basis that they are armed forces in the third geneva convention sense, in the sense that HRW mean it. It would be misleading to suggest that the IDF justify the attack on the police on that basis or that HRW 'armed forces' = IDF 'armed forces'. The IDF attacks people on the basis that they are illegal combatants. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

HRW said "Hamas fighters". I don't know why Sceptic is using a quote that doesn't exactly match the situation when he has a much better one which I posted here and elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We are apparently bound to go through this over and over again. We can use, Guy, another HRW statement. 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' I would personally prefer here 'if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict' for the simple reason. Despite Sean attempts here to put words into IDF's mouth, Israel's justification of the attack on police was 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. Now Sean, pay attention. PCHR also thinks that 'The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades are the military wing of the Hamas organisation, they are an armed group, and are considered as combatants according to IHL.' here. What you wrote is irrelevant. Legal or illegal combatants, IDF regards police to be incorporated into al-Qassam Brigades, that would make all of the police fighters and legitimate targets. Either way you put it, the sentence in the article is totally wrong.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, so far you provided us with this: Consent and advise, and I find it very useful. Provide us with another source, that justifies IDF's attack from other perspective, or gives basis (relevant to attack on the police issue and not to the status of prisoners) to your speculations, and we will consider them. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not quite making any distinction though. "all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army". They are interpreting as if, the police had no civil duties, and from the start, they weren't part of the 'armed forces", they WERE the armed forces. HRW is saying, the police is not a target UNLESS etc etc, but Israel is saying, 'there is no civilian police force to respect at all'. It is why then, Israel brings up "moonlighting", and thus why HRW says "However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities."

Now, in order to have that moniker of "Hamas fighter", HRW is saying they would have to be engaged in combat in order to be attacked. This is the point the you and Mr guy keeps refuting, but no matter how you look at it, it is obvious that when these policemen are engaged in military activity, they are no longer police but Hamas fighters.

Now, what you both are arguing, and is not being said by no party, whether Israel or HRW, in legal terms that is, but Israel is saying it quite simple(under no protection) is that since policemen moonlight as Hamas fighters, they can be attacked when not engaged in hostilities, and not only that, when they are actually working as policemen. That somehow HRW says that is oka, it is erroneous, and there are ample statements by HRW that it is not oka. Just because they are policemen, they have protection under inter law, and they did not gave up that protection when they were attacked, and thus Israel says "all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army" and then again "anything affiliated with Hamas is a target". Cryptonio (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, there is a great difference within any HRW statement that you bring, and that is the classifications of, as you and Mr guy wants it, being "Hamas fighters moonlight as Policemen" and HRW classification of "Policemen who moonlight as Hamas fighters". The difference is enormous, and you guys picked up the side that is not the side being taken up by HRW in ANY of their statements. 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio is entirely right. The sentence Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91] is fine. We could repeat the fine distinctions of why the Israeli Forces believe what they do here, but there's no need for doing this if we already explain so earlier.

No offense meant to Sceptic Ashdod as a person, since Sceptic has contributed a lot, but I think that this debate should just be dropped. The Squicks (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Cryptonio is not representing what I said or what HRW said correctly. To put it in his words, HRW says that a Hamas fighter who moonlights as a policeman is a legitimate target, while a policeman who moonlights as a fighter is a legitimate target as long as he's directly involved in hostilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

→Cryptonio, Israeli sources, as one I repeatedly cite, Consent and advise, say nothing about 'moonlighting'. They say, and I think you grasp it, that IDF regards police in Gaza as inherent part of Hamas' military wing, in the same manner as Israel Border Police is part of IDF. Whether this claim is right or wrong is debatable, but this is what IDF says. Another Israeli NGO says the same: 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.' INSS. The fact that some policemen also moonlight by launching rockets should not undermine and veil the notion that according to IDF, the policemen, all of them, are by definition Hamas fighters because IDF regards police to be incorporated in Hamas military wing.

To Squicks. No offense taken, but the reason I started this section is a sentence in the beginning of the article, section 'air strikes' from the 'Israeli offensive'. I suggest to remove it, since the subject is addressed again elsewhere. About the sentence. The first part is wrong, and let me remind you your own words: 'The IDF said that it believes that Gaza police and Gaza police agents as inherently equivalent to or something along those lines', is what you wrote last time. You see? IDF says police is an inherent part of al-qassam brigades, and that was the reason for attack on police. The second part is also wrong. HRW doesn't argue with anyone. It says: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities' here or 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' here. Cryptonio continues to ignore the bolded words, while bringing only the italic sentence. To sum things up, 'HRW stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.[224] 'IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army.'Consent and advise. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic "IDF regards police in Gaza as inherent part of Hamas' military wing, in the same manner as Israel Border Police is part of IDF"....this is so very wrong. Are the Israel Border Police regarded as illegal combatants by the Supreme Court of Israel ? Are the IDF illegal combatants according to anyone ? Please, the IDF don't need your help to justify their actions especially when the justification you appear to be trying to construct is completely at odds with theirs and the Supreme Court of Israel.

• What you are doing is something like this "Shalit has not been allowed visits from the ICRC. The ICRC state that 'terrorists', as illegal combatants are not entitled to POW status. Hamas state that Gilad Shalit is a Zionist Terrorist".

Do you see what I mean ? While these sentences appear to make sense locally when you put them together the resulting combined statement is totally misleading and gives a false impression of Shalit's status and rights from the ICRC and pretty much everyone elses perspective.

• Let's try another one "HRW state that soldiers in a war, as priviliged combatants can be attacked but are entitled to POW status if captured. Al Qaeda state that their fighters are soldiers in a holy war. Al Qaeda captives are denied POW status by the US government".....again, each sentence is okay but combined together they are completely misleading.

The article mustn't give the false the impression that the IDF regard Hamas and people connected to Hamas as "armed forces" in the third geneva convention sense, "privileged combatants" like IDF soldiers and justify any attacks on this basis. I have already provided the Supreme Court of Israel source that makes it clear that this is never the case. It explicitly states that they are never "armed forces". Their legal status is "illegal combatant", is always illegal combatant and they are attacked on that basis according to the IDF's lawyers interpretation of when it is legal to attack illegal combatants. I have already shown that the HRW "armed forces" quote is a word for word quote of the third geneva convention. Look for yourself. It doesn't matter which HRW quote or any other quote you pick, it doesn't change the fact that the IDF always categorise Hamas + the police etc as illegal combatants=unprivileged civilians and act accordingly using IDF rules. Every IDF attack is constrained by that legal categorisation. Any statements from any source that talks about the laws of war as they apply to privilged combatants is irrelevant. The only statements of relevance are those that apply to illegal combatants. If you want to distort Israel's justification for attacking Hamas and the policemen etc and give the impression that they are attacking them because legally they regard them as soldiers, priviliged combatants (just like the IDF or the border police) in a war go ahead but at least be aware that that is what you are doing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, you might have a point hear, but what I say is that in the context of attacking the police, it has no relevane if Hamas fighters are legal or illegal combatants. What I try to say is that IDF regards police as inherent part of Hamas armed forces (or terror batallions, or unpriveleged fighters, or whatever). Your link from Haaretz says so.

Either way we look at your post, which is nice speculation in itself, it only provides more basis for my claims that sentence in the article 'Israel contends that police were "combatants" in the conflict, but human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities.[91]' is wrong both ways. According to you, IDF doesn't contend that police are 'combatants', at least not in the legitimate sense. So, how is the first part of sentence is correct?

Now about the second half. HRW has no argument with IDF. HRW states when it is legal to attack police and when it is not. HRW says that 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.' According to IHL, police could be attacked if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict, it is not required that a certain policeman is taking direct part in the hostility.

Again, Sean, try to understand. Either way we look at the sentence in the article, from IL or IDF perspective, it is wrong. It says half-truths, produced by some mainstream media. It neither reflects IDF views, nor IHL criterions. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Once more, Sean. You may think I am wrong, you may think Israel is wrong, you may even think the whole world is wrong. But at least, give some credit: 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.' INSS. As I mentioned before, INSS might not be a reliable source, but they are definitely notable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What I want you to see, all of you, that both here and here HRW clearly says that '...legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors'. To say that '...human rights groups argue that Hamas-affiliated police are not legitimate targets unless they actively engage in hostilities' is to produce one such factor and disregard all the rest.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You failed to see the point. This "HRW says that 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities.'"

Does not offer protection to this "IDF justification of the air strikes on the police was based on their (police) categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. IDF regards all the armed forces of Hamas as the equivalent of the army."

It is why then, you bring this up "'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target.'"

This would offer protection under "formally incorporated", and that is the case that perhaps Israel is 'making', but not through any legal means. They are not saying, that legally, the police in Gaza was incorporated into the armed forces, they are saying, they were part of the armed forces to begin with(at least they saw them in that way). And the reason why, is because they moonlight as rocket launchers, or that in case of an invasion, the police would react like 'regular' Hamas fighters would. But notice that inter law does not say anything about how they would react. Israel assumes, that since the policemen are Hamas fighters, it doesn't matter what they do, when Israel attacks, Israel will target them. Again, these mentality is at odds with HRW statements, and you fail to see this. And you will continue not to see this, because you are defending one party and I don't care who freaking goes to court or not. I clearly see the point that NO HRW statement has addressed the IDF classification that the police was incorporated into the armed forces, except one brief mention that police, of course, had civil duties etc. I'm done with this. We could start from the Consent article, and work a response from there, but that would require some 'research' in order to find out if the UN or HRW has said anything about IDF's beliefs that they were "formally" incorporated, I don't think they would take the part of "policemen would react like hamas fighters" seriously. Cryptonio (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be enough if we (you, Sean, myself) leave aside all the speculations brought here and simply stick to primary sources, without interpretations. Any of the HRW' statements in its entirety can go in. I recommend to delete the sentence in the beginning of the article and address the issue in the IL section. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)