Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Outcome through swimming pool

Richard Nixon: "What is your assessment of the 1789 French Revolution?"
Zhou Enlai: "It is too early to say..."

Couple of days ago there was report by Hebrew language RS that some school teachers in Sderot are getting fired (losing their jobs), since "rocket fire" positions are being eliminated by Israeli authorities. In eyes of BBC it is a question of International Law. They also publish picture of Sderot swimming pool which was closed for four years because of the rocket attacks and now "recovering uneasy". Sderot mayor said: "We don't hate the people in Gaza, we feel pain for them, but we have to remember they don't suffer because of us, they suffer because of their leaders." Maybe it's time to update outcome in this article to reflect the reality. Hamas temporary cease-fire was week long and Hamas leaders officially announced it as expired at due time. This point is not clear at all in the Infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look who it is! What do you suggest replacing it with ? I suppose it just says what it says at the moment because that was the outcome at the end of the conflict which I guess is consistent with the dates above. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sean, missed you too. I love signature meme which infected you replicating with slight modification at nableezy. Kind of Darwin evolution ;-). To your point, don't make me lough with "momentary truth" argument. Clearly so far there is no precedent of Hamas declaring "cease-fire" with Israel unilaterally or otherwise: most advanced state of relation normalization process with Zionist occupying entity is so called "temporary lull". I hope this fact is visible even at Thailand. As far as military conflict context, I'd follow general trend of Operation Defensive Shield WP precedent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Status: Israel and Hamas declare separate unilateral ceasefires.

Result: Israeli success

Let me know if there is any objection. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I object, can you provide sources that say Israeli success or victory? nableezy - 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained why current description does not reflect reality. Could you relate to that? Do you have better suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have a better suggestion, follow the sources and not decide for ourselves who "won". nableezy - 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, you don't relate to my argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats because it is your argument. The conclusions you draw from the facts are not really relevant to what we say are facts in the article, those have to be from reliable sources. I could present my own OR argument showing Hamas achieved victory. But it would not matter because it should not be in the article. We let people who are qualified to say what the outcome was, and the sources when describing this conflict invariably say that it came to an end when each side declared unilateral ceasefires. That is what we say. nableezy - 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I kind of afraid that your reaction conditioned by mine identity. This would not be Wikipedian worthy behavior. Anyway, currently it is not outcome, but "Status". Do you agree that Hamas temporary cease-fire expired after one week, about half year ago? The status expired, you know. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Your" is not specific to you, it is about any wikipedia editor using their own analysis as the basis of inserting material into an article. And what has come since the ceasefires were declared are treated in the sources as occurring after the "Gaza war", so the two each declaring separate unilateral ceasefires is accurate for describing the end of the "Gaza war". nableezy - 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

cease-fire, which is limited in time

Let's be more accurate. Was Hamas "cease-fire" limited in time? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to that question doesnt really matter, the sources describe the end of the "Gaza War" as when Israel and Hamas declared their own ceasefires. That is what the infobox says. nableezy - 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with sources puppet role, encyclopedia require some thinking. To the point there are couple of problems here:

1. Indeed BBC say "unilateral ceasefires" about events that happened half-year ago. Status is current state of affairs though. BBC report that now Sderot swimming pool is open since rocket attacks rate allow it after four years. From ceasefire point of view - it is last year snow.

2. Sometimes people just can not imagine that language of Shakespeare is not reach enough - some things just get lost in translation. Maybe this is also wishful thinking. We already agreed in the article to translate "status" of affairs as "lull".

So if we stay with Status we should go with lull. Maybe it's too early to achieve Result. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, status is the status of the war, not what is going on in the world today, which the sources say ended Jan 19 with the unilateral ceasefires. And WP policy is pretty clear that we are puppets of the sources. nableezy - 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

a one-week ceasefire - citation needed

I agree that Wikipedia require citation. Supporting "puppets of the sources" looks to me a bit drastic though ;-)

Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced on Sunday (January 18th) a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip to allow Israeli soldiers to withdraw.

The Hamas leadership announced Sunday (January 18th) a one-week ceasefire in Gaza, saying Israel should use that time to withdraw its forces and open all border crossings in the territory. The news from Hamas's Syrian-based deputy leader, Moussa Abu Marzouk, came about 12 hours after Israel declared its own unilateral ceasefire to end its 22-day-old offensive in Gaza.

Status: Israel and Hamas declare separate unilateral ceasefires.

Status: Israel declared unilateral ceasefire, 12 hours later Hamas announced a one-week ceasefire

Hope this is more accurate and backed by sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If noone objects I'm going to apply this change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfidy principle

The following doesn't seem to be supported by the source.

"Hamas fighters were accused of not distinguishing themselves from civilians during the conflict.[145]"

No accusation(under Inter Law) is made here "They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups.", which it was simply a remark brought by a Hamas fighter.

Additionally, no charge in relation to this operation is brought by JCPA. Cryptonio (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete it then. Mallerd (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Mallerd. Similar question was asked recently by Nableezy: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 51#perfidy. There are 3 sources, saying that: "Several reports stated that Hamas fighters shed their uniforms shortly after the start of the ground incursion.[145][146][147]". JCPA writes: "International humanitarian law forbids perfidy, which, for example, means that it is forbidden to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant (citing Art. 37 of the Protocol I). The fact that Palestinian terrorists often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks makes it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed." Now what exactly do you ask, Cryptonio? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is all the Palestinian freedomfighters an army or some a guerilla? Toolsother (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He says the source is simply a remark and no accusation. I say delete the source, find a better one since it is true, apparantly. Mallerd (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Toolsother - interesting question, they are apparently both. Anyway, the question is somewhat irrelevant. The ICRC issued lately the following publication - Clarifying the notion of direct participation in hostilities. If you'll read the complete report (see the link at your right), you'll understand that the same rules are applicable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Mallerd - the idea and the implementation of that source was of Nableezy's. From my experience, he's the most competent on wiki policies in this page. I'll ask him to write his opinion. I personally think the wording is fine and no need to discuss it further. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that shedding a uniform isn't enough for perfidy. Dressing as a civilian while openly carrying weapons/engaging in combat etc isn't an act of perfidy. It's allowed. It's when the weapons are concealed and the combatant status of the person is deliberately concealed that it becomes perfidy. So, looking at what is in the Perfidy Principal section it seems okay to me apart from the "and alleges that militants not dressed in uniform make it highly likely that innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed" part. JCPA are welcome to their opinion about uniforms of course and how it effects the behavior of IDF soldiers but perfidy isn't about uniforms, it's about feigning civilian status. It's the "not distinguishing themselves from civilians during the conflict" that makes it perfidy and that requires deliberate concealment of weapons to make the enemy believe that you are a civilian. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups. - this IS perfidy, right? And JCPA is correct when they cite Art. 37 of Protocol I, right (I've even provided a wikilink there)? This conduct endangers innocent civilians, right? So why do you interpret the JCPA words in the way it is not meant to? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is perfidy as I said. Perfidy endangers civilian and soldiers lives and the JCPA citing art.37 is fine. That's all fine. What isn't fine for me is the "and alleges that" etc at the moment. It may very well be true in practice but the connection to perfidy in the sentence has been broken because wearing civilian clothes by itself is not perfidy. At the moment the "and alleges that" part can be interpreted as -> no uniforms -> shoot anyone who might be a militant -> don't blame us. What JCPA actually said was "often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks" which is perfidy. Include that and the connection to perfidy is no longer broken. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now. This was a constructive contribution, I'll take care of it later, together with fixing sources, they got messed up. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording on accusation must be removed, if source 145 wants to be used. Something along the lines of "A news report included information on suppose weapons concealment by Hamas fighters, which would be a Inter Law Violation according to JCPA" etc. I'm not arguing about what JCPA is saying though. Cryptonio (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And I saw the Archive, but I'm not sure how it was that Nableezy took care of it. It seems as if his original concern still remains. Cryptonio (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

→Wait a second please. In the article, the URLs somehow got messed up. Let's restore the sources and then choose the most appropriate for this section. The first one is from Times above: They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups.. Second, the Hamas fighters were eventually ordered to get out of their security forces uniforms and fight in civilian clothes. This was done a few days after the Israelis entered the Gaza Strip, and Hamas realized that its fighters were no match for the Israeli troops. It was believed that having these men fight in civilian clothes would reduce Hamas casualties. Third, Hamas fighters have hurriedly shed their uniforms. Many of them simply deserted and returned to their families, taking their guns with them. Questions might arise about qualification of strategy page as RS, so maybe Times is the best. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the wording on how is brought to the article that seems to be the conflict. The word accusation to be specific. Cryptonio (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the JCPA sentence completely, I think it is coherent with the first sentence now. Also, "presumptively" is better than "presumably", but still - there's nothing to presume. Times provide direct evidence from Hamas fighter who says this was a general practice (not just his) and besides there are several other sources to this. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't still present this as a fact, this is elementary. 500 sources could report the same thing, and Wiki still wouldn't presented as a fact, as you have done. Cryptonio (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting observation. I'll have to ask Nableezy about that. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would phrase it as "There were reports of Hamas militants wearing civilian clothes and concealing their weapons while carrying out attacks. The JCPA said that such actions violate the perfidy principle" or something like that. nableezy - 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Lost info"

Time goes by and this articles will be lost if not archived here:

1. Defense and industry sources here said the Israel Air Force made unprecedented, coordinated use of the one-ton Mk84 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) to attack buildings and tunnels along the Gaza-Sinai border, as well as dropping the 500-pound variant against underground bunkers. Other gear making its combat debut or seeing expanded use include synthetic aperture radar targeting pods; vertical, high-resolution aerial imaging pods; Shoval UAVs; and a range of laser-guided bombs and missiles

2. The unit destroyed in Thursday’s attacks numbered approximately 100 men who had traveled to Iran and Hezbollah camps, mostly in the Bekaa Valley, where they were trained in infantry fighting tactics, according to the report

3. Among those weapons was the new PB500A1 from Israel Military Industries, a laser-guided hard-target penetration bomb based on the 1,000-lb. Mk-83 “dumb” bomb. It is reportedly capable of penetrating 2 meters (6.5 ft.) of reinforced concrete

4. In the Tal-al Hawa neighborhood nearby, however, Talal Safadi, an official in the leftist Palestinian People's Party, said that resistance fighters were firing from positions all around the hospital.

5. Many Hamas members have dug tunnels for themselves under their homes and hid weapon caches in them. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Was dismissed in the past by others but still: 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. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Not sure to what extent this is kosher, but anyway the testimony is interesting. They told me again and again that both civilians and Hamas fighters had evacuated safely from areas of Hamas activity in response to Israeli telephone calls, leaflets and megaphone warnings. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

8. The inadequacy of international law --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

9. If i'll require this later: Israel to UN: Qassams unacceptable. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction (IntLaw-Israel)

Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction (IntLaw-Israel)

Israel has been criticized for violating laws covering distinction. Israel has stated that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." This has been criticized as being too broad. Amnesty International (AI) has said that this definition includes, "presumptively civilian" targets such as government ministries that serve no military purpose. Israel has said that these government ministries and the parliament building are part of the Hamas infrastructure and as such legitimate targets. B'Tselem describes Israel's reasoning as being "legally flawed," stating that simple Hamas' affiliation does not make such locations legitimate targets. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserted that under various provisions on International Law (e.g. UN Security Council Resolution 1566), Palestinian governing authorities in Gaza, whether directly involved in terror attacks or not, are criminal terrorists, by virtue of their willing provision of finance, plan, support and safe haven for terrorists. AI and B'Tselem point out that in many instances, IDF targeted civilian buildings without providing explanation for the attack, and some of such attacks raise the strong possibility that Israel may have violated the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. AI asserts that those instances would violate Articles 51, 52 and 54 of Protocol I. CSIS report notes that the IDF admits it did hit some purely civilian targets, including UN facilities, but says that it is not clear that combatants were not in or near such targets; CSIS also claims that the laws of war require an effort to discriminate, and not perfect success. AI further notes that Israel’s firing of artillery, shelling from tanks and from naval ships into densely populated civilian areas in Gaza may also amount to indiscriminate attacks.

In June 2009, HRW issued a report entitled "Precisely wrong", presenting an investigation of six UAV attacks that resulted in large civilian death. HRW concluded that in the cases probed, Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, or failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only the former; as a result, HRW deduce that these attacks were a violation of International Humanitarian Law. The report methodology included interviews with victims and witnesses, investigations of the attack sites and IDF and media reports; the probes were based on the presumption that the impact mark and the fragmentation patterns were consistent with the Israeli-produced Spike missile that are used by the drones. The Israeli military did not cooperate with HRW on the report and said that the report appeared to be based on "unnamed and unreliable Palestinian sources" whose military expertise was "unproven". Spike's manufacturer, Israeli concern Rafael, says the missile can be fired not only by drones, but by helicopters, infantry units and naval craft. Several military experts said that drones may reach operational heights of 4,000 metres; the launch of a missile at that altitude would likely elude the naked eye. HRW military expert also conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small aircraft.

In July 2009, Amnesty released 117-page report that was based on physical evidence and testimony gathered by a team of four researchers, including a military expert, from dozens of attack sites in Gaza and southern Israel during and after the war. The pattern of Israeli attacks and the high number of civilian casualties "showed elements of reckless conduct, disregard for civilian lives and property and a consistent failure to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects," Amnesty charged. The group said that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed using high-precision weapons, while others were shot at close range. The IDF responded that the report ignores the efforts the military made to minimize harm to innocent civilians that included millions of flyers, personal phone calls to homes of Palestinians and radio broadcasts to warn civilians of the impending operation.

Section is finished. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Week without progress - very bad. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On hold. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of proportionality (IntLaw-Israel)

Amnesty stated that some attacks on homes of Hamas leaders have killed dozens of civilians, even though it should have been apparent to Israeli forces that the target of attack was not likely to be present or that civilians were likely to be killed in the attack. AI asserted that such conduct may amount to disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” (Article 51(5b) of Additional Protocol I). Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence; moreover, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". CSIS report notes that Israel planned its air and air-land campaigns in ways that clearly discriminated between military and civilian targets and that were intended to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage, by systematic and comprehensive use of its IS&R assets, careful mapping, GPS abilities and guidance from targeting experts briefed in the laws and conventions of war; the report concludes that this aspect of the IDF‘s actions met the key legal test that the anticipated military advantage did not outweigh the risk to civilians.

Finished. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is under construction - feel free to edit and add. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

→In a meantime, I want you to take a look at B'Tselem report. I am reading it now and frankly - I am surprised. I expected much more criticism in a more harsh manner. I think I will not be able to stop myself from providing a few exerpts from there. But before that - a little soapboxing. p. 13 - 'It is clear that Hamas is responsible for the firing of rockets at Israelis. However, as the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is also responsible for the functioning of daily life.' - so it is inevitable to conclude that Gaza is not occupied by Israel any more. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I wasn't aware of the fact that B'Tselem can actually criticize something Palestinian as well, but on the 1st page of the report they say: 'As an Israeli organization, B’Tselem focuses on the acts of Israel and its human rights responsibilities; accordingly, this document does not address the conduct of the Palestinian side in the fighting. However, B’Tselem states at the outset that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Directing rockets at a civilian population, shooting at soldiers from inside civilian neighborhoods, while endangering the lives of the residents, storing weapons in civilian structures, and execution of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel are all absolutely forbidden.'

'It is undisputed that application of these principles in the Gaza Strip is complex, given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and any error could be fatal. In addition, it appears that Hamas members systematically breached these principles. Indeed, it is not exact science and commanders in the field must make rapid decisions while often lacking full knowledge of the facts. However, Israel is still required to act according to the principles of international humanitarian law, and to take into account the presence of civilians both near and within areas that the military attacks.' - fair enough. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civil police

HRW points out 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. HRW representative stated that a decision that police and police stations are legitimate military targets depends on 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. IDF stated that it perceives police in Gaza as equivalent to the enemy's armed force and as such legitimate targets. Various NGOs, specifically Amnesty International, criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police. Israeli NGO Monitor responded to this criticism by saying that AI presented no evidence supporting its claim that these men were not Hamas operatives. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) cites Gaza police officials who said that police were instructed to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This subsection is almost ready. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the allegation that some/many police moonlight as militants is important. Do you need me to pull a couple sources? I can see this not screwing up any section as long as it is worded carefully.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would take out the NGO monitor sentence, it provides nothing in the way of an actual rebuttal and amounts to just saying "no you are wrong" Nableezy (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, by all means. If you come across additional sources - please bring them in. Meanwhile, I came across another piece of info recently. Unfortunately, it is only a newspaper article and the factual report couldn't be found on inet. FYI, Orient Research Group is a team of Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Report: Most Hamas 'officers' killed in Gaza were terrorists: 'The report says 286 of the 343 "police officers" killed were members of terror organizations, the vast majority of them belonging to Hamas' military wings.'; 'The report also refers to the claim that the first Air Force strike of the Gaza offensive hit a ceremony attended by members of a Hamas traffic police training course...78 of the 89 were terror operatives, many of them belonging to the al-Qassam Brigades.'. I consider a "castling" - to insert this report in the 'disputed figures' subsection instead of ITIC, and here to add another sentence, saying that 'ITIC presents numerous examples of double affiliation of civil police with the Hamas military wing, during the fighting and in ordinary times'.

You know, Nableezy, as a general policy I would agree with you not to include baseless statements like "you are wrong" / "no you are wrong". However, in this particular case there was a rationale, I would be delighted to receive feedback from others on the matter. So, here was my line of thinking: criticism from HRW on the police issue ('Israel should not make a blanket decision...') was at least fair - they did provide the legal definitions and pointed out under what circumstances it would be acceptable to attack civil police. The case with AI report on this particular matter is different. The only sentence devoted to police is: 'They attacked civilian police, killing more than 150.'. They don't bother to mention that under certain circumstances it is legal to attack them. Nor do they present evidence that 150 killed were indeed civilian policemen, unaffiliated to Hamas military wing. (it should be noted that AI was more fair elsewhere - in the destructed homes section they mention that houses may be demolished if there was a military necessity). So, I think that Monitor makes a correct observation - AI presents no evidence supporting its claim, while Israeli-affiliated sources (like the ITIC I cite constantly) present numerous evidencies that police in Gaza is an integral part of a military establishment and that its members serve as fighters as well. What I'm trying to say is that AI makes nothing more than a baseless statement "you are wrong" themselves; the fact that AI is more notable than the rest should not undermine the case of unfair and unsubstantiated criticism - as I showed above, HRW was more constructive in their criticism. By keeping the AI sentence and removing Monitor sentence we are left with a very presumptuous one-sided and unbased statement, aren't we? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree that AI provided no evidence but that isnt all that important (they provided evidence that the initial striks took place in a traffic police and a cadet graduation ceremony, not exactly hardened fighters). The important stuff is what the ITIC said because they actually said something, the NGO monitor provides nothing of use here. I dont really care, but I would say cutting out whatever is redundant and can go should be done. Nableezy (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The NGO statements acts as a justified affirmation that analysis outside of the IDF exists to combat AI's reports. Considering the relevance and relationship NGOM has with Palestine I believe the inclusion makes sense and is not "redundant." However, I do think this needs to be improved:"Various NGOs, specifically Amnesty International, criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police." Can we be more specific in regards to "Various NGOS?" What NGOs? Did they all collectively criticize Israel (we should say Israel military/IDF for accuracy) for targeting Hamas policeman? Where is Hamas in this picture? I know for a fact leaders such as Khaled Mashal have routinely referred to the population of Gaza as a unified weapon against the Zionist entity...more or less. They have not denied ordering fighters to dress up as civilians, or civil-serviceman, or using women as shields or tactical assets, etc..etc..etc. Can we merge the opinion of the main and true combatant rather than continuing to rely on AI and other activist organizations to rebuff Israeli actions? It would certainly make the article more informational and less-propaganda driven. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Laziness, Wikifan, is one of the sins, and I was definitely lazy. I am almost sure B'Tselem said those cadets were trained to carry out purely civil duties, I will look it out later. If anyone can bring similar acusations from other NGOs - please help. As for the second part - 'the opinion of the main and true combatant' - I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. Well, I recall in one of the articles cited there are words of a Palestinian fighter, who says something like 'I am a fighter and I am a civilian...' , but I don't see how is it helpful, especially here (apart from the fact that he violated perfudy principle...)

Nableezy, please don't take offense but seems like you still don't understand the meaning of fighter/combatant/member of terrorist organization. The fact that at the moment of the attack those cadets didn't held guns and shot and attended ceremony, doesn't contradict that at some point they were trained for terrorist activities as well/were instructed to fight IDF in case of intrusion/took part in some of Hamas actions. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Exactly. It is not against the rules to kill an enemy when they aren't pointing a gun and shooting at you. Some of the most deadliest and effective battles in history involved the tactics of ambush/shock-and-awe/etc. If the US military bombed OBL's cave in Northern Pakistan would he be labeled as a civilian casualty by virtue of not holding a weapon and screaming Allah akbar? No. Can we find a source that explicitly defines a separation of powers from the Hamas militia...to say, civilian-controlled services? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, will you please stop making casual, rambling assertions without sources, personally-derived idiosyncratic interpretations of complex legal topics, etc, etc. It is not on people who disagree with you to find sources specifically disagreeing with your unsupported declamations. And this is not a blog's comment section. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And we've been over this. <eleland/talkedits> 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I still want to answer Nableezy, from a personal perspective. Some many years ago I participated in a graduation ceremony of the B.Sc. graduates in Technion. At the time of the ceremony I was an officer in the IDF. Do you think that during the course of the ceremony and after receiving graduation diploma I ceased to be an active officer in the military? Not for a single moment. Or vice versa: do you think that since I went on with my IDF duties, I ceased to be engineer? No. I was at the same time an engineer and an officer in the military. What I'm trying to say, and it has nothing to do with soapboxing, is that saying that those cadets were traffic course graduates (which is btw absent from AI report we use, you must be referring to some other AI statement. the only thing present is what i said before - 150 civil police killed) is not an evidence, it does not qualify as evidence that those young men were not integral part of a military establishment in Gaza. It is just another useless saying, as well as a sentence 'They attacked civilian police, killing more than 150.'. All this sentences has no logical relevance to what Israeli sources say - that police is integrated in Hamas miliary wing and that large number of civil policemen had actual experience as Hamas fighters/combatants/you name it. My point? I can agree with you that Monitor didn't say much useful sentence, but I want you to agree with me that AI in the first place made a useless statement on this matter, that could be well left outside the article.

Wikifan, to your question - on the contrary, we can find several (including Cordesman I think - I will check it out) sources saying that Hamas blurred the line between civilian and military to such a point that no distinction could be done. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm saying. Outside of hand-holding senile former Presidents and promoting infrequent fund raising campaigns, Hamas doesn't spend whole a lot of time convincing the world that x are civilians, x are hamas militants. They have AI and the UN to do that. I mean simply reading through their political charter and government structure paints a pretty clear picture that there is little social diversity beyond Hamas. I would imagine it would be quite shameful for the leadership if they were to deny the "sacrifices" made by the people who support them, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a BLP vio (the senile part) and for somebody who cries about others soapboxing you seem to have yours out pretty regularly. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you are saying here, but like Eleland I dont feel like having to prove your inane assertions to be bogus. Sceptic, I'll answer you in a bit. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Relax. It's just the internet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, Nableezy. I didn't plan to insert the police subsection before the upper section is constructed and there's a work to do. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

→From B'Tselem report (see above): 'On the first day of the operation, 27 December 2008, the air force bombed the central Police headquarters in the Gaza Strip, killing 42 cadets standing in their morning formation. One of the cadet trainers told B’Tselem that during the course, cadets study first-aid, crowd control methods, exercises in maintaining order, and the like. The policemen are then assigned to various branches of the civilian police in the Gaza Strip.' I am not sure this is a bold accusation, but it certainly implies that the attack on the cadets wasn't exactly "kosher". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not "kosher?" Uhhh...bad joke methinks. I'm almost certain civilian police are under the auspices of Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what we are talking about. Nobody denies they received the special training in trafficing/first aid/etc. But it doesn't change the fact that most of them (78 of 89 according to the source above) were at the same time active members of terror squads; moreover, all the Israeli sources I cite agree that under Hamas, police is anyway integrated in its military wing (an indirect evidence is that police chiefs got specific instructions to fight IDF in case of incursion). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Source 302 Heather Sharp (January 5 2009). "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?". Jerusalem: BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm. "The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted." and http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-gaza-scene1 "Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank u, Cptnono, we will use LA Times. As for BBC, we have 2 huge problems with it, and one problem was already discussed here. You see, BBC writes: '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.' As I tried to show before, this sentence is very inaccurate interpretation of what HRW actually said. HRW said that if a policemen is a Hamas fighter - he can be attacked; if he is not a Hamas fighter but from time to time moonlight with Hamas squads - they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities. The second problem with BBC is the following sentence: 'The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".' - this is a complete miscomprehension of both ICRC and Geneva conventions. The whole subject is not so straight-forward. Later today I will start new separate subsection and will provide actual ICRC deliberations on the issue; I hope that will end our endless loop discussions on the police matters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I think you are wrong on what HRW said. Also, and this isnt directly related and I am having trouble finding it, but the ICRC during the Lebanon war said that they had to treat Hezbollah fighters once they put down their weapons, ie no longer directly engaged, saying that once they did so they became non-combatants. But will get sources for this and for what HRW said. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

HRW: 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. source This seems fairly clear, that police who are Hamas fighters can be targeted "whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in hostilities". Not that they can be attacked at any time. Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it as Israel's reason not if it is justified or not. There is no reason not to put in "Israel targeted police since they/some/most are militants. HRW and others say it is bad and illegal because...." we can go plenty of different ways but we need to keep in mind that some source (BBC) will show both side of the coin sometimes. As long as the mention is in there from whatever source I am happy, though.Cptnono (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, Nableezy. it amazes me how we see the same text and cite the same sources, but we read it differently and can't convince each other. As I said, I will soon publish the latest ICRC deliberations on the matter. Meanwhile, try once again to follow me: each civilian (policeman for that matter, or worker, or engineer or a nurse at the hospital) can be sorted to one of the three groups. First one - strictly civilian, not affiliated to any kind of armed forces, never participated in any kind of armed struggle - they are not legal targets. Second group - those who are not formally part of armed forces, but once in a while "moonlight" with armed groups - they loose their civilian protection for the course of the active participation in hostilities. Third group - those who are regular fighters - they are legal military objectives any time. What you fail to understand is that a policeman (or a nurse or a baker - whoever) can simultaneously hold a civil job and at the same time - be an active member of armed group. The ITIC report I cite regularly presents evidence that some of the policemen killed had ranks in a civil police and at the same time had ranks at al-Qassam brigades. How do I make you comprehend this? A youngster can at the same time be a pupil in school and a member of Scouts movement - he doesn't cease to be scout when he attends his classes. I was at a certain point an officer in the IDF and a student in university - I didn't cease to be an active member of military forces when I went to studies. This is why 'while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted' means that if a policeman is a Hamas fighter - he can be targeted anytime. If he is not, i.e. he has no rank or membership in military wing and only seldom helps launching rockets - only then can you say that they can be attacked only when participating in hostilities. (N.B. still they can be targeted if the police as an establishment is incorporated in armed forces). Again, you don't have to answer right away - wait for ICRC sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference with your situation was that Israel has a standard "army" which makes the definitions much easier with them, you did not cease being an officer because you were formally incorporated within that defined structure. With Hamas they certainly have "fighters" but no real army so the definitions get muddled up. I am going to look for some other sources that can help shed some light for us, and I swear I read the ICRC thing about Hezbollah but cannot find it on any of the internets. Will get back to this over the weekend. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it is how you read it. Is being active while participating in that function or regularly participating in it. I don't really care. We should throw the info in (using direct quotes if necessary) and let the fact speak for themselves since it looks like we are bordering on attempting to translate bureaucrospeak to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, yes, the definition for the soldier in the regular army, IDF style, is much easier - you know exactly when the person was recruited, when he demobilized and when he was remobilized as a reservist. But still, it doesn't mean that al-Qassam brigades do not qualify as regular armed forces - they do, they have clear military structure, hierarchy, etc. Maybe you are not familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now I believe you that somewhere in the not-so-distant past you saw the ICRC commentaries on Hizballah fighters - and if you find it I will be delighted to read it. Cptnono, I have no problem in presenting both sides of the story and to throw the info in, but I do object using info (like BBC article) that claim to cite someone - and it turns out the citation is erroneous. I think this is the case where secondary source is much much worse than the primary one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure they have a command structure and hierarchy, but for our purposes it is hard to say they have an "army" or "armed forces". Now I am not an expert in international law (I sometimes play one on Wikipedia) but from what I have read, including an Israeli High Court decision, is that people who partake in hostilities are civilians breaking the law and may be attacked while doing so, but while not doing so they can be arrested but not attacked by the military, and this is specifically because it is not a standard "army". Nableezy (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong - read below. BTW, you realize I hope that when talking about Gaza Strip, it is simply unrealistic to just arrest the one who breaks he law. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean, the Israeli law... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We get into this discussion we will go in circles about the rule of law in an occupation or whether or not it is an occupation. Will look at the below and see if I can find some more authoritative sources. Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The occupation isuue is simply irrelevant because the ICRC report covers all the possible situations - if you want to understand the issue (and stop relying on mass-media), and you don't trust my exerpts - read it yourself. You will see that either way you look at it, Hamas military wing is an armed group to the conflict. Just because they are not a regular army as IDF and just because they sometimes violate conduct of a regular army (and become unpriveleged combatants, not only because Israeli court said so, but because any court, including ICRC would say the same) - don't give them more protection, and I left a remark there specifically for you, Nableezy. And I don't understand - ICRC is not authoritative enough? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about getting into a discussion on the plausibility of arresting somebody. And I meant in addition (the ICRC is the authority on this topic along with the International Court). And I don't dispute that the Hamas military wing is an armed group of the conflict, I was saying that the definitions are much easier with Israel because what is the Israeli army is clearly the Israeli army, with Hamas it is more difficult to say that, especially when discussing the police and otherwise ordinarily civilian institutions. Will take a look at what you presented and see what else I can find. We do have to be careful though with how this proceeds, we cannot be evaluating the sources to try to determine on our own how they apply to this conflict. We need sources actually applying it. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What ICRC has to say on the matter

Clarifying the notion of direct participation in hostilities --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see the intro: 'After six years of expert discussions and research, the ICRC has published the "Interpretive Guidance", which aims to clarify the meaning and consequences of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law (IHL).'; 'A further problem arises where armed actors do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population, for example during undercover military operations or when they “act as farmers by day and fighters by night”. Consequently, civilians are more likely to fall victim of erroneous or arbitrary targeting, while military personnel - unable to properly identify their adversary ­– are vulnerable to attacks by individuals who are indistinguishable from civilians. All this underscores the importance of distinguishing not only between civilians and military personnel, but also between civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities and, those who do.'; 'While IHL stipulates that civilians be protected against direct attack, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities", neither the Geneva Conventions nor their Additional Protocols spell out what conduct constitutes direct participation in hostilities. In its efforts to redress this situation and to protect the civilian population from erroneous or arbitrary targeting, the ICRC initiated an informal process of research and consultation with the aim of clarifying three key questions: (1) Who is considered a civilian for the purposes of conducting hostilities? (2) What conduct amounts to direct participation in hostilities? (3) What modalities govern the loss of civilian protection against direct attack?' - what do we learn so far? That the matter is complex. One thing for sure - taking a direct part in hostilities won't necessarily mean shooting the gun or launchin the rocket. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading the intro, let's turn to the Guidance - an upper link on the right. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidance

Part 1: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ICRC

p. 16, I & II: all persons who are not members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict or organized armed groups are civilians and, therefore, entitled to protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. In non-international armed conflict, organized armed groups constitute the armed forces of a non-State party to the conflict and consist only of individuals whose continuous function it is to take a direct part in hostilities ("continuous combat function").

Do we have any doubt that al-Qassam brigades fall into definition of 'organized armed groups'? I hope not.

IV. Direct participation in hostilities as a specific act: The notion of direct participation in hostilities refers to specific acts carried out by individuals as part of the conduct of hostilities between parties to an armed conflict.

VI. Beginning and end of direct participation in hostilities: Measures preparatory to the execution of a specific act of direct participation in hostilities, as well as the deployment to and the return from the location of its execution, constitute an integral part of that act.

The details will follow, but it is important to notice that it is not necessarily required to catch a man shooting or launching a rocket to attack him - the definition is a bit more flexible (however it is not too flexible, as we'll see later).

VII. Temporal scope of the loss of protection: Civilians lose protection against direct attack for the duration of each specific act amounting to direct participation in hostilities, whereas members of organized armed groups belonging to a non-State party to an armed conflict cease to be civilians (see above II), and lose protection against direct attack, for as long as they assume their continuous combat function.

This is extremely important. It means that if IDF intelligence knows that a certain policeman has at the same time a rank in al-Qassam brigades - he can be attacked any time, regardless of his "moonlight" activities. The same would apply to Hizballah fighter - if he is not a casual civilian but a member of this armed group - it is irrelevant whether he holds a gun or takes it down (unless he surrenders).

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but 'moonlighting' is not the same. That would fall under losing it for the time, somebody who is otherwise a civilian and engages may only be attacked when the are engaged. But again, we are going to read things differently which is why we need sources that actually apply this to this conflict, so we dont try to fit fit together a real puzzle based on abstract clues. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 2: RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTARY

p. 22: '...Thus, while members of irregular armed forces failing to fulfil the four requirements may not be entitled to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status after capture, it does not follow that any such person must necessarily be excluded from the category of armed forces and regarded as a civilian for the purposes of the conduct of hostilities. On the contrary, it would contradict the logic of the principle of distinction to place irregular armed forces under the more protective legal regime afforded to the civilian population merely because they fail to distinguish themselves from that population, to carry their arms openly, or to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Therefore, even under the terms of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, all armed actors showing a sufficient degree of military organization and belonging to a party to the conflict must be regarded as part of the armed forces of that party.'

Nableezy, do you see now? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we are just disagreeing on how to define what is a member of the irregular armed forces. People who are fully incorporated in the al-Qassam Brigades would clearly fall under that, but the police is not as clear. What we need are sources talking about these police officers and whether or not they are civilians immune from attack when not directly participating or members of the armed forces that have no such immunity. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I couldn't ask you for more. Set aside polce which is indeed not that clear, would you agree now that saying that a member of the armed forces (combatant, fighter, operative of the armed group - let's consider them synonims) can be targeted any time, not only when he takes direct part in hostilities? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point you made below about when civilian protection is restored applies here as well, somebody who is integrated in civilian life ceases to be a valid target, which goes to the PCHR argument on Hamas members not involved in the fighting being counted as non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight - 'somebody who is integrated in civilian life ceases to be a valid target' is 100% correct. What is incorrect is a statement that a person who has a civilian job is necessarily integrated in civilian life. You still somewhat blur this point. There are cases when IDF soldiers get permission to work to help their faimilies, but they do not become integrated in civilian life until got demobilized. So, if a certain policeman has this job as a civil policeman but at the same time holds a rank with al-Qassam - he is still a valid target. Only when he fully disengages from brigades and consentrates on civil life 100% - only then he ceases to be a valid target. and if, being 100% civilian, he goes on "moonlighting" - he can be attacked when participating in hostilities. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

p. 25: '...c) Determination of membership: For the regular armed forces of States, individual membership is generally regulated by domestic law and expressed through formal integration into permanent units distinguishable by uniforms, insignia, and equipment. The same applies where armed units of police, border guard, or similar uniformed forces are incorporated into State armed forces. Members of regularly constituted forces are not civilians, regardless of their individual conduct or the function they assume within the armed forces...'

Indeed, it is irrelevant what is a function or the conduct of the soldier - even if he is killed in a car accident or during a war in which he doesn't take a direct part (if he is in the musician unit for one) - the man is a soldier and he will be buried as a soldier. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'... For the purposes of the principle of distinction, membership in regular State armed forces ceases, and civilian protection is restored, when a member disengages from active duty and re-integrates into civilian life, whether due to a full discharge from duty or as a deactivated reservist.'

This is exactly why Hamas claim for legality of their attacks on civilians (because every Israeli is a potential IDF soldier) is unlawful. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

p.31 3. Organized armed groups: too long to cite, worth reading. But here go 2 highlights: p. 34'...Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function. An individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities on its behalf can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before he or she first carries out a hostile act.'

Again, a fighter (even if he has a job as policeman) of armed group can be attacked any time. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem here, that the police are not simply the armed forces of a non-state party, they are an institution of the state. That the state is governed by Hamas does not equate to their being recruited trained, trained, and equipped by said party. There is a distinction between Hamas the government of Gaza and their 'army' the al-Qassam Brigades. That goes back to what HRW said about widening the scope to 'anything associated with Hamas is a valid target', Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your observation is of course correct, but I wasn't talking about police necessarily. I wanted to emphasize, echoing my old dispute with Sean and BBC, that a fighter of an armed group can be legally attacked as long as he continuous combat function, and not only when taking direct participation in hostilities. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

'...Individuals who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group, but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities, are not members of that group within the meaning of IHL... Although such persons may accompany organized armed groups and provide substantial support to a party to the conflict, they do not assume continuous combat function and, for the purposes of the principle of distinction, cannot be regarded as members of an organized armed group. As civilians, they benefit from protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities, even though their activities or location may increase their exposure to incidental death or injury.'

p. 43: IV. Direct participation in hostilities as a specific act (of a civilian who is not an integral member of the armed group): The notion of direct participation in hostilities refers to specific hostile acts carried out by individuals as part of the conduct of hostilities between parties to an armed conflict.

Where civilians engage in hostile acts on a persistently recurrent basis, it is still not enough to attack them arbitrary.

p. 65: VI. Beginning and end of direct participation in hostilities (again, of a civilian who is not an integral member of the armed group): '...In line with the distinction between direct and indirect participation in hostilities, it could be said that preparatory measures aiming to carry out a specific hostile act qualify as direct participation in hostilities, whereas preparatory measures aiming to establish the general capacity to carry out unspecified hostile acts do not.'; '...It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a qualification as direct participation that a preparatory measure occur immediately before (temporal proximity) or in close geographical proximity to the execution of a specific hostile act or that it be indispensable for its execution...' 'Where preparatory measures and geographical deployments or withdrawals constitute an integral part of a specific act or operation amounting to direct participation in hostilities, they extend the beginning and end of the act or operation beyond the phase of its immediate execution.'

I hope it is clear now why BBC give erroneous impression about those who "moonlight" - they could be also an integral part of armed group, and even if they are not - it is sometimes permissable to attack them even when they don't launch rocket at this very moment. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont see where you are going with this, the specific strike on the police most often questioned was one of the first strikes during the graduation ceremony. If we accept that these officers were civilians then you can hardly say that was with the "beginning and end of the act or operation beyond the phase of its immediate execution" and if they were not civilians it doesnt really matter when they were attacked. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are correct, but that wasn't my point. Let's leave cadets aside for a while. BBC said 2 things that annoy me. First, they say that according to ICRC, combatant can be attacked only when taking direct participation in hostilities - we agreed that this is incorrect. A combatant (a one who has continuous combat function) can be attacked as long as he has continuous combat function, right? Second, they say that according to HRW those who "moonlight" can only be attacked when taking direct participation in hostilities - sometimes this is true, but sometimes it is not, for example when he is inherent member of armed group. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

p. 69: 'Under customary and treaty IHL, civilians lose protection against direct attack either by directly participating in hostilities or by ceasing to be civilians altogether, namely by becoming members of State armed forces or organized armed groups belonging to a party to an armed conflict' - read the whole section.

It is also important to notice that if IDF has intelligence that a police as a whole is integrated in armed forces of Hamas (I don't have apriori evidence to that but I provided aposteriori evidence), it becomes irrelevant to what extent one single policeman is a member of al-Qassam brigades or not - each member of armed forces is subject to attack. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You can present that as IDF sources saying, but just saying it is true based off the IDF's word isnt going to cut it (no offense) Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I don't even have this intelligence that police is sort of integrated in al-Qassam brigades, only some bits of info from ITIC before and during the war. We might never know the exact truth, and anyway Wiki is not about the truth. What I actually want to say, and I say it all over again and again, is that in principle a policeman in Gaza can be directly attacked in following cases: 1) if he is an inherent fighter with al-Qassam brigades; 2) if he participates in hostilities on irregular bases - he is subject to attack when taking part in those hostile acts (including prepearation for that act or withdrawal from it; 3) if police as a whole is integrated in al-Qassam brigades. This is why HRW were pretty correct with their statements. This is why AI with that sentence that 150 civil policemen were killed say nothing at all - why do they think 150 policemen were civilians? Is it because they know something that others don't or is it merely because they are incompetent in the subject? This is why Monitor observes this statement correctly - they call AI to either bring their evidencies or say nothing at all. This is why B'Tselem miss the point completely about the cadets. They could have been trained in first aid or traffic regulations or assistance to the aged - it is irrelevant. What is relevant is to what extent each of them was an actual member of al-Qassam brigades and to what extent the police establishment is integrated or not in al-Qassam brigades. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

all right, I think it might be better if we go through what the article currently states:

Israel has been criticized for violating laws covering distinction. Israel has stated that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." This has been criticized as being too broad. Amnesty International has said that this definition includes, "presumptively civilian" targets such as police and government ministries that serve no military purpose. Israel has said that these government ministries and the parliament building are part of the Hamas infrastructure and as such legitimate targets. B'Tselem describes Israel's reasoning as being "legally flawed," stating that simple Hamas' affiliation does not make such locations legitimate targets. Israel responded to criticism regarding the targeting of police, who are "presumptively civilians" according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by stating that Israel regarded the police as a resistance force and that they were equivalent to "the enemy's armed force" and as such legitimate targets.

Now the paragraph does not say that the police are civilians, it says they are "presumptively civilians" which should be clear that there are cases where that presumption would not apply. I think the line "Israel regarded the police as a resistance force and that they were equivalent to "the enemy's armed force" and as such legitimate targets" covers your points without the detail you are going into. Now the other section it is brought up in is the casualties sections which currently reads:

Human Rights Watch (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. The IDF has made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report claiming that during Gaza War many supposedly civil policemen were at the same time operatives in Hamas’s military wing.

Again, it has the HRW saying "presumptively civilians" and the Israeli argument that they are a part of the armed forces. In addition here we have the PCHR saying that the classification was incorrect and why they classified them as non-combatants ans the ITIC counter that the PCHR was incorrect. I really dont see what we are missing here, though I get the feeling you want to include a paragraph, presumably under the Intl law section, that under the following circumstances police may be attacked in accordance with intl law. I dont think such a paragraph would be appropriate in this article (it might be in an article specifically about intl law). The thing we need are sources that make these arguments about these policeman, and we have that with the PCHR making one argument unequivocally asserting that these police were civilians and the IDF unequivocally asserting that they were not. And we also have the various NGOs, specifically HRW, that say under what circumstances a policeman may be attacked while connecting it to this conflict. In the intl law paragraph we have all sides covered as well. I hope you dont mind or think I am being purposefully dense (Im not), but could you tell me what you object to in the current sections being included or what you would want to also include. Nableezy (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as for 'disputed figures' subsection, it is exactly as I wanted it to see, and it was constructed with you consent, I suggest we keep it untouched. As for IntLaw section, I am trying to reconstruct it. You saw me adding separate subsections about home demolition and food supply to Gaza. My object here is to construct a separate subsection for attacking civilian cites and below it - a subsubsection about police. As you see, police is an issue in its own. Actually, a subsubsection you see above, and we started this debate over it, even though the debate is about details - I didn't feel you habe principal objections to it. I hope you will assist me - even if you think that the whole IntLaw section is overinflated, I don't - I think it is most important one, and believe me I do everything I can to make it concise. What I intend to do next is to insert a sort of summary to the ICRC report - just for the sake of recording what actually IHL say. Then in a separate subsection I'll place again a paragraph about police, adding statement from B'Tselem and a response. Later, I'll keep working on a paragraph about attacks on civilian cites. One more thing: do you understand now why I (and Monitor too) have a problem when AI says '150 civilian policemen killed' and not a single word more? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions based on ICRC report

1. either way we look at this conflict, al-Qassam brigades are armed group to the conflict.
2. each member of the armed group to the conflict can be directly targeted as long as he assumes continuous combat functions. continuous combat functions include acts such as training and preparations to hostile acts, not necessarily a specific act. members of such forces are not civilians, regardless of their individual conduct or the function they assume within the armed forces - unlike civilians, who are still immune from the attack when assuming indirect functions, members of such group are valid targets even if having indirect functions, such as cooks or medics.
3. a member of armed group restores his civilian status and special protection when demobilizes from that group.
4. civilian who irregularly takes direct participation in hostilities, loses his immunity for the course of each specific act. a notion of direct participation in hostility includes also preparation to this act, deployment and disengagement from it.

the report emphasizes that despite a temptation to include arbitrary a civilian person who only takes direct participation in hostilities in a list of legal any-time targets, this would undermine the notion of special protection granted to civilians. still, i didn't get an answer to the case of "farmer at days, fighter at nights" - each day he is a legitimate target from 9p.m. to 3a.m. and from 3a.m. to 9p.m. he is not?

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Now a short test: read the following sentence from BBC: The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".. Try to count mistakes in it. If you come up wit less than 2 - go reread ICRC. If you count more than 3 - congrats, you are an expert! --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on civil police, take 2

HRW points out 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. HRW representative stated that a decision that police and police stations are legitimate military targets depends on 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. IDF stated that it perceives police in Gaza as equivalent to the enemy's armed force and as such legitimate targets. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) alleged that the distinction between the internal security forces and Hamas military wing is not sharply defined and cites Gaza police officials who said that police were instructed to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip. Many security force members were reported to "moonlight" with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigades. Amnesty International criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police. Israeli NGO Monitor responded to this criticism by saying that AI presented no evidence to support its claim that these men were not Hamas operatives. One of the traffic course trainees who had participated in the ceremony attacked by IAF on 27th December, 2008, told B'Tselem that they were trained in first-aid and in maintaining order. The Israeli 'Orient Research Group' claim that 78 of the 89 killed during the first IAF strike were terror operatives, many of them belonging to the al-Qassam Brigades. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Sceptic, I've read everything discussed (as you suggested) and concluded that misinterpretations are easily avoided by not making any interpretations or cherry-picking sources/statements to lead the reader one way or another regarding the legality of the action. Let the key sources speak for themselves. Their statements/views will be contradictory but no amount of discussion/interpretation here can or should resolve that. The basic facts are enough aren't they ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Para on Pro/Psy

IDF spokespersons often reported that scores of demoralized Hamas fighters had been observed deserting. The claim strengthened the Israeli will to continue and undermined the confidence in Hamas in Gaza.[194]

I'm inclined to ask why was this added. It might give further details about something, but I do not think it acts as correlation in a section where it seems is void of such articulation. Cryptonio (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because The claim can't be confirmed -- but it definitely affects morale. The whole Spiegel article is entitled "Psychological Tricks to Demoralize the Enemy". Since I used recently this article yet again to reinsert some info to Palestinian section, I wanted to be fair and add something not used before to Israeli one. If others would be inclined to remove it, there won't be too much objection from my side. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bodies still missing

A recent update from Ma'an news: At least 59 Palestinians still missing since Gaza war. There is something confusing in this, I'd like a clarification. "At least 1,505 victims had been identified before Ma'an's investigation. From the Health Ministry's original list of 90 missing Palestinians, researchers determined that 31 of them have been found, identified and reburied. The 59 Palestinians still thought to be missing are listed below, in order of age, along with the cities or areas in Gaza where they were last seen alive". The number that I know is 1415, look here: PCHR List. 1415+90=1505. Does this mean they are counting the missing 90 bodies in the total count? That would be, ehh, peculiar. Random check reveals that: Maan #2 = PCHR #1377; Maan #3 = PCHR #516; Maan #4 = PCHR #506. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting two "heaviest" sections of Int-Law - Israel

I've finished (until additional info is available) messing up with the sections and inserted them in straight into the article. So now there are sections on principle of distinction (including police subsection) and proportionality. Being slightly tired, I didn't polish them up - citing requires improvement, some wikilinks could be added and so on. That could be done later. I tried to use all info available. If anybody has questions, reservations, additions - do please. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Deadliest attack in 60-year conflict"

The Israeli attack was the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict, which has led some Palestinians to call it the Massacre of the Black Saturday.

Ok, the reason I removed this was:

A) I don't think alarabiya is a wikipedia-certified reliable source. B) This source may only be considered notable by its author and is most certainly not reliable However, the language in the article reads like a blog. The "Massacre In Gaza Black Saturday" is not the subject of the article and is simply a personal heading in the letter/press release. I haven't seen it anywhere else beyond the Arab world.

Also, is it true this was the deadliest day in the conflict? So since 1948, this attack tops em' all? If so, we should explicitly say this is the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I know the subject matter is clearly Palestinian but many seem to merge it with the Arab-Israeli conflict (though I think Palestinian casualties are included in that conflict, right?) I don't know, I haven't been that active on the article so I figured it was better to post here before warring Sean. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think AlArabiya is unreliable? Factsontheground (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's owned by a despotic oil state and I can't find it in the wikipedia-reliable sources discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan shouldn't you try to achieve some sort of consensus here on talk before blanket-deleting information from an article that is under Wiki sanctions? RomaC (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is removing information sourced by unreliable references considered "blanking?" If you think I violated a rule please report me, if not I'd like a response to my question cause I am genuinely interested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

al-arabiyya is a reliable source, it is a major news organization. nableezy - 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about al-arabiya, that covers 1st half of the sentence. And maybe, Wikifan, it was the deadliest day, because al-arabiya explicitly says "60 years of conflict with the Palestinians" (of course, it started way earlier, but let's leave it). Anyway, 2nd half of the sentence is based on Massacre In Gaza - Black Saturday, that seems no close to RS. 2nd half must go. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ill get some other sources on that, there were a lot saying the name for the first day was "Massacre of Black Saturday", know of a few in Arabic will look for English. nableezy - 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I can understand your problem with despotism but I live in an oil state (Canada) and I don't see what's wrong with that. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing despotic about an oil state but the despotic state I was referring to also happened to be an oil state. Canada's gettin close though...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, how does Al Arabiya being partly-owned by Saudis discount it as a reliable source? I believe Barack Obama's first-ever interview as US president was granted to Al Arabiya, by the way. RomaC (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Typically, state-controlled media is not reliable, especially media subsidized by a ruthless Islamic theocracy. Is the reference in the wikipedia RS-page? I couldn't find it. Also, Interviewing politicians does not somehow make a source notable - bloggers have interviewed Presidents. You should know this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan according to your edit summary deleting the content: "this simply isnt true, sources arent even close to being reliable and i cannot find an independent source to confirm", you couldn't find a source other than Al Arabiya. I wonder, did you even try? Because I found one on the first page of a garden-variety Google search. Also, on your challenge to Al Arabiya, can you please direct us to the list of "wikipedia-certified" reliable sources you refer to above? Thanks! RomaC (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second source is a joke. Good job understating its unreliability. There were two issues: A)Is this really the deadliest attack in the 60 year conflict with Palestinians (even though it's been going on since Arab revolts)? And B) Is "black Saturday" really that popular of a term? I know these countries like romanticizing massacres while conducting campaigns of genocide against their own people, so I figured it was worth confirming. I could not find any legitimate references that endorsed this "black Saturday" assessment, and I could not find any references confirming this was in fact the deadliest attack in the conflict. If the term "Black Saturday" is only being emitted from the Arab world or specific Arab/islamic countries, then we should be more explicit and say that. We don't want to get undue weight to what clearly is a loaded term.

Also, Here is the database: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, feel free to file Al Arabiya request. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan that is not a database it is a noticeboard, for discussion. And you have things, as some say, bass-ackwards. You deleted content and declared Al Arabiya "not even close to being reliable . . . owned by a despotic oil state . . . subsidized by a ruthless Islamic theocracy". I and others simply stepped in to stop what we saw as disruptive, advocacy editing. Now, if you truly believe this major news organization is not a reliable source, then it is up to you to start a challenge. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you done? Now, can someone other than Roma please answer my questions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WF, you are the only disputing the reliability of Al-Arabiyya. Like it or not they are a major news organization and meets the requirements of WP:RS. And RomaC is right, absence of a discussion at WP:RS/N means absolutely nothing. If you want to challenge Al-Arabiyya bring it up there, but the consensus here is clear. Al-Arabiyya is a reliable source. nableezy - 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, massacre of black saturday now sourced. nableezy - 08:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my only dispute and the reliability of AA has little to do with what I'm saying. I still don't think AA is reliable source anyways, and two users with demonstrative POVs is not a "consensus."

Plus, the second source is total bollocks. I'm not confident this was the deadliest day in the history of the Palestinian/Israel conflict, and I have been unable to independently verify the claim. The Black Saturday statement, sourced by a non-RS, also has not been addressed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please, don't we have other more important things to do? Wikifan, the sentence been edited and better sourced. WP is not about truth, you know, I suggest you leave the AA. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't care whether it's information is true or not, what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.198.10 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WF, my counting was that you were by yourself, where RomaC, myself, and Sceptic (wait, he has an assumed demonstrable POV, but it is the opposite of my assumed POV, do they cancel each other out or add like absolute values? Im so confused) all say it is fine. Again, if you want to take that to WP:RS/N, then by all means feel free to do so. nableezy - 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamas response to rocket attacks.

There was a response previously before the section got reworked. Don't know why it wasn't added.

I found this and added it.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar stated during the operation "they [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate addition. Two points: first, you added it to 'acts of terrorism' subsection, while it seems more relevant to 'attacks directed at civilians subsection'. Second, there's already a sentence in 'attacks directed at civilians subsection' in Hamas response to AI report - Hamas official rejected the report as "unbalanced, unfair and unprofessional," calling the firing of rockets "self defense" and a legitimate response to Israel's actions.[310] - Maybe these two sentences can be merged as one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has, and very detailed ones. That somehow the wording is similar, well the subjects are similar...rockets. Cryptonio (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice - the subject, i.e. the specific charge, is different, but nevermind. The word 'rockets' in the heading is inappropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind. While the notion of 'a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has' is perfectly fine, the response should address the charge. Words "they [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way" say nothing about 'legitimacy' to spread terror. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It did addressed rockets though, we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then . It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing). Cryptonio (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - say it again please? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the source:" On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.

Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes "for many months" and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory. He spoke on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV.

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar also gave a televised address Monday, saying the leadership in Gaza salutes "the resistance men" and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done.

"They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the source, and as said, no objection to use words of Hamas official. I don't agree to quote them in 'attacks spreading terror section' because the words address the charge of indiscriminate attacks and not terror. You said 'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - I didn't understand what you mean or what do you suggest. Please say it again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On the section of spreading terror, how is it that they spread terror? Rocket attacks. "It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing)". There is nothing else mentioned on the spreading terror section besides rockets. And finally, if they say this ""They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." they expressed that they are doing what Israel is doing, and if Israel says that's spreading terror, then obviously Hamas thinks Israel is spreading terror as well. It's all they saying with the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. 'shelled children and hospitals and mosques' - seems like indiscriminate attack. Actually, all our dispute here is speculative, and I didn't express stronger objection because it falls somewhere in the grey zone. I still tend to think it is not so qualified in the terror attacks section. You see, many (including human-rights NGOs) said for a long time that the prime aim of rockets on Israel is not to kill but to spread terror and this in itself is a violation. Israel never said that (and it is impossible to determine it decisively) the aim of attacks in Gaza was to terrify Gazans. Well, I don't know. I told you my opinion. Maybe I'll ask third party to take a look. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You said 'no stronger objection" and "grey area" and I agree with you. I won't be mad if someone else besides you removes(or moves) the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

→I'll try to get attention of Cptnono (leading military) and Nableezy (leading wiki-policy) experts to decide. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a military expert in any way (I just think the aspect is important) Thanks, though : ) . I look at this article as a military conflict more than a series of international law violations. My initial thought is to put it in the "Rocket attacks into Israel" section. From the way I am reading the source, dude is vowing to fight on and feel's justified. He also thinks their method is similar to Israel's. It is easy to assume that he knows it is controversial and that is why he made the statement but in all reality, "warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes 'for many months' and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory" "the leadership in Gaza salutes 'the resistance men' and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done." and "They [Israeli forces] shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." are all good quotes describing a tactic used. To make it easier on us, the source doesn't mention international law so we don't need to put it in such a section at all.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds. It is the accusation that must refer to or at least allude(per today's standards) to Inter Law violations. Cryptonio (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds." - then under what grounds? Definitely not grounds of laws of war. The accusation is (a direct quote of int-law): "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited". It turns out Cptnono and I think alike - the quotes are good, but the placement is not. Let's see if Nableezy will show up. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

→So far, Cptnono and I think alike, and Nableezy didn't show up. How do we move towards resolution? Cryptonio, you want to bring in anybody else? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, i can wait for Nableezy to say something. Cryptonio (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Either he didn't understand my request to show up here or he ignores it. Maybe you should ask him. Meanwhile, check this out: There was also an outrageous question from the Arab Human Rights Commission, suggesting that Hamas rocket terror against Israeli civilians might be legitimate. The representative asked if Palestinians have a “right to resistence,” while referencing “home-made rockets.” U.N. investigator Mr. John Dugard, who had previously accused Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, did acknowledge that even non-state actors have to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid targetting civilians (though he seemed to suggest that it would be legitimate to target Israeli soliders in any context). --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved the whole section to the bottom to draw attention, I want to finish it already. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

too high right now, will come back later. nableezy - 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this can go in the intl law section Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects. Though I see Crytponio's point on the section, the Attacks aimed to spread terror and Attacks from populated areas deal only with rocket attacks. Me thinks perhaps we should be having a section Rocket Attacks instead of the 3 sections that currently only talk about the rockets attacks. nableezy - 14:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like majority supports the idea of moving the quote from 'terror attacks' to 'attacks against civilians'. About the suggestion to merge allegations into one section - I strongly oppose. The charges are different, and I'm trying to address each charge separately. For those who are following, I'm doing the same for the section on Israel - I separated distinction from proportionality. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a general point on classifications that result in subsections, isn't it better to base these of what something is rather than what someone thinks something is whenever possible ? For example, a rocket attack is a rocket attack. Everyone can agree on that. It can also be described as act of terror or an act of self defence etc but those classifications will vary according to the sources you choose. Just a thought. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that we are dealing with Int-Law section. We present here allegations of war crimes. Rocket attack in itself is not an allegation of war crime. But there are sources that charge those attacks with 2 different war crimes. If you have sources that say that such rocket attacks are legitimate 'self-defence' or 'right to resistance' (especially if those sources would be neutral) - do please, we'll include them as counter-arguments. Here is another nail to the "terror-spreading" allegation: "their primary impact on the target is psychological". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with the way it is split up, I just think it would be better organized if we set it up as "rocket attacks are illegal because they violate 1 2 3" instead of saying "violations of 1, rocket attacks; violations of 2, rocket attacks; violations of 3, rocket attacks". Just my thinking, but there isn't anything wrong with splitting it up like this either. Just think it would be a more logical section layout. Nothing would change in the content. But whatever. nableezy - 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to look at it that way too (including the 'but whatever'). Structures based on what happened/real things are preferable to structures based on opinions e.g. 'songs by X' vs 'songs by X' with a 'crappy songs by X' subsection. What I think is much more important though is that the int-law section should be split off to a sub-article. It has massively undue weight in this article especially given that these are opinions about events in the Gaza War rather than facts that provide information about what happened in the Gaza War. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The response was not moved but deleted. I too, say whatever, but if we can't actually do what we say we thought we agreed on by not saying anything, specially whatever, then I too will say, whatever, but at the same time will like to see this section rewritten down to one section because of it's content(rockets). Cryptonio (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, I do not generally delete a well-sourced info, especially when me myself said before that it is good to go for the article. Look better, it was moved, not deleted, as per Cptnono suggestion, and I wouldn't oppose to include it anywhere else. To the notion of rewriting it down to one section I STRONGLY object. I follow the same pattern for both Israeli side and Palestinian side - the charges are the pattern, not the nature of the attack. No consensus here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
check out Gaza War#Rocket attacks into Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, the recent HRW report provide the same statement you found, see the newest section. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, pardon, as I looked per "Seems like majority supports the idea of moving the quote from 'terror attacks' to 'attacks against civilians'." and not "Rockets attacks into Israel" which is not in the Inter Law section. Leave the quote in the current place, if anything I'll find another one later for the Inter Law section. Cryptonio (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Try HRW report, it is a good place to start. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Law Explosions

Is this article still about international law? I figured I would "bump" some archived discussions to see if more information could be given to the actual conflict.

• Commanders in the infobox: Should this be amended to include the actual commanders on the ground or the political command?
• Images: Tanks, dudes with rockets or guns, and planes could be useful
• Where should Naval info go? It doesn't seme to fit in the prose with the current layout since we only have 1 source (can you find any others also?)
• Does anyone subscribe to the IAF's magazine? This info could be useful from what I have found and I would hate to have to purchase it or receive an unpaid copy through another method.
• Iranian trained Hamas. This is somewhat interesting due to the West's demonizing of Iran but is really really interesting due to their pseudo commando status. Any sources on this that are tight?
• Any thoughts on the ever expanding intl law section style wise? Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you ask me, no need to bump anything. Every discussion that was started resulted in rewriting the relevant section in Int-Law. I hope I'll find time is the coming days to improve the weapons section there, but anyway I'll start a separate discussion for that.
• Commanders - no specific preference, as majority decides.
• I'll take another look at Israeli Government report, if we could find any useful image there.
• Naval info - why not adjacent to AirForce?
• Can't help with subscription, but here are 4 additional pieces from Defence News, still not fully exhausted: 1, 2, 3, 4.
• Iranian trained Hamas - this is a common knowledge, man. Do we have to reference that 2+2=4?
• Didn't understand the actual question in the last bullet. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I worded it wrong. My point was that I am crabby over the weight of intl law in the article still (boo hoo for me). Hoping consensus will revisit and adjust the commanders in the infobox, Naval is going in, agreed on the math, and hooray more Defense News since I only saw one earlier. I'll fiddle with somethings tomorrow more than likely. Anyone feel free to do whatever is needed if it isn't up to par.Cptnono (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were like any other military conflict, but it isn't. Do you know any other similar event with such amount of attention from human rights groups, politicians, media commentaries and committees - everybody talking about Int-Law violations? Rhetoric question, but the point is that the length of the section is dictated by overweight attention that this topic is given. I argue that it became the central issue of the debates. This is why I dedicate so much attention to it and will be reluctant to any revisions. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it has undue weight in this article. That's not a criticism, it's a compliment. I wish more articles had sections with undue weight so that more detailed subarticles could be spun off. That's how it's meant to work I guess. I don't agree with your argument that it needs to stay in this article because it's size reflects the weight in RS. The reactions section was spun off to a subarticle precisely because of the sheer volume of information associated with that issue in RS. The intlaw section could be put in a subarticle as is without losing information. Of course then someone would have to summarise it for this article and maybe no one has the time or inclination at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)...also, if you do need a ref for 2+2=4 you can use Principia Mathematica. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputes related to alleged violations of IHL is a core issue, reactions from the world leaders are not. In the meantime, 'Gaza humanitarian crisis', very long and detailed subsection, could be easily spun off into subarticle - with all the respect to the hard life of the Gazan population, this is not a core issue and talks about imminent humanitarian crisis in Gaza circulate for more than a decade now. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are legal opinions about events a core issue ? Aren't the events the core issue e.g. lots of people homeless = a neutral fact = core issue, opinions about lots of people homeless = non-neutral, non-fact = not a core issue. Seems obvious. The core issue for the article is describing what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We constantly disagree on this one. I argue that your notion of the neutral fact is misleading, because it strips the fact from the context. E.g. 'lots of people homeless' - you suggest to stop here and dismiss everything else. But I demand to preserve the context. Why numerous people in Indonesia are homeless? Is it because their traditional way of life? Is it because of tsunami? Is it because of the authorities' negligence? Is it because somebody ruined them? Why that somebody ruined them - out of evil intentions or because of real and proven military necessity? Another example - hostage killed in the course of rescue operation. That's tragic. But the story gets different perspectives if we ask questions: who killed him - a villain? a policeman? or maybe a corrupted policeman (remember The negotiator?)? or maybe he was killed before the operation and it triggered the start of the operation? So, for me this is not obvious at all and I am convinced the IHL section is a core section of the whole article. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen The Negotiator. But I think that the context should be factual and upfront, like the Star Wars opening scroll. The international law section is more of a Han shot first kind of thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, this is BS. It's like Zeno's 'motion is impossible' argument or perhaps that a butterfly beating it's wings eventually resulted in Gaza being flattened by IAF bombs. The events themselves provide sufficient context. Yes, there's a complex web of causal relationships between events but let's keep it simple and within scope of this article. Motion is possible and the butterfly is not within scope of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)..also the negotiator was rubbish. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Negotiator was great and for that alone I could file a charge against you. You want to stick to events? Good. The problem is that each observer or commentator see some events and disregard other and gives different weight to each event. You say: "the event is 'Gaza being flattened by IAF bombs'". I say "no, the events are: Hamas placed its military bases amidst civilian population and turned houses, mosques and even hospitals into weaponry warehouses; Hamas launched dozens of rockets on Israel between Dec. 19 and 27; IAF attacked only what is considered legitimate military target." You say "the event is many hundreds of Palestinians are dead". I say "no, the events are: Hamas jeopardized civilians in Gaza in every possible way which is a war crime; civilians got killed". You say "the event is 'thousands of houses were demolished'". I say "no, the events are: Hamas dug tunnels under almost every house in Gaza; Hamas fighters used them to flank soldiers; houses that posed potential threat were demolished". You say the events are: "Amnesty accused Israel of killing dozens of civilian police". I say "no, the events are: 90% of recruited policemen were operatives in Hamas; Amnesty accused Israel of killing dozens of civilian police without checking out their affiliation to terrorist organization". I can go like this for ages, you know. This is why the article is so lengthy. Because there's apparently no such thing as neutral undisputed fact, not when dealing with this highly politicized matter. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I was wrong. I looked up the opening crawl for the first Star Wars "prequel", The Phantom Menace and it reads like it Khaled Meshal wrote it. So never mind:

"Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo. While the congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict.... --JGGardiner (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - changing the lede to use this style to increase readership. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

→Cptnono, check out words of the Givati Brigade commander. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

badass (both your resourcefulness and the candidness of the commander)Cptnono (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This word (badass) made me use my dictionary - and you no what? It didn't help me because it has several contradictious meanings. But I'll take it in a positive sense :) --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As it should be!Cptnono (talk)

Notice

A thread concerning this page has been initiated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Facebook event to recruit Arab and Muslim editors to contribute to the Gaza War article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

This article needs to be semi-protected. [1] [2] BYT (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally support the idea of giving the article more protection and that only registered users should be enabled to edit it. In a meanwhile I'd suggest that every anonymous edit be reverted right away, regardless of the contents. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If vandalism continues I'd support semi protect for a short period but blanket reverting every anonymous edit is a no no. Even Evolution isn't semi-protected and that attracts a lot of insane people diverse views. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4216231&c=FEA&s=INT Flayer (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of aftermath and deterrence - ITIC recent bulletin: "The calm in the western Negev continues. Hamas refrains from firing rockets into Israel and its senior figures emphasize for Western ears its policy of restraint." Pay attention to the rockets/mortars chart. The same chart, not including last three weeks, is presented in the Israeli Government report above. If the policy allows, I think it could be used in the article. Interesting to note that indeed last months were the more quiet than during the lull. And here is the NY Times piece: "Armed resistance is still important and legitimate, but we have a new emphasis on cultural resistance...The current situation required a stoppage of rockets. After the war, the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More on aftermath: On Sunday, Gaza militants fired mortars at a crossing into Israel just as Palestinian patients were being transferred for treatment, a Palestinian official said. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Reflist}}

Hi all. What are people's opinions on changing the {{reflist|3}} to either {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}? The documentation for the template says 3 columns are to be avoided for viewability reasons.--Rockfang (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To which option?--Rockfang (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For removing list3. I have used list2 so am familiar with it. Is there a reason to use other other one? Also, thank you for proposing something that may lead to raising the assessment of this article on the quality scale in the future.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IDF vs PHR

the defense establishment has composed a counterreport to a damming document on the IDF's conduct published by Physicians for Human Rights. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Victory

An IP is adding it and it is done improperly. However, we should be able to add some lines on Israel domination and Hamas resilience. These have been discussed in sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I kind of liked better uncensored version. Agree though this article is politicized garbage, where facts are under emotions "occupation". AgadaUrbanit (talk)

My uncensored version was after shots and beer after watching my local team getting killed :) . Along with referring to the recent edits as "shit", misspelled "resilience" twice, and was a little harsh (although honest) on my assesment at the noticeboard. Some of the military based sources love talking about the victory, Hamas had the whole PR "victory" spin, and some more neutral sources have had a little bit of mention on it. I think it could be of interest but am not sure of how to go about it.Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This Washington Post source contains interviews with Israeli officers and soldiers who took part in the assault. Looks very "military" to my lamer eyes and hopefully might help the hangover. Happy Wiki editing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lamer? That brings back memories. Is this 1998 AgadaUrbanit? : ) I really want this info in and think it could even go in the lead. Something like that requires exceptional amounts of caution. Chime in if you have any opinions!Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

This is very premature but does anyone want to start making minor edits to get this article a little higher on the quality scale? It should be our goal. There are major issues that will not be fixed anytime soon and this conflict could kick-off again at anytime. Maybe we can start toying around with the style and grammar issues now? For example, I started a sentence with a number which is a nono. Take a look at User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet and try a few minor edits to see if it can be improved.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Images from IMFA report

4 images that imho could be used. check it out: Image:GazaWar weapons in mosque.jpg, Image:GazaWar aftermath.jpg, Image:GazaWar double affiliation.jpg, Image:GazaWar military camps.jpg --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a problem, it is just a claim of Israel that this took place in a mosque and there is no evidence that it took place in a mosque during this conflict. The double affiliation one I also have a problem with. I dont see the point. Unless there is some source saying this person was killed while engaging in armed conflict and that he was counted as a civilian it only seems to try to prove a point. The aftermath one is fine, not sure where it would fit. The last one could concievably be used, not sure where though. But I do have problem with using the pictures from a primary source about "the enemy". nableezy - 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually one of the pictures in the mosque one looks like there is a mihrab, so that very well may be a mosque. All the same, it is still from a primary source involved in the conflict so the rest of my above remark stands. nableezy - 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weapons in mosque - and if in the caption to the image it is well-attributed to the IMFA report?
• Aftermath - I think separate section in the article, following 'continued negotiations' subsection, should be created. The image is to illustrate NY Times piece ("The current situation required a stoppage of rockets. After the war, the fighters needed a break and the people needed a break") and recent ITIC bulletin ("Hamas's policy of restraint has come under severe criticism from radical Islamic organizations (such as the Islamic Liberation Party) and local groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda and the global jihad. Hamas has been accused of abandoning the principle of jihad (one of the pillars of Islam) in order to strengthen its control over the Gaza Strip").
• Military camps - its natural place would be 'Palestinian military activity', so the question remains: is attribution to IMFA report enough.
• Double affiliation - to start with, if anyone wants to determine the image authenticity, the report gives us the name (Adel Abu Awn) and the source (Hamas forum, 20 January 2009), but unfortunately no link. But whoever reads and writes Arabic, this can be traced. The point of the image is to illustrate the double affiliation of policemen in Gaza, either in 'disputed figures' subsection or in 'IntLaw-Attacks on civil police'. Again, attribution can be constructed. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if I think attribution is enough for some of these pictures. I am pretty tolerant of sourcing for pictures (though I do note that all the pictures depicting Palestinian casualties and damage were forced to come from a reliable secondary source (an impossible standard when you also include it has to be free per WP:NFCC until Al-Jazeera released their creative commons collection), a number of other pictures were rejected on sourcing grounds. I have not tried to remove the pictures on the "other side" that did not meet those standards, but these carry conclusions in the photos. The military training grounds one, is there any evidence that these places actually were besides the Israeli government? But lets see what everybody else has to say. I do have reservations though. nableezy - 04:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

General approach is clear. Let's put it this way - I'm not pushing anything, each image will be introduced if the consensus is reached. So, I ask to provide a final opinion on each of the images. Thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious problem is that we risk turning Wikipedia from a neutral encyclopedia into a propaganda instrument of the Israeli government. Some may argue that that is a considerable step forward. Nevertheless, Nab sums it up nicely by describing it as 'using the pictures from a primary source about "the enemy"'.

GazaWar weapons in mosque.jpg - Some weapons somewhere on planet earth. Not informative.

GazaWar aftermath.jpg - Clearly okay (with attribution) and could be used in several articles.

GazaWar double affiliation.jpg - The words in the article are enough to convey the information.

GazaWar military camps.jpg - I like this one. Given very heavy attributions/caveats/disclaimers/this-could-be-bullshit-warnings it could be a nice encyclopedic addition to illustrate the IDF narrative. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Having said that the ideal approach for me would be to balance abstracted, depopulated, military images like GazaWar military camps.jpg by using images of the carnage that resulted from the strikes on those targets. That probably isn't possible unfortunately. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Between the two I actually think the mosque one is better than the camps. At least it shows some weapons in some rooms. It has to be at least half true because the group of weapons looks sparse and decrepit. I don't have my glasses on but it seriously looks like there's some jars in the top right picture that could go into that new Acropolis museum. The camps picture is easier to make up and relies on the ministry's definitions of "military base" and "training camp". Sometimes the Israeli government has different definitions for things like that than I might. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, let's keep it simple. I'll make a subsection for each image and you provide your decision - support or objection. You don't even have to explain why (unless you feel you must) --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapons in mosque

I could see this one going in. It would need a good caption. It would fit with the text discussing mosques in the "Attacks from populated areas" section. The mortar tube next to the apartment (or whatever it was I only browsed through quickly) is alright, too. The problem with the other ones is the quality. Why make such an extensive presentation than use MSPaint? C'mon, Israel? There are a few others in the PDF that might work, though.Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Others had reservations, and I was upset with the quality too, so I guess this one stays out. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I liked the mihrab Nab's observation. Maybe we could use the picture. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

not very successful, at least I tried... awaiting help...--Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing this below (oops). "Since" is a concern so the caption will need to say "as of" or describe it very clearly. Layout is still a concern but it oculd be adjusted easily (I hope) Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Double affiliation

Poor qualityCptnono (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Military camps

I like this one but again the MSPaint job sucks. I am extra picky, though. It presents relevant info so I am inclined to say yes to this one or some of the other similar ones in the report.Cptnono (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like there's a consensus about this one. I agree, I was disappointed with the MFA because of the image quality too, and I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to improve it. So, what approach do we endorse - should we strive for the best or compromise on this one (since it is so hard to find anything eligible with the policies)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Photographs (and no, I'm not talking about charts) ...

... suggest a numerical parity between Palestinian and Israeli casualties that did not, in fact, exist. BYT (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess, BYT, this is a proper occasion to copy-paste once again the wonderful phrase from the latest HRW report (who are as you know not the greatest supporter of Israel): "The purpose of the laws of war is not to create parity between parties to a conflict, or to assess their violations in light of their relevant capacities, but to minimize the harm to the civilian population. Violations of the laws of war are not measured in the number of civilian casualties, but whether each side is taking all feasible precautions to minimize civilian loss". So, first, your suggestion is fair enough (even though the second part of the sentence could have been omitted); second, I'd rather see that chart in the background section being deleted as misleading and useless. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you you go into more detail regarding your concerns with the chart? Also, has anyone had any luck on finding pictures of tanks?Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

...but in a new section would be better since this section heading specifically says 'and no, I'm not talking about charts'. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

<-BYT, if you have any images in mind that you think would add value to the article and which comply with the usage policies please suggest them and they can be discussed on a case by case basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about HRW. Not talking about charts. I'm talking about the cumulative effect of the photos, or lack thereof, in the article as a whole. Someone scrolling through the article has to wade through a whole bunch of text before getting any meaningful photographic visual suggesting that there even WERE civilian casualties, and then when one finally finds them, the photos seem to suggest that perhaps two Palestinians died for every Israeli who died in this operation. Compare this and this. BYT (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before and my opinion is that this article is not about dead civilians. That is what the casualties section is for. Since the images are meant to compliment the text, the only way I can see alleviating your concerns would be to not have Israeli casualties represented at all since peppering images of casualties throughout would present even larger balance concerns.Cptnono (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an idea well worth considering. Another (and, in my view, complementary) approach would be to replace one of the photographs with an image conveying the scale of the civilian loss of life more accurately by showing more than one dead Palestinian at a time. BYT (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding suitable images with the appropriate licensing. That isn't at all easy. Without actual images to consider it's all hypothetical. I personally thought the image of the policemen killed in the initial attack on the parade was a good image because it's neutral in the sense that people interpret the status of those killed in different ways according to their own views. I don't think Al Jazeera have released that early material under a CC licence. Either way, images evoke strong views here, charges of propaganda, immorality, incitement, censorship, you name it. Everyone has their view so consensus is difficult to achieve. I agree that the article doesn't really do a very good job when it comes to visually describing what happened so if you come across any suitable material post a link so that it can be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of trying to establish a 100:1 image ratio, I've followed user:Cptnono's lead, above. Just realized my edit was overriding yours, Sean, and my apologies. Feel free to restore if you wish, but I hope you can propose a better solution if you do. There's a major balance problem here. BYT (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooh... you opened up a can of worms, BrandonYusufToropov. I personally hated the image removed and thought it was an MOS concern. I like the idea of a) adding a picture of many Gazan casualties and b)adding pictures of military significance. Do any other editors have a concern removing the Israeli casualty picture? We have a serious balance issue but I don't think 1 picture was going to fix it.Cptnono (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not upset about that particular picture - I told you before it is of poor visual quality. That said, I am also not a fan of the two remaining images there... --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had much luck finding images. The best one I found tonight for the "Media" section was poor (guys with cameras in the commons link). Any thoughts on how to find more resources?Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would support adding pictures illustrating the situation on the ground during and after the event, but have no skill finding appropriate (and appropriately-licensed) pictures. RomaC (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)