Jump to content

Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

names of dead

Does anybody else have issues with having the names of all the Israeli soldiers killed in the war in the article? I dont see the point, and with all the names released of the Palestinian casualties it just opens the door to huge listings of Palestinians who were killed. nableezy - 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a memorial. Sets a bad precedent. Not needed.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is clear. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, is there a source regarding the Major Roi Rosner of Haruv Battalion?Cptnono (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. Maybe in subarticles (timeline/incidents)? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor

Re: "Israeli NGO Monitor notes that the events' version that Abd Rabbo family members told HRW[323] differs from the one they reported to the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper before[324].[325]"

Any chance of losing ref 325 and replacing it with a reliable source (quoting NGO Monitor) instead ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my lucky day cause the answer is yes. A short preface: do you remember Maariv editorial that criticized Joe Stork, the HRW senior official behind the report? In this link you'll find both the Maariv original article and Stork's rebuttal to it (and the response from prof. Steinberg from Monitor). Yesterday, in reponse to the latter, not only did Ben-Dror Yemini not apologize, but added some more fuel: this is the Hebrew version as published in the newspaper. Its last link redirects to the English translation. What is of particular interest to our matter is the following (pay attention to the links provided): "One of the main stories in the HRW's report relates to Abd Rabbo family, that three of her daughters were shot in cold blood, despite the fact that they raised a white flag, and despite the fact that fighting was not in the area. The case was published extensively on many newspapers around the world. A special report of Tamar Sternhal from CAMERA found out significant contradictions in the testimonies of the family members and the neighbors. Sternhal test was much more meticulous than the HRW report, and was posted on 4.2.09 - long before the publication of the report of HRW. It was ignored by the HRW team. Even the “Times Magazine” published a contradicting testimony about the Abed Rabbo affair, but again, it was ignored by HRW... (note - the Hebrew version of this paragraph ends with the words: "המוכיחה שהחמאס המשיך לירות מאזור האירוע", that are lacking in the translation, meaning: "which (i.e. Times publication) proves that Hamas continued firing from the incident's area".) ... And indeed, it is becoming clear that HRW carried out negligent and non-serious work. All of the incidents appearing in the report were known to the IDF. The report itself did not add anything. Moreover, the claim that, "no critic has disputed the facts about the seven incidents," is a total lie. On the contrary, regarding five of the seven incidents, it was decided to open Military Police investigations, meaning that the IDF is carrying out a serious inquiry. If there are discrepancies – they are being thoroughly examined... While photographic testimony that refutes the findings of the report receives no comment, the testimony of Palestinians living in the shadow of Hamas's reign of terror receives top billing. Is this testimony serious? NGO Monitor responded to this and refuted HRW's claims". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A report by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

It turned out that 2 separate reports will be presented at the UNCHR in September. One is being prepared by the Goldstone team. Another, by Navi Pillay, was submitted to the UN. "Significant prima facie evidence indicates that serious violations of international humanitarian law as well as gross human rights violations occurred during the military operations of 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, which were compounded by the blockade that the population of Gaza endured in the months prior to Operation Cast Lead and which continues," Pillay said. Pillay said rights violations included arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment (see section above), extrajudicial execution, forced eviction and home demolition, settlement expansion and related violence and restrictions on freedom of movement and expression. A side note - so untypical of Haaretz but they mention that "council...has spent more time on Israel/Palestine than on any other issue since being set up three years ago". In the reply, ambassador to the UN in Geneva said on Saturday that the report was "written by Palestinians in Ramallah" and "screened by Palestinian lawyers in Geneva in order to satisfy Palestinian diplomats on the Human Rights Council." --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was about to post this but you beat me to it. This might be more pertinent to the actual UN Human Human Rights article since much of the information is about activities outside of the Gaza War. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
They do refer specifically to "the military operations of 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009", so we'll have to include this too. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


...and now something in anticipation of the Goldstone report. It is written by our well-known contributor, Irwin Cotler. Here's the first part, we'll have to wait til Wednesday for the second. Actually, so far he says nothing new, but he summarizes in one piece all the info related to the matter. Indeed, the mandate that was handed over to Goldstone was deeply one-sided and flawed, by his own admission. Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom - among others - accordingly refused to support it. Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson stated that "the resolution is not balanced ... Asked to head up the mission before Goldstone, Robinson refused. Goldstone admits that he also refused the appointment - at least initially...But he felt comfortable enough to proceed when the then-president of the Council, Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, purportedly expanded the mission's mandate for him, even though the enabling resolution behind the inquiry would remain unchanged, and though he would still be accountable to the Council that passed this resolution. Indeed, before the mission began Chinkin notoriously signed her name to a public letter that was titled "Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence - it's a war crime." In an interview earlier this month, he (Goldstone) excuse(d) away the UN's inaction vis-à-vis Hamas based on the fact that Israel never brought the matter to the Security Council's attention. The only problem, of course, is that Israel repeatedly did. - this is where part one ends, but I'll note that in the IMFA report, a page and a half devoted to indexing all the letters and protests sent to UN on the issue. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This was just one of those letters. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
second part. "And the council will no doubt be looking for their final report to be a final stamp of confirmation on the verdict it already determined". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

→Here is the HRC The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip report. At least, it should be noted that extrajudicial executions, as presented in the report, were not carried out by IDF but Hamas. Some slight relief. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Press Release from UN Watch. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A European non-government organization has called on the UN to remove a British academic from its recent inquiry into alleged human rights. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
..and here is the letter referred to signed by her and 26 other academics/lawyers. I wasn't sure whether you had it. It's interesting to compare the description of the letter's contents in JPost with the actual letter itself. I think this shows that overreliance on Israeli RS is unwise and complicates NPOV compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sean, not only do I have it, I inserted this into the article more than a month ago. 'It's interesting to compare the description of the letter's contents in JPost with the actual letter itself' - please read JPost article again. It has NO description whatsoever of the letter. Instead, it elaborates on the petition that UN Watch submitted a couple of days ago and the petition's view on it. And after we clarified this matter, I urge you to reread once again the letter published in Times. A headline is a good way to start. 'Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime', isn't it? Now, if you will carefully read the letter, you'll realize hopefully that it rejected Israel's justification for a full-scale military operation, and moreover it stated that some of the practices during the operation were 'prima facie war crimes'. We will not argue here whether those distinguished men and women who signed the letter were right or wrong in their assessments. What is important, and I will update the relevant section accordingly, is that UN Watch has a good case here to question prof. Chinkin impartiality and asks for her recusal. And JPost did a good job to describe the UN Watch petition's contents, nothing more. Finally, I'll repeat what I say from day one: all this wiki concept of mass-media considered RS is nonsense. However, your perception of JPost is even more nonsense, because you consider it is biased, without admitting multiple cases of anti-Israeli bias in foreign press. Whenever you see JPost or Camera or Monitor, you see hasbara. Try once or twice to look at the contents, not the messenger. So, 'overreliance on Israeli RS is unwise and complicates NPOV compliance' - on the contrary, overreliance on European RS in matters concerning Israel is unwise and creates anti-Israeli bias. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. I am really tempted here to launch into soap about what happens when people live within a system surrounded by propaganda or a particular set of secular or religious cultural values or a political ideology or a particular economic model etc but I won't. You have missed the point and ironically that is the point. My point is precisely that the JPost article does not address the actual contents (apart from misrepresenting them for some reason, why would they even do that?). It simply unquestioningly channels UN Watch's version of reality without making the slightest attempt to be neutral or present counterarguments or actually inform the reader in a way that would genuinely increase their knowledge. Don't you think that is a strange way for professional journalists to behave ? I admit that that kind of journalism is very common around the world in places where the journalists have no choice but that is not the case for JPost. They really have no excuse. Articles like this require other sources to fill in the blindspots which makes it more difficult to build neutral articles. I look at the contents of camera, ngo monitor etc quite often and for the most part what I find is propaganda which is a pity. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I got really confused. As I see it, JPost simply reported that UN Watch filed a petition and copy-pasted its contents word by word. You say that is an example of bad modern journalism because JPost should have made more decent research, perhaps quote the original letter, bring counterarguments - do I understand correctly what you are saying so far? Well, I don't think this particular case is as egregious as this one to make a point on JPost, but whatever... It is our duty to present things as it is, this is why I started this thread with the press release of the UN Watch. Did you read it? There is a counterargument there: "Asked about this during a May 2009 meeting with Geneva NGOs, Prof. Chinkin denied that her impartiality was compromised, saying that her statement only addressed jus ad bellum (reason to go to war), and not jus in bellum (conduct of the war). But this was untrue...In fact, her statement not only determined that “Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence,” but additionally that they were “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law,” and constituted “prima facie war crimes". Btw, in the PDF file they attach the original letter. From your posts I feel like you disagree with UN Watch and think that they distort the actual words of the letter. Not that it would change anything, but out of curiosity, can you explain why? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
And real thanks that you refrained from soaping about living in propaganda bubble, because I would have been urged to strike back with various charges, my dear BBC-risen but still valued comrade. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone resigned from HRW, and his name was quickly removed from the website, after NGO Monitor highlighted the conflict of interest.

The president’s purported changes (to Goldstone mandate) were announced in April, and the council had the opportunity to ratify them through a resolution at its June session. It chose not to do so. Silence does not amend resolutions. Nor does the council president himself possess such power, any more than the House Speaker in the U.S. can amend a law. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA discovers (by reading newspapers) that human rights reseachers shot people holding white flags..

..is an example of what section headings on this talk page shouldn't say. Can we keep the SOAP under control here as per the discretionary sanctions we're supposed to be under ? If we can do that I will promise not to soap about how an Israeli border guard hurt my feelings by looking at me with a harsh expression once while driving past a border post although with hindsight it may have been because the car didn't have a windscreen. Excessive soapiness, (apart from pissing off existing editors) can also attract editors annoyed by what they read and consequently peace may not prevail throughout this land. I'm sure we can all agree that the right place for soap is in cute little bunny rabbit's eyes in the animal research lab..or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell the copy-pasted relevant sentences from the RS that are about to be used in the article from personal reminiscences - maybe you should think of vacation. I'd personally recommned Sinai - high heat and low humidity, together with wonderful diving spots, is a high-quality recreation site. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, happily I can still tell the difference between copy/paste text from a source, a link to a source and a wiki editor's commentary. I wasn't referring to you although you are pretty soapy. I was referring to yesterdays nonsense over section headings on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/news/GazaOp.pdf Flayer (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the report is sanctioned by the state of Israel, this should be absorbed heavily into the article. It appears to be very meticulous, even including thermal imaging and pictures that pin-point Hamas hide-outs blocks away from UN buildings and neighborhoods. Are those pictures free? Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
orig, this can be used as a primary source reflecting the opinions of the Israeli government. Not for statements of fact. nableezy - 01:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
and yes the pictures are free as a publication of the Israeli government and thus in the public domain per the Israeli Copyright Act of 2007. But whether or not they should be used is another question. nableezy - 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The report cites 3rd party media to corroborate findings. They didn't just "make it up" unlike some organizations. I think some of the pictures illustrating the hide-outs of Hamas and bunkers near hospitals could prove useful in the pertinent paragraphs. Unless those pictures are merely the opinion of the Israel gov...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If they cite 3rd party media we should cite that media, but the conclusions they draw are their own. If the picture is of a random building but the caption is "Hamas hideout" then yes that is the "opinion" of the Israeli government. The rest of the comment not paying attention to. nableezy - 02:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So you are implying Israel simply whipped out phony satellite images and highlighted random buildings, with "here is teh terroizers11?" XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I didnt imply anything. Primary sources may be used for the opinion of who produced the source. That is what this is. When the state of Israel says this happened, we dont say it happened, we say Israel says it happened. And stop with the jokey emoticons if you want me to take you seriously. This isnt a joke. nableezy - 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I think this source could be used in place of CSIS and the other think tanks if you were amenable to that. Other than that from what I have read it is mostly a repeat of the reports you compiled for the international law section. Though you surely have a more attentive eye than me, havent see much new (though there are some explicit denials of attacks on 2 mosques, saying they were never attacked). Should be interesting once the UN report is released in August. nableezy - 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's 200+ page report covering virtually all allegations and points of attack, have you really read through it? I think it is highly valuable considering the article revolves around Israel and its government. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It came out this morning (Chicago, yesterday morning I guess). I read a lot. There is some new stuff in it like I said, and I wasn't exhaustive in my list, but my suggestion here was to use this in place of the think-tanks which have been questioned as to their reliability for facts, which has been addressed by explicitly citing them, but more importantly as to the notability of their views. If we have an official response from Israel why not just use that in its place. I was saying to use this report a lot, something you seem to be in favor of. But much of it is a duplication of material already in the article and I think it would be better to cite these as the official opinion of the Israeli government rather than use a think tank with ties to the Israeli government. nableezy - 05:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It will certainly add more credibility or at least understanding that x is the official POV of Israel rather than some pimp-tank spinning their wheels. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

→Just woke up and I wonder - when for the heaven's sake did you have the time to read it and to discuss it? I won't be near here throughout the weekend. However, one extremely important thing. There's absolutely - do you read me? - absolutely no way CSIS report is substituted with this one. CSIS is the 3rd party, it is a notable think-tank, their report was noted in the media, Cordesman in the past was critical of Israel and he's even critical of some aspects of Israeli proceedings in the Cast Lead. It is as good as reports from HRW and Amnesty (and even better - not because it is pro-Israeli, but because it is so far the only comprehensive independant report from a military-strategic perspective, unlike human-rights NGOs who has arguable military competence and miscomprehension of IHL). In the meantime, for the sake of fairness, can anyone please take care of anonymous POV edits, inconsistent with WP policies? Ah, about Goldstone team - Nableezy, did you not read my contributions to that section? I don't know what do you expect, but when one future team member says during the war that Israeli actions are war crimes and later accepts membership in the team, and then refuses to recuse herself (and her boss defends her), and when the whole team is assembled to investigate Israeli war crimes only and their mandate was never formally changed - I hope for the best and expect the worst. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't overemphasize it. A Government is a Government. All think-tanks cited are NGOs. They may be pro-Israeli but they are independant. I think it only shows the level of openness of Israeli society. There are groups like Gisha, B'Tselem and Breaking the Promise and there are groups like JCPA, Monitor, ITIC. And there is the Government that provide official state response. No contradiction, no duplicity. Unless of course you agree to remove all PCHR stuff - we have official Hamas numbers of casualties, what else do we need? Was quite surprised to see you, Wikifan, supporting this point. Secondary sources: JPost, Haaretz, Ynet. Nice weekend everyone. Behave yourself, Gentlemen. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, if we list those thinktanks users will undoubtedly attach "teh pro izrael lobby111!!!" to the front or back, or everywhere. Maybe even in the section title: "Opinions of pro-Israel lobby "thinktanks." See WRMEA. I am partial to your suggestions though. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bumping it because I need it. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be helpful: Legal Affairs: And the fight goes on. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is important because it recurs in the report as one of the key points: As the Committee Established to Review NATO Bombings in Yugoslavia noted: "It is unlikely that a human rights lawyer and an experienced combat commander would assign the same relative values to military advantage and to injury to non-combatants. . . . the determination of relative values must be that of the 'reasonable military commander.'" --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bumping. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Considered additions

1. this is amazing: "Medical Personnel. IDF investigations into allegations regarding health service staff wounded or killed during the Gaza Operation revealed that some of the reported cases were based on false information. For instance, Palestinians reported that a member of a Palestinian medical team was killed as a result of IDF strike on 3 January 2009, on the residence of the Dababish family in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood. The IDF investigation found that the person reported killed was in fact alive. Similarly, the IDF received reports that an IDF helicopter had fired on an ambulance in Beit Lahia, near the Abu-Ubeida School, on 4 January 2009 and killed the ambulance driver and two paramedics. In this case, the “deceased” ambulance driver was interviewed on a Hamas website a few days after the incident. The IDF investigation found that the only Palestinian killed in that incident was in fact a Hamas operative." --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What couldn't be found by Amnesty, was confirmed by The Palestinian Authority's Health Ministry in Ramallah. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean Sceptic. What does this have to do with Amnesty ? Who are 'Palestinians reported' and who are the people they are referring to ? Perhaps they are referring this. The first incident was reported as injuring an ambulance driver by phr and the press. The second incident is similar to the one in the Amnesty report on page 42 (although that was a shell) where they interviewed the driver. Same place, same time, 3 man crew, 1 killed but it seems to be a different incident. I don't think Amnesty reported on either of these incidents that the IDF are referring to. Also bear in mind the Amnesty disclaimer "Amnesty International delegates who carried out research in Gaza in January-February 2009 did not have the time and resources to verify all the reported deaths, but investigated dozens of cases comprising more than 300 victims, more than half of them children and women, and gathered information from a wide range of sources." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
calm down, you do not follow because my posts are separate, not connected to each other. the 2nd post simply echoes what amnesty said in their report (that no evidence had been provided proving actions of misuse of medical facilities). i had no other place to put the link to PNA Health Ministry charges, so i put them here. i'm going to replace jpost with ma'an on this one. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

According to the article lead, and several sources including BBC, this the war left "tens of thousands of people homeless". And yet, the international law section cites other sources which disagree: "An official Palestinian Authority report noted that 100,000 had been "affected" by the operation but had not been left homeless; 5,000 left homeless were recorded by the Red Cross. [229]" 5000 is less than tens of thousands. Something must be done about this apparent contradiction in the article. I propose the lead be changed to either 100,000 were affected by the operation according to the PA, or 5000 were left homeless according to The Red Cross (leaving in the attribution). Thoughts?Kinetochore (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A month on from Gaza ceasefire up to 100,000 people remain homeless from Save the Children. Here's a recent report from the ICRC which, while not going into specifics about displacement, may be useful in general. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Save the Children is no more reliable than JPost (even though Sean would apparently protest). As for ICRC report, it could be used elsewhere, but as Sean notes, it provides no figures on the issue - so the question remains. Maybe more thorough search through ICRC can tell us what is the real numbers estimated by the Red Cross. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Using an Israeli source for information about the humanitarian situation in Gaza strikes me as unwise and unnecessary given the obvious conflict of interest and the fact that information is available from independent sources not connected to either belligerent with workers on the ground in Gaza. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The info from Israeli source is attributed to the Red Cross. Let's first try to establish did it indeed publish any numbers on the matter discussed or it did not. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with using an Israeli source, since Israel has freedom of the press and independent media, which often publish dissentious, even seditious, material.
Frankly, I don't like either Save the Children or JPost as a source. I would like to see some ICRC data, or (dare I say it) UN figures. There are standards for who qualifies as "homeless," and who as "displaced," and I think Save the Children doesn't quite delineate. The ICRC, being a quazi-legal institution, generally does a better job of this. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
UN, dare I say, would not be the best source for such info either, for several reasons - UN (and particularly UNHRC council) bias against Israel, conflict of interests (especially taking into consideration that several UNRWA facilities were damaged) and so on. ICRC is not the most friendly to Israel either, but as I said above, let's settle to it. Whoever has the time, make a search through it to establish whether they published those figures as JPost claim. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Trying to verify JPosts claim would be pointless given that it's contradicted by this from the ICRC for the Zaytun area alone in Jan amongst many other sources. I suggest that the entire sentence based on the JPost article is removed since we already cite BBC figures in the Gaza humanitarian crisis section. Basing information sourcing decisions on the simplistic blanket statement that Israel has "freedom of the press" in these matters is highly questionable given that there is a military ban on Israeli journalists reporting from the Gaza Strip and journalists that do so are arrested for illegally entering an enemy state. It's hardly surprising therefore that Reporters Without Borders says this "obstructs the work of its journalists and violates press freedom”. Then there is the role of the military censor whose approval is required for news about the IDF amongst several other things. Then there's the interesting role of alleged self-censorship in the Israeli media (and the media's adoption of a common set of non-neutral terms to describe things) which is being studied on an ongoing basis by Keshev - The Center for the Protection of Democracy in Israel amongst others. We're expected to apply our common sense when assessing the reliability of a source for a particular context. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As we know, Zeitoun neighborhood is known Hamas stronghold, so it is possible that majority of the destructed buildings was there. Anyway, that number you found in AI do not suggest that 100,000 were left homeless.
Basing charges against Israeli press on Keshev is not particularly smart, try to read this opinion of a former senior editor of Haaretz. Anyway, even if we accept that Israeli press is only 'partially free', it still scores 31, higher than any other in the ME - and no one so far suggested that Ma'an or Al-Jazeera should be disqualified from this article or from entire I-P area.
Finally, just to remind, everyone makes mistakes. I keep constantly reminding of the case when BBC wrote that 'according to ICRC, fighter can be legally attacked only during direct participation in the hostilities'. I showed you that it was complete rubbish and that according to ICRC, fighter can be legally attacked as long as he assumes continuous combat functions. But this case, even though questions BBC credibility, does not disqualify BBC either.
I'm still eager to look at the genuine final ICRC number of left homeless. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
off the record but this is truly interesting: that ICRC publication i was referring to, came under criticism of some participating experts and in any way does not constitute int-law but only ICRC recommendations. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You know you can have a day off from defending Israel, Israeli actions, the Israeli press and just be neutral. The Israeli gov won't revoke your passport.
AI and that section in this article are talking about the destruction of homes rather than the resulting number of homeless people so I thought the numbers of homes destroyed/damaged were the more pertinent figures in that case. The homelessness stuff can go in the humanitarian crisis section when we have it. I'm not sure why you tried to extrapolate homeless figures from that but for a ballpark estimate, average family size in Gaza is ~7 so 3000*7=21000 for destroyed homes and if you assume about half of the 20000 damaged homes are uninhabitable it adds another 10000*7=70000. There's probably a huge error margin there but it shows that the tens of thousands figures are consistent with other data at least in terms of order of magnitude.
I think taking into account potential shortcomings of our sources in particular contexts (e.g. you might say the BBC on complex legal matters) is consistent with our objectives here. I'm not a fan of the Freedom House index. It's quite a crude, subjective metric like the one for corruption (which I can't remember the name of). Keshev on the other hand (who haven't made any charges against anyone by the way, they just publish their results and conclusions) use a detailed, analytical, systematic approach based on data collected and analysed everyday on an ongoing basis from multiple media sources over many years. I don't think there are very many organisations doing that kind of ongoing, rigorous, objective analysis of their own country's media around the world so shooting smart messengers like them seems a bit harsh. I think you're lucky to have them. As for Ma'an or Al-Jazeera, I don't think we are using them to talk about the consequences of Palestinian militant actions on Israelis or as sources for information about Israeli gov or IDF statements etc so it's not really a valid comparison. We have Israeli RS for that which is fine. An RS obviously isn't an RS in every conceivable situation. Using Israeli sources to talk about Palestinian statements/homelessness etc and using Palestinian sources to talk about Israeli statements/Hamas missile damage etc is clearly not a sensible approach and we just shouldn't do it in my view. It's counterproductive and unnecessary.
And regarding the BBC I've never really understood your point about reliability. A source is unreliable if it falsifies information, repeatedly fails to check facts, isn't trusted by other RS etc etc. The BBC simply said The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities" and then presented various perspectives (and there are many, many perspectives around as you know). The BBC statement may have been a not very informative simplification but that's what you sometimes get with the BBC. The idea that something like that makes them an unreliable source is really stretching it. Just be grateful that they didn't quote out of context the Supreme Court of Israel's statement "The terrorists and their organizations, with which the State of Israel has an armed conflict of international character, do not fall into the category of combatants. They do not belong to the armed forces, and they do not belong to units to which international law grants status similar to that of combatants" which would have caused a lot of confusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
you have something to say about another editor and not the article take it to that editors talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Neutral like you? The audacity of some people... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, neutral like me. It helps. You should try it. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. You need a reality check. There are few editors here further from neutral than you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered that your entire model of reality may be deeply flawed ? Clues include inconsistencies between personal opinions and evidence, views based by deeply held political, nationalist or religious belief systems, people staring at you strangely when you say something, that kind of thing. Are you sure you would recognise neutrality if you saw it ? It's difficult for some people to recognise. Models of reality are often wrong after all. For example, as a young boy I tried to dig a hole to Australia in the garden with my sister and although we made good progress it wasn't until many years later that I found that it was much easier to get there via Narita airport. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
How clever and witty. Bravo. It's sad that you can't even stand one guy opposing you and your little band of POV pushing editors. Sceptic should be commended for having the patience to try and present the other side in the face of multiple people trying to present a one sided version of what happened. After you guys wikilawyered the opposition away, all that's left is Sceptic. Stop pretending you're neutral or that he should be more like you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, obviously I value your opinions enormously and the friendly, cooperative atmosphere your contributions help to build here. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
"friendly, cooperative atmosphere" = "incessantly pushing my POV while telling little jokes"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

State the source up front and carry on. Once the overwhelming majority of reasonable sources disagrees we can delete. Hcobb (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, I count you making four contributions to this talk page, each of them an attack on an editor. This article is under Wikipedia general sanctions -- anyway personal attacks are not constructive, could you kindly reorient? RomaC (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaza government rerouted humanitarian relief

On August 9, I added this to the "Humanitarian crisis" section:

On January 7, a UN Relief Works Agency spokesman acknowledged that he was "aware of instances where deliveries of humanitarian aid into Gaza" were seized by Hamas, though none from his agency.[1]

It was removed soon thereafter, on the grounds that, "This is really stretching the source and only restates information." I do not see how this is stretching the source; he says so himself. I also do not see anything else in the article that refers to this phenomenon. I'm reinstating the quotation. If anyone objects, feel free to discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is stretching the source. The source says "diverted by the local government" you wrote seized by Hamas. nableezy - 22:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Did the Democrats win an election there recently or is Hamas still the governing entity?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
My problem was the word "seized" which carries a certain connotation. "Seized by Hamas" is nowhere close to "diverted by the local government", both with the difference in "seized" and "diverted" and the fact the "the local government" is run by Hamas but is not equivalent to Hamas. The Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades are a part of Hamas, not the "local government", so, even if the wording in the source was "seized", that a shipment was seized by "the local government" and a shipment was seized by "Hamas" carry different connotations. And I dont think need to explain the difference between "seized" and "diverted", but if you really want me to do so I will. The two sentences carry very different connotations, but I think you know that. nableezy - 01:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors are encouraged to rephrase words in order to avoid copyright problems. What word do you suggest using in lieu of "diverted"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Jazzing up the sources increases impact! RomaC (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Did the Washington Post[1] lose credibility?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont know what word I would use if I were to use a different word. The source doesnt say where the supplies were diverted to, if they went to hospitals or other public facilities or if they were hoarded by the evildoers in underground palaces. Because it is so ambiguous, I would leave it as it is. nableezy - 02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The UN was ignoring the hospitals or other public facilities so Hamas diverted it there? Doesn't really make too much sense and that's not the report's implication. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont think I said that, but ok. nableezy - 04:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::::::::"Additionally, on February 3, blankets and food parcels were confiscated by Hamas police personnel from an UNRWA distribution center, and on February 4, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator demanded that the aid be returned immediately.[255] The Hamas government issued a statement stating that the incident was a misunderstanding between the drivers of the trucks and has been resolved through direct contact with the UNRWA.[259] On February 9, UNRWA lifted the suspension on the movement of its humanitarian supplies into Gaza, after the Hamas authorities returned all of the aid supplies confiscated." Some Hamas cops took some blankets, then gave them back. Why does this warrant 100 words? (Moved below) RomaC (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The link under discussion refers to a time prior to what you're referring to. The repetition of the allegations make the allegations all the more notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Starting new section. RomaC (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of this section is clearly violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX policy, I adjusted it to reflect the source (Hamas stealing humanitarian relief --> Hamas reportedly diverting aid). But Brewcrewer reverted. Don't want to edit war or blank the section, how best to fix this? RomaC (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The best way to "fix it" is to leave others' comments alone. Repeated deletion of other user's comments can get you blocked. The title used is a reasonable phrasing of the source. Making a drama scene over nothing is a waste of everyone's time.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning! Are you aware of a policy called WP:NOTSOAPBOX? Do you honestly believe that "Hamas stealing humanitarian relief" is a reasonable phrasing of "deliveries of humanitarian aid into Gaza have been diverted by the local government"? RomaC (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I honestly believe everything I say. You don't have to waste more time by verifying it at every turn. Please stop with the drama-mongering nonsense. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, who cares? I think we have all seen in the seemingly thousands of archives much more blatant violations of the soapboxing "policy" so what is one more title of a section? And brew, I wouldnt call it "drama-mongering nonsense", in fact I think it is nonsense you would say that this title is a "reasonably phrasing of the source" seeing as how I demolished that idea a few comments up. But let's all try and settle down. nableezy - 05:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
"[D]emolished the idea" is surely not a "reasonable phrasing" of what occurred a few comments above. As a matter of fact, its false. Still hoping you guys can get back to discussing content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

→Actually I don't understand what the fuss is about. Before the war and in the course of it there were several reports on such incidents and this is incorporated in the article (though in different section). Besides, there is this PMW bulletin, attributed to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida from May 20, 2009, that awaits resolution. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The fuss is a source was presented supposedly supporting the wording in the article. I demonstrated that it didn't. If there are other sources supporting that phrasing fine, use them. But the source in the article absolutely did not support the phrasing, it was a rather blatant POV twist on the words of the source. That my skeptical friend is the fuss. About al-Hayat al-Gedidda, I am bit conflicted on how it should be used. nableezy - 05:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already suggested above - if you want to help, make a search in Arabic. You have a source and a date, so it is not supposed to be time-consuming. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
My Arabic is a good deal weaker than your English, but I might give it a try. nableezy - 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
And Sceptic, the JPost source is basing all that on an IDF report, so it is an IDF accusation. nableezy - 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If a RS reports that they were "diverting supplies" it means they were doing "bad stuff", not "good stuff". It's that simple. Let's quit this word-twisting and game-playing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
how do you figure that? What you just said is word twisting and game-playing, you take a phrase that has no negative connotations and change that into "doing 'bad stuff'". And while twisting the meaning of words you then accuse other of word twisting. Lovely. nableezy - 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Let the record speak for itself.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, it does. Tiamuttalk 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. When I raised this discussion, I meant to participate in it more. But real life has been very hectic, and has left me little time for Wikipedia life, as has been the case for months now. Let me touch upon what I perceive to be the major points of dispute:

  1. "Siezed" vs. "Diverted": Unfortunately, I think Erickson proved to the world, yet again, that the UN has picked sides in this conflict. "Siezed by Hamas" means the exact same as "Diverted by the local government." The difference is that one sounds nicer than the other. I used the former in order to avoid weasel words. Perhaps we could find consensus on the word "confiscated" or "taken"?
  2. "Hamas" vs. "Government": I find this semantic question far more important than the former. Whereas it is indisputable that Hamas is the local government of Gaza, readers may puzzle over the odd wording in the article. The way the wording now stands, it is not clear whether Erickson is accusing Israel or Hamas of stealing aid (as both are "the government"). If it doesn't change the meaning, but makes the article clearer, why not use "Hamas" instead of "the government"?
  3. Why do we include this source?: I think this source is one of the few smoking guns we have on this matter. When you combine Israel's blockage of the media during the campaign with Hamas' brutal repression of dissent and muckraking, you find strikingly little evidence of the phenomenon of seizure of aid by Hamas. Most comes from Israeli media sources, or is claimed by the Israeli government. But this is a non-Israeli newspaper, quoting a UN official, so it's very important that this source be represented, in the spirit of finding reliable sources that are neutral.

Since the name of this section has proved so controversial, I have renamed it, in order to promote wikilove. I hope this helps move us in the right direction.

I do have a request in the future for other editors: it is quite infrequently that I get to edit Wikipedia. If you disagree with the semantics of something I post, please change the wording and discuss, rather than wholesale deleting my edit. It will be a while before I notice, and it will be difficult for me to find it again. In this case, the dispute is really over three words in the sentence, so there was no need to delete it altogether. With thanks, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

1, "seized" and "diverted" are not equivalent so "seized by Hamas" does not mean the exact same as "diverted by the local government." And there is not a single weasel word in "diverted by the local government". 2, local government is not ambiguous, it clearly is referencing the local Gaza government. You say one sounds "nicer" than the other, why is it that you picked the other? What is weaselish about the sentence? Why not just quote the official? I used "local government" because that is what the source used and as I wrote above the term Hamas encompasses more than "local government" making Hamas more ambiguous than "local government". 4, I didnt delete your edit, I edited it to conform with the source. I dont see what is the problem here anymore. nableezy - 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Does a case of blankets missing for five days pass the threshold for detailed inclusion?

"Additionally, on February 3, blankets and food parcels were confiscated by Hamas police personnel from an UNRWA distribution center, and on February 4, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator demanded that the aid be returned immediately.[255] The Hamas government issued a statement stating that the incident was a misunderstanding between the drivers of the trucks and has been resolved through direct contact with the UNRWA.[259] On February 9, UNRWA lifted the suspension on the movement of its humanitarian supplies into Gaza, after the Hamas authorities returned all of the aid supplies confiscated." Some Hamas cops took some blankets, then gave them back. Does this warrant 100 words? RomaC (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

...and no, Roma, it's not merely about "the blankets", it's about the pattern: It was the second time this past week that Hamas stole UN supplies meant for impoverished Gazans; Hamas denied it confiscated any supplies, saying it was a misunderstanding. Apparently, there are many more such reports in the Arab press, which will be apparently ridiculed because of the source, without helping establish the quality of the contents. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If reliable sources find "blanket miscommunications" notable, so do we. Besides, as indicated in the section above and by SA, its more the trend and the multiple allegations that make it notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
My bad, Sceptic, didn't see the JPost article. RomaC (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

bumping. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC) bumping. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How bout "diverted by the local government"? Interpreting things IS word twisting. I thought these sort of troubles were resolved a long time ago. Add all the information you want, just do so in a neutral way. We just keep going backwards on these infinitesimal matters. When wording is being nutty, quote and attribute the freaking source. And by the way, this needs to be watched over carefully, because somehow the UN said that Hamas returned some of these merchandise in question. I don't believe them. Cryptonio (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
To address the pattern, mention all the incidents that you want, without addressing any sort of patterns. This is laughable. Spent 200 words on this matter. Palestinians stealing from Palestinians. The joy comes from actually saying Palestinians. Regrettable, not laughable. Cryptonio (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
What's the freaking concept? Why keep on trying "diverting" fault? Who is the judge that is hearing this and other cases? The worst of judges will find everyone guilty. Guilty the one who shot first and the one who retaliated. Guilty on all charges, the one being brought and the ones that were omitted. Nothing gets thrown out. Even the innocent got questions to answer. To defend one's self is to be human, and all humans are guilty of something. Don't want to go to court? sorry, it ain't happening. By this time, Iraqis have suffered as much as Israelis ever had. Dont qualify wording, or suffering. And if you look at actions, you better hope no one ever does something to your family. What's so freaking hard to accept that the world is exactly the way it ought to be? Cryptonio (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And Sceptic, don't use the US as an example to further your case. You don't live in the US, so you could only have notions. I will tell you about the US. Most "criminals" aren't brought to court for any one charge, they are presented with a multitude of chargers, principally to force the accused to plead guilty AND accept a plea bargain. This is done before the actual case is brought to a judge, which nullifies "innocent until proven guilty". So that you say something like the Speaker of the House can't do this or that, you totally miss the mark and only follow protocol that perception dictates(mainly, what the US want the world to believe or know about the US). You can go ahead and blame the judge, the judy or even the accused, but it is the actual system(brought upon by people) that is flawed. Please, use the UK next time to cite an example or a point. And of course, don't refute what you don't know. That you 'visited' the US 20 years ago? Please... Cryptonio (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The Speaker paragraph that Sceptic inserted above wasn't his own creation; the whole paragaph was excerpted from his source but Sceptic embeded the link only within the first sentence. Your real problem is with the author, Hillel Neuer, who incidentally appears to live in New York. Though our article says he was born in Montreal. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah? I beg your pardon? What are you talking about? US? Neuer? Hello? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yae, that's called a citation JG. It was as good as if he had said it himself. Regrettable, not laughable. Cryptonio (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

weapons - compiling relevant info

Clusters

Just preceding the ground phase, Haaretz reported that: Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas. Amnesty stated that If reports of use of cluster munitions in Gaza are correct, it would pose a serious ongoing threat to civilians. However, Dropping cluster bombs before the ground assault is likely to cause casualties among your own footsoldiers, says David Hambling (simple Google search shows that he is notable writer on military issues including this book). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversial weapons

1. Another interesting article by Hambling: Tracking Down Gaza War’s Deadly, Mysterious Cubes. The bottom line: despite Anesty's conclusion that "They appear designed to cause maximum injury", seems like "This type of ultra-precise strike capability is supposed to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties". It is arguable to what extent this indeed happened, but the intent... --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Military expert told Goldstone team that "there is no proof that Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) rounds were used, but he is “of view that some weapons systems used in the conflict had some sort of DIME component,” citing evidence of tungsten, iron, and sulfur in samples analyzed in a forensic lab in Dublin...Lt. Col. Lane made it clear the intent of Israel if it did indeed use these weapons was to “reduce the effect on the ground” i.e. reduce civilian casualties considering that DIME weapons have the effect of shooting the metal fragments out in a short radius with those outside the radius facing no threat...but DIME weapons are controversial because they are still in their experimental phase, and those within the area of dispersal will experience catastrophic injuries, possibly leading to multiple amputations...He said there would be casualties by using DIME munitions in built-up areas with lots of people" --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Artillery rounds

Amnesty criticised IDF artillery rounds on Gaza suburbs as indiscriminate attacks. On the other hand, When asked about claims from Amnesty International and other groups that IDF didn't do enough to limit innocent deaths and injuries, Macgregor said, "I don't know how they could have done things any differently. Seven thousand rounds during a three-week war indicates considerable restraint on their part. It would have been much easier to pour 5,000 rounds into a city block in a span of an hour.". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WP

The report describes projectiles filled with white phosphorous that “unfortunately may have landed at the school.” --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Military expert told Goldstone team that "white phosphorous is used for smoke generation to hide from the enemy. “The quality of smoke produced by white phosphorous is superb. If you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorus will give it to you,” he said. In the face of EFPs and time-initiated rockets, the weapon could also be effective at pushing people away and burning the enemy’s devices, he noted". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Excerpts from IMFA report:

WP from IMFA report
  • "A small number of exploding munitions containing white phosphorous were used by the IDF during the Operation as mortar shells fire by ground forces and as rounds from naval vessels. These munitions were fired only at open unpopulated areas and were used only for marking and signalling rather than in an anti-personnel capacity. In one single incident, in an open uninhabited area, ammunition containing phosphorous was used by ground forces to uncover tunnel entrances that served for terrorist purposes. No exploding munitions containing white phosphorous were used in built-up areas of the Gaza Strip or for anti-personnel purposes. The restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons under Protocol III (relating to Incendiary Weapons) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“CCW Protocol III”)277 were observed at all times, even though Israel is not a party to the Protocol.
  • on 7 January 2009, although not required under international law, it was decided as a precautionary measure, in order to minimise the risk to civilians, that the IDF would cease to use such exploding munitions during the Gaza Operation. IDF forces fighting in Gaza were instructed to act accordingly. The investigation discovered that exploding munitions containing phosphorous were used after 7 January 2009 on two occasions, by ground forces and the Israel Navy, for marking purposes. The investigation of these two exceptions found that, while there was a deviation from the IDF precautionary instruction, in neither incident had there been a breach of international law.
  • Smoke projectiles containing white phosphorous. The second and main type of munitions containing white phosphorous employed by the IDF during the Gaza Operation was smoke screening projectiles. In the course of the ground manoeuvre, the IDF used smoke shells containing felt wedges dipped in white phosphorous. These shells contained relatively small amounts of white phosphorous and were used exclusively to create smoke screens for military requirements, such as camouflaging armoured forces from anti-tank squads deployed by Hamas in Gaza’s urban areas. Smokescreens are an indispensable tool in ground manoeuvres and were extremely effective during the Gaza Operation in protecting IDF forces from Hamas’ anti-tank capabilities. these smoke-screening projectiles are designed to create a protective smoke screen for battlefield purposes, and were used exclusively for this purpose by the IDF during the Gaza Operation. The smoke projectiles may, on occasion, produce incidental incendiary effects, but this does not make them incendiary weapons for purposes of international law.
  • Some have suggested that IDF could have used less harmful munitions, or used the munitions in a less harmful manner, to achieve the same military objective, for example, by using smoke munitions without white phosphorous or by firing the munitions as ground-burst rather than air-burst projectiles. However, neither of these alternatives provides the same military advantages. White phosphorous munitions have significant battlefield advantages such as the speed of deployment and the effectiveness of blocking observation and targeting systems. Targeting the munitions at the ground rather than exploding them high in the air would fail to achieve the area of dispersal required for military purposes and would actually result in much more severe damage to buildings and persons on the ground.
  • Finally, in addition to some civilian injuries, the use of smoke projectiles containing white phosphorous appear to have set fire to a number of civilian buildings, causing damage to several of them. Such fires were an unwelcome effect of IDF’s operations, similar to other damage caused when densely populated areas become a battlefield. However, given the fact that thousands of smoke screen projectiles were launched by IDF, each projectile with 116 felt wedges, it does not appear that the damage from this use can be regarded as excessive.
  • (vi) UNRWA School: Beit Lahia Elementary School: 17 January 2009. This incident involved the alleged hitting of a UNRWA school being used as a shelter by white phosphorous-soaked felt wedges and certain debris. Several deaths and injuries were reported. The IDF’s investigation found that the incident occurred during a period in which IDF ground forces, including tanks, were operating in Beit Lahia against rocket-launching units and terrorist infrastructure. The forces were moving in an inferior terrain, threatened by Hamas positions located in the higher urban zone, including by Hamas’ units armed with advanced anti-tank missiles. IDF forces were exposed to continuous fire from different sources. In accordance with the combat doctrine for dealing with anti-tank threats, IDF forces fighting in Beit Lahia used standard smoke projectiles in order to create a protective smokescreen between themselves and Hamas’ anti-tank units along the route of their progress. This smokescreen was effective and prevented Hamas from launching anti-tank missiles at IDF tanks. In the absence of such a smokescreen, it would have been necessary to use reactive fire at anti-tank units, with the likelihood of more extensive collateral damage. Despite the maintenance of an appropriate safety buffer between the nearest target zone of the smoke projectiles and the School, some felt wedges and other components of the projectiles unfortunately landed in the School. According to U.N. reports, such components apparently struck the roof of the School and caused significant casualties in one of the classrooms. It should be noted that such a falling of components is incidental to any use of air-burst munitions, including for the purpose of smoke screening, illumination, and so on. The U.N. Board of Inquiry reached its “conclusions” regarding the incident without making any findings “as to whether Hamas units were present in the Beit Lahia neighbourhood …, [or] whether IDF forces were exposed to fire or whether the laying of a smokescreen or other reactive measures were necessary in consequence.” IDF forces had not anticipated significant collateral damage in relation to this advantage. The IDF is greatly saddened that civilians were injured, but this unfortunate fact does not render the original targeting decision a violation of the Law of Armed Conflict.
  • The obscurant smoke shells were used by the IDF for military purposes only (e.g. camouflaging armoured forces from anti-tank squads deployed by Hamas in Gaza’s urban areas), and were not aimed at civilians. The use of smoke obscurants proved to be highly effective at cloaking IDF forces and obstructing enemy lines of sight. At no time did IDF forces have the objective of inflicting any harm on the civilian population.

One more from David Hambling: "The weapons involved are likely to be U.S.-supplied M825A1 155mm artillery rounds, each of which scatters a hundred and sixteen wafers of WP-infused felt over a wide area. Using felt rather than pure WP ensures slower burning over several minutes rather than just a cloud of instant smoke that rapidly disappears. The M825A1 scatters its payload over an area between 150 and 250 meters in diameter." Apparently, these "are no incendiary weapons being used". The big question is were "all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life" taken. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

comments

As a general comment from the due weight perspective I would suggest that the general focus should be on the systems that produced the majority of the casualties and damage (which someone, I forget who, said amounted to about 600,000 tonnes of rubble). Including too much detail about particular systems of concern to Human Rights groups etc will give undue weight to these systems that outweighs their effects on the infrastructure and population. As I've said before I think the primary focus should be on simply describing what happened. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)....in other words, in my view it's better to not approach this as a list of accusations that need to be countered and instead focus on the weapons that produced the most effects in the real world. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What concerns me above is the phrasing "constructing relevant info" and the references to intent, which I believe can shift editors into the arena of analysis and interpretation, which I rather think we should avoid. RomaC (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The IDF could have used nerf guns and it would have been reported as a potential civilian concern. The cubes were designed to have maximum effectiveness in a limited space against armored vehicles I believe. Intended use does not get any press so that leaves only the screw-ups and dirty soldiers to report on.Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Due weight considerations are taken and will be kept in mind.
'constructing' was a wrong word to use, substituted it with 'compiling'. It doesn't mean of course that everything will be used, it was simply a way to make my editing more convinient.
do not agree with Roma on "intent", since this is not me who says so but the weapons' expert who testified in front of the Goldstone committee (referring to DIME components). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic many of these recent edits you made don't appear to have consensus, and is "blog.unwatch.org" a RS? Also phrasing such as "He made it clear the intent of Israel if it did indeed use these weapons was to reduce civilian casualties" and "the number of artillery rounds was low, indicating considerable restraint from the IDF" may not be appropriate. Suggest getting some agreement here on Talk before making such edits. RomaC (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to cast a consensus when people are not (well, hardly) participating. If you have questions/reservations - go ahead, ask them one by one and we'll discuss it until the consensus is reached. Just for now, I'll repeat something I wrote just a few lines above - all these lines are not stated as facts but are well attributed to persons who are, let's say, professionals in their field (you provoke me to go further - all these human rights NGOs and UN comissions have an established reputation and may be professionals in the fields of human rights. but that doesn't make them experts in the military field. however, they allow themselves to make judgements on the matters of military necessity, weapons used, etc. so, why can't i have an opinion of men who are experts on these matters?) --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to ask you one more thing. Before another move concerning the testimony of the Irish colonel to the Goldstone team, please not only read the wording provided by UN Watch, but also see the authentic footage (the link is there). I think the account of the UN Watch is very accurate, but if you think otherwise - please share your concerns. Anyway, regarding WP, he actually says that its effectiveness is unmatched; regarding DIME, he clearly says that people outside the small-radius impact would be safe, but those inside would be adversely affected and I cared not to omit this part too. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I registered my reservations above, that is "participating" isn't it? And Sean did as well. The only other comment was a quip about soldiers with soft toys. RomaC (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Our main objective is to simply document what happened and it's effects. What happened for the most part was simply the use of conventional systems like tanks, bulldozers, infantry, artillery, planes dropping bombs, helicopters, missiles etc. It's effects can be seen on the UNOSAT damage assessment image and in the casualty figures for the most part but if we are going to talk about the weapons used then the focus should be on those systems shouldn't it ? Opinions about the effectiveness of suicide bombing/IEDs/kidnapping in assymetric warfare or artillery/cluster weapons/flechettes/WP/DIME etc in downtown Sao Paulo, Beijing or any other urban centre seems a bit off topic to me. Do we need UN Watch for anything ? The IDF can and do speak for themselves through the Israeli press/RS which seems better. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

→Roma, let's try once again and please be specific. What are your reservations that I didn't answer above or the answer is not sufficient? Sean, all these testimonies could be easily tracked down on UN site, so no we don't need UN Watch, it was simply convinient. I can find the same videos in a UN cite and still keep the same wording.
As for the approach, seems we'll never agree with each other. You know what, let's remove all the stuff from HRW, Amnesty, etc - Palestinians can speak for themselves just fine. You can even start a revolution in courts, not only in wiki - who needs witnesses anyway? The victim and the accused can speak for themeslves. Well, I disagree with you, I think it is the highest-quality stuff with much encyclopedic value, because - as told twice already - it comes from an expert in the field.
Cptnono did a decent job by introducing several sentences about weaponry used in the article, so it is covered. You want it more extensively? Good, make a search, bring in more links. But as you noted, my recent additions were about controversial, not regular, weaponry. There are lots of speculations about usage of forbidden/experimental/highly lethal weapons used by IDF. It will be unprofessional not to address this. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How many experts does it take to make a contentious edit? RomaC (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Split

I propose splitting the International law section into a separate article. We can still summarize the content here but it is time to give it an independent space. The reasons are as follows:

  • The article is now more about international law discussion than a conflict. The Campaign section receives about 5,400 words while the International law section receives about 6,200. How big will that become if people actually go to The Hague. Something as important as Effects only receives about 1,300.
  • Per the summary page linked above: "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever...". This section will continue to expand while the other sections more than likely will receive little attention. This is do to the continued allegations, reports, investigations, denials, and maybe even pending legal battles.
  • The shear size of the article is too large to be readable as a whole. "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided" per the article size section of the splitting page linked above. Over 100 KB can be fine since it refers to readable content but this article is obviously massive. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to read it as is but everyone navigates through an article differently.Cptnono (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will not stand in the way, but - I would like that the summary is written and agreed first. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do think that Cptnono has a good idea here. But I should point out that it will make any work on this article pretty boring if we can't cut and paste articles we come across that support our opinions of the conflict. So is it really in our own interest to do this? --JGGardiner (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, Sean and Agada make convincing arguments so I will support this. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Are we meant to provide convincing arguments ? I thought it was self-evident like the moral righteousness of all parties actions at all times. Okay, I support it because I was instructed to do so off-wiki by Israel’s foreign ministry and/or Electronic Intifada plus my laptop has an overheating problem which causes the CPU to max out when loading large pages. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • This page seems to cause a lot of overheating. You should have your laptop read WP:COOL. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • It's balanced on 2 frozen 1 litre Tipco Tangerine juice cartons. Frozen Blood orange juice is preferable because the higher fibre content gives it a higher specific heat capacity but I've run out. I'm not kidding, the performance improvement is dramatic. I suggest we all start sitting on them if things get out of hand. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Right. As a Canadian, I don't have to worry about these things. Our chilly weather keeps me naturally cool-headed. If things get too hot, I can just take my tundra buggy out for a spin. Incidentally, you should switch to mangosteen juice which is reputed to have a cooling effect. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)*
  • Follow-up Everyone has had ample time to chime in with any objections so I assume splitting it will be OK. On to the horrible part: Do we want to do a sub page for the main draft of what stays? Does anyone have any thoughts on what information should be available in the summary? If it was up to me I would cut it all to get the ball rolling but I understand Sceptic's wish to go about it cautiously.Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Israel is accused of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14
Palestnian armed groups are accused of 1,2,3,4,5
Major reports are...(goldstone team, un board inquiry, unhrc (navi pillay), amnesty, hrw, cordesman, breaking the girl, b'tselem, imfa - did i forget anyone?). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Hayat al-Jadidya

i must have misspelled it, but this is not the point. the point is the contents, right?

Hamas militia unloaded 46 ambulance was donated by Arab countries during the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip, the contents of the medical equipment and electric shock devices and used as compounds work on military detention of citizens where, after painting black.

Overlooking the plateau, which live on the family of Abed Rabbo, the Israeli town of Sderot, making it an ideal location for Palestinian militants who fired them in the past years, hundreds of rockets into southern Israel. Tells the number of family members Abed Rabbo said the fighters had dug tunnels under their houses and storing weapons in the fields and shot rockets from the grove ranch over the nights". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, respectfully did you read through and reflect on what Sean wrote above? I ask you to consider the difference between editing and advocacy, and answer a) which better characterizes your contributions here?; and b) which benefits the article more? RomaC (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I did and was unimpressed, since Sean still confuses between sarcasm and humor (besides he spells humor in an old-fashioned ugly Britons way).
This thread is definitely aimed for editing - instead of jumping to conclusions you could have simply asked the meaning and value of these links. Suppose you did, so I'll explain. The first one is a reflection of a previous discussion here: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 54#More on Hamas tactics. I refrained to use PMW as a source, but now we have the original source in Arabic and I don't see any reason not to include it in the 'Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Situation'. Do you?
The second was an attempt (successful I dare say) to verify this piece about Abd Rabbo family. Do you know who are this family? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sceptic, Sean uses quaint British spellings, does he? I didn't notice honestly I regularly see both American and British spellings and I suppose my mind simply filters both equally, so no alarm goes off when I read for example "neighbourhood" although that is already a long word and could do without the extra "u" -- way to go USA! What I appreciated about Sean's post above was his explication on how some Wiki editors active in I-P articles are wrongfully ascribed to a "side" by those who perceive their presence as interference motivated by bias; when actually these editors are bringing a healthy pro-Wikipedia bias to Talk pages to counter advocates and single-purpose accounts. It would be ideal if every editor who wanted to add an edit that advocates for their position had to also add information that balances that edit. But that's sadly not the case, so colour me wonderful when I say Wikipedia needs humour, sarcasm and Seans. RomaC (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reprisals as explained by HRW

The prohibition of what is known as "reprisals" first appeared in HRW's statement in 2006: "Hamas has claimed that its rocket attacks are a response to Israeli attacks that have killed civilians, including the recent attack on Beit Hanoun. Human Rights Watch said that unlawful attacks said to be committed in response to another unlawful attack are a form of reprisal, which is a violation of international humanitarian law".

The same is restated in their recent report: "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have sought to justify the attacks as appropriate reprisals for Israeli military operations and the ongoing blockade against Gaza, and as a lawful response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza. As noted below, international humanitarian law (the “laws of war”) does not support these asserted justifications". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's summed up by "laws-of-war violations by one party to a conflict do not justify violations by another". I thought we already had this covered. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Cptnono asked for sources (i guess ref is broken), so i provided him such. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
...and Nableezy found the original ref. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

A tip: whenever you delete a sentence that is using a named reference and the definition of that reference make sure that the article is not using that named reference elsewhere in the article. It is a pain finding what the reference was originally, and while it may be true that my continued presence on this page is proof that I enjoy pain it would be easier on all of us to do some careful checking when removing such references. Also, when you come across such an issue the way to find the original ref is to look in the history and edit an old revision and search for the named reference (DO NOT SAVE THE OLD REVISION). This one took me a few tries before I found a version that had the reference properly defined. nableezy - 23:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've been here before. It's a pain. Next time someone does it I suggest they have to create a new arricle from scratch. They can start with one for Mose Se Sengo, a superstar in the real world, non-existent in wiki world. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Priorities

Wiki recommended page size ~30kb, 100kb max. This page 228kb. International law section 71kb. I guess we need some major pruning/spliting. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we have approval. Like I said before, I am happy spliting it off now but don't see a problem with Sceptic or anyone else having a few days to get a draft for the summary. It doesn't need to be perfect the first time throught but might as well make it as close as possible.Cptnono (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, look what I done did. I am sure we can work out a better summary if needed. Sceptic might blow a gasket seeing how evil I am, but we should be able to work it out. nableezy - 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's great. I think we can probably even get the summary shorter than that with a bit of work. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I didnt put too much thought into it, just grabbed sentences seemingly at random. nableezy - 10:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And then in another thread you're complaining edits been done violating consensus. You can't say you are unaware of the initial discussion Cptnono started above. Well, I guess this means next time I won't be putting things on discussion page but go straight for the article. Gaza humanitarian crisis impact will be spun off next. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, I am pretty sure I read the consensus for splitting the article correctly, and you need to remember that nothing is lost here. The summary can be improved, all the text is in the history of this article and in the intl law article. Trust me, all will be well. Down below is a different issue where there is no such consensus. nableezy - 18:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Too boozed up now to reread it and I can only assume you are having a good enough evening yourself to surprise us like that. Nice work. As long as we all play nice we should be able to reintegrate anything essential. I'm working on a block on another article so see you guys in a few days. Thanks for showing some balls Nab!Cptnono (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, Nab has support for his bold edit. Also, the subarticle is now the master so if you are going to make changes the changes should be made there first and then here if necessary. However, we need to remove material from here rather than add more. The article is still 169kb. It should be about half that size at most. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Sceptic, The principle that Nab did it without input comes across a little off to you it sounds like. Start a subsection on the talk page of anything that looks like stuff you want to add or remove from the summary. You can even be bold and replace it with your own draft but there is no reason we need to start edit warring or getting pissed. I am still hoping this will be an easy split. Any other section wouldn't be a problem but we have to be extra cool with this one since it is a subject that gets under so many people's skin.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget it is "readable content". Sources and images are not included in that number. Does anyone know how to find the number on that?Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that true. I'll try to figure it out. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We could always copy the article (not the source but how it actually displays) into a sandbox than remove each inline citation number and the handful of images but that seems like too much work. I think your point is clear: the article is bloated. The next problem is what gets moved into the random spinoff articles. I don't want to see the Intl law section meet the same fate of some of them (never updated) but at the same time each round fired doesn't need mention.Cptnono (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Support is not necessarily consensus.
The sentence I added already exists in the Int-Law article, it was simply to balance the left contents. It could be removed, but only together with something else from that para. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ballpark readable content based on recommended method (at wp:article size) is about 75kb which isn't too bad. Still a bit chubby. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article's ToC still includes IntLaw subsections though. Does anyone know how to fix it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It still has the Israelis and Palestinians subsections, why would it not display it? Why would we remove that? nableezy - 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A summary was used per the splitting guidelines. As much as this article needs a treadmill we can't remove complete sections if they are relevant.Cptnono (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, we are at about 82kb if I did it right. Copy and paste in txt -> to Word -> find and replace all brackets and numbers with spaces (Do spaces take up less than numbers?) -> removed nonprose such as ToC and image text -> paste into sandbox -> save then displays in edit screen.Cptnono (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian ceasefires

Sceptic, I added something to balance your MFA ceasefire breach addition because you didn't. I'd much rather be working on articles about Sub-Saharan music. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not standing in your way, you know. But nevertheless I reverted your edit. Can you please provide the relevant excerpts from the Physicians' report (because after brief scan I got somewhat different impression on what's written there, but maybe I looked at the wrong places). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand about not standing in my way. NPOV is clear. If you add something you need to ensure NPOV and balance it. If you don't do that you aren't complying with NPOV. Of course it won't always be possible but you are meant to try rather than relying on others to do it for you. It's pretty easy in this case because both PHR and Amnesty cite the same case but PHR cover more cases. So the right thing to do would be to not add anything until it's balanced i.e. gather your MFA material, look for material to balance it and then add it together.
Did you look at the pages listed in the citation, page 10, the in depth case study of the people allegedly shot during the pause who subsequently died because they were not given medical attention and page 60 the main section called 'Attacks during the truce' ? Something not clear here ? I'm not going to copy/paste copyrighted material from a report and put it here. I've reverted you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not standing in your way - you are free to work on articles about Sub-Saharan music.
Yes I did. In two cases I saw, the report does not present it as fact, but as a testimony delivered by local witnesses. I'm inserting the attribution, unless you can show otherwise.
Don't preach me about my responsibilities. Before I joined the editing, the article was horribly biased in multiple ways (e.g. 'psy-war' section - only sentences describing Israeli pracices were used, while Palestinian ones from the same very sources omitted) but that never bothered anyone except me. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That isnt exactly true. From the article as it was the day before you graced us with your presence the article contained the following in the propaganda/psych warfare section: Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas started boasting that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance. At the start of the conflict, Hamas declared that the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire, later announcing that his condition was no longer of interest to them. Throughout the conflict, Hamas repeatedly released messages that they had killed or captured Israeli soldiers, even though no Israeli soldiers were actually captured during the fighting. Also, Hamas sent messages in Hebrew to Israeli citizens' mobile phones warning: "Rockets on all cities, shelters will not protect you." But Sean, Sceptic has added information from sources critical of Israel so I dont think he needs the lecture. nableezy - 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to answer here because I got messed up with phrasing and unintentionally mislead you. Of course there were sentences about Hamas practices. What I meant was that the sources used for Israeli practices included also additional Hamas practices that were omitted, e.g. "the biggest psy-weapon in Hamas arsenal is home-made rockets" and so on. I'm sorry again for creating false impression, that was not my intention. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know he has but I respectfully disagee in this case. I have no problem with attribution Sceptic although shouldn't you also attribute the MFA statement to specify where the info came from ? If you notice, my edit quite carefully mirrored the wording and nature of yours even down to the formatting of the ref. That wasn't an accident. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
IMFA statement is a statement of fact, it is not attributed to anyone. In fact this info could be tracked down, by for example checking the logs of rocket alert in the targeted towns' municipalities on these days. I am quite sure that even more reliable way to verify if it's true or not is at TV channels - all three major channels in Israel broadcasted non-stop the developments and each attack on Israeli town was reported on-line. Contrary, the statements of the Palestinian witnesses (time and circumstances of the attack) are more hard to confirm. Actually I pointed out to at least one such incident - the Abd Rabbo family - when the version told differed from one source to another. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite agree with you there. The evidence presented by the independent investigators is presented as fact in the same way the information from the MFA is presented as fact. As they say, they only include "cases that provide clear, concrete and reliable information". Perhaps the attribution should be changed to reflect that statement so that it more closely reflects the source and their methodology. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
On the pages you refer to I see only testimones from the locals. But I admit I didn't read the whole report (and don't feel like reading it now). This is why I asked you in the first place to show, based on what you read there, your perception. Ah, and btw, why did you wrote that IDF violated daily ceasefires? Isn't it more appropriate to say that in at least several incidemts IDF allegedly attacked unarmed civilians during daily ceasefires? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
It's more rigorous than that. My perceptions don't really matter though. It's better to just stick to the source. You can decide for yourself but the investigators regard it as concrete and reliable. I didn't say 'violated'. That's a strong word. I said 'breached' which is the exact word used in the report on page 60. I was trying to keep that statement as short as possible, stick to the source and not go into any gruesome details about what happened and who it happened to, what their combatant status was etc so that it mirrored the simplicity and terseness of your 'fired a total of' statement. I don't think the details are necessary. If we had details we would then need to add some details about the 44 rockets in some way to balance it. I thought it was better to keep it simple. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Are we settled to leave it as it is? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's fine. We have better things to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War part two?

I didn't know this was a news feed. With opinion pieces!

Its not, the third link I provided was a total indulgence. The first two though, and the one you posted above, may be relevant to this article. Tiamuttalk 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of this is relevant to the article. There's no official lull; number of similar incidents in the last 7 months is much greater; somehow, Tiamut, you pick only incidents where Palestinians were killed - why don't you try to look on the incidents where Palestinian armed groups attacked IDF soldiers along the Gaza border, or rockets fired, or terror attacks prevented? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought I would share. Forgive me if you find it irrelevant. I don't only pick incidents where Palestinians were killed. I included these because I thought they represented an escalation that might lead to a renewal of hostilities. Do you know of any Israelis who have been killed since the war ended that I have missed? Tiamuttalk 09:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why you didn't think that a Qassam rocket fired at Israel or that four mortar shells hit western Negev are not escalations worthy of reporting here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because nobody died or was injured? Tiamuttalk 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not for lack of trying. Not to mention that Israel didn't kill those two Hamas guys that prompted you to start this, either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

→if we are up to this: Two Hamas gunmen were killed in what appears to be a malfunction of an explosive device they were attempting to place near an area of Gaza's border fence regularly patrolled by soldiers, Palestinian sources reported Tuesday; The cause of the deaths remains unclear. Hamas initially said the men were killed in an Israeli airstrike, then said they had been shot and later said they were killed by Israeli tank fire. Be serious. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Again last night, Palestinian teen killed in Gaza shooting, but I was wrong to assume these deaths would lead to a renewal of the hostilities. I forgot that nobody seems to give a damn. So, I'll refrain from posting similar news here again, as the section could get quite large without ever leading to renewed war, and ever being of use to our articles. I will keep my eyes out for an Israeli death though, and be sure to let you know, as their deaths actually tend to matter. Tiamuttalk 15:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice WP:SOAP. I for one do not share your disappointment that these deaths do not lead to renewed war. At least this time you got the most up to date version, unlike the links above where you were still blaming Israel for what Palestinians already said was a "work accident". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic with objections to someone presenting "links" and "further reading material" on this page about "things" related to this conflict?...oh my Cryptonio (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Article re-org

I propose either

  • a) the prop/psy section becomes a subsection of the campaign section
  • or b) it continues to be treated separately like media and goes below casualty/effects sections

My thinking is that it's either part of the campaign or it isn't. If it isn't then it's less important than casualty/effects sections. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is another section based on allegations of wrong doing so even though I would like to see it worked into the campaign section the tit-for-tat way it reads may not be appropriate. If there is a way to work it into the campaign section it should be done. A simple subsection as you suggest would work.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If you can provide a convincing argument for crisis -> situation I'll make a donation to charity. Unfortunately it will be HRW but don't let that put you off. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Make a donation anyway, it's a mitzvah. It's not about whether there is a humanitarian crisis or not - it's about the policy regarding names of articles and sections of encyclopedia. Do you think it would be appropriate to give title "The horrible consequencies of eating M'cDonalds hamburgers" to the article? Or "The unmatched superiority of Roger Federer as the all-time best tennis player ever"? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to mitzvah. I've not read that article before and I've never known the meaning of the word so I learned some new things. My knowledge of Hebrew comes from..um..Seinfeld, Curb etc so it's pretty extensive as you can imagine. I believe it's referred to as a crisis in the title because a) that's what many, many sources like the UN, ICRC, BBC, Arab League, EU etc etc called it and importantly b) it was a crisis. I appreciate that in Tzipi-Livni-MFA-world it would be called something else like "Move along, nothing to see here" but luckily we go by the sources for naming. Crisis is a perfectly neutral way for wiki to describe it as far as I'm concerned. Just pretend it was somewhere else and it was an earthquake. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I will not respond to (b), because then we will not reach a resolution til 2010. However, I used your advice and took a look at some recent most horrible natural disasters - Hurricane Katrina, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Cyclone Nargis, 2005 Kashmir earthquake - guess what, I didn't see the word "crisis" used in the titles of sections. The words used most are "impact" and "effect". I don't see why it should be different here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Did I remember to mention the sources ? That could be the reason why it would be different here. Anyway crisis just means crisis. It's not controversial (apart from perhaps in Israel or maybe it's just you and Tzipi). It's what it was called by people who know about these things. It doesn't say "Gaza humanitarian horrible situation caused by those pesky Hamas/IDF boys with their rockets and bombs". Maybe Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I liked "Darfur conflict" in the examples there. And I don't see the word "crsis" as totally neutral. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How about in Financial crisis of 2007–2010 and related articles ? Again it's named per the sources. Do you see it as neutral or non-neutral ? If you see it as neutral but the Gaza context as non-neutral are you able to understand why you think they are different and explain what the differences are preferably supported by wiki policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Named per sources, yes - i don't think you'll find even one that would disagree. Besides, it is a common name of the ongoing economic event (ah, and you just can't say 'Financial impact' - impact of what?). Moreover, in our case this is a subsection of the 'Effects' section. So, in 'Effects' of the Gaza war we have 'Israel' and 'Gaza Humanitarian Crisis'. The inevitable conclusion is that the title of the subsection should be 'impact' and in the text bring whatever sources to imply that the war reulted in crisis. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is the tit for tat that cptnono was talking about. "We can only re-qork the psy war section if we ALSO re-work Humanitarian Crisis section." Cryptonio (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MFA report

Regarding this edit that I've just reverted. The MFA report page 50/51 says

  • "While these warnings, unfortunately, could not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were frequently effective, as aerial surveillance many times was able to confirm the resulting evacuation of numerous civilians prior to an attack by the IDF".

Whereas the edit said

  • "The Israeli Government report claims that while the warning systems implemented by the IDF were not totally perfect, they were highly effective, since aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack as a direct result of the warnings".

Rewriting MFA text in this way with added peacock words, removal of the mention of harm to civilians and removal of the MFA disclaimers like 'many times' and 'numerous civilians' and replacing them with an all encompassing general statement 'confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack' so that it appears even more favourable than the original text is inconsistent with WP:NPOV amongst other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

p. 100: "While the warning systems implemented by the IDF did not provide a 100 percent guarantee against civilian casualties, they were, in fact, highly effective. Aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of civilians from targeted areas prior to the attack as a direct result of the warnings". Self-revert and a small apology would be appreciated. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
...but I wouldn't object to insert 'many times' or something like that. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You want me to self-revert the removal of yet more MFA propaganda from a section already overflowing with that kind of material and apologise ? um..no. How about not adding it instead ? Have you read through the Air Strikes section recently ? Do you think that it a) presents a neutral, balanced description of the air strikes and their effects so that readers understand what happened and it's effects in the real world or b) presents a sanitised abstraction of events presented from the perspective of the Israeli military ? I think it's closer to b) than a) and I think that's a problem. Adding this material makes the problem worse rather than better. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You could have at least apologize for implying that I deliberately mispresented the IMFA report wording in more favorable way (while I actually copy-pasted text from different section and even offered a reasonable compromise), but whatever. Well, next time at least be honest with yourself and tell that you simply don't like the contents. As you know, I'm not the biggest fan of human rights groups - does it mean I delete contents I dislike? No. On several occasions I even inserted it myself. But. I search for counterarguments and insert it whenever find such. Take my advices, Sean: 1) you're overheated, take a break; 2) do not engage in calling names. Calling everything Israel says 'propaganda' amounts to cheap propagandist trick too; 3) the best way to fight the contents (well-sourced, well-attributed, presented in neutral way, having high encyclopedic value) you don't like is through more contents. Bring more relevant info. We'll discuss it. Finally, this was the first sentence directly from IDF or Israeli Government in that section. Everything else there, even if attributed to IDF, is sourced in magazines/think-tanks/newspapers and many of the sources are not of Israeli origin. Try to understand, Sean, that what you (and many others) see as great human tragedy has a totally different look from the military perspective. At least some military experts (excluding Garlasco) would agree that what you call 'sanitised' and 'propagandist' is the actual description of what happened there. Again - you feel it is not what happened? Be constructive, bring more information. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are noted. Okay, firstly, the MFA report is quite literally propaganda. There's nothing wrong with that, that's the MFA's job. If you are offended by the word or regard it as 'calling names' then you don't understand the word. Call it PR in your mind if it makes you feel better but propaganda is a standard, perfectly respectable and neutral term. There is nothing inherently wrong with propaganda as a source for us but by it's very nature it's non-neutral and presents a selective subset of information to promote a particular perspective, the perspective of the MFA in this case. The fact that it's propaganda doesn't tell us whether the information is true or false but it does tell us that we (actually you as you made the edit without consensus) need to be very aware of it's influence on WP:NPOV compliance in the article and take steps, mandatory steps that are part of core policy here to ensure that we are maintaining neutrality. This has nothing to do with what I like or dislike and this isn't a fight for the hearts and minds of readers. You can safely assume that mostly I don't care. I'm more interested in the cumulative effects of strings of words by volume. That's what articles look like to me, patchworks of bias.
Editors shouldn't have to fight over neutrality by continuously having to add more and more information into an article to counter balance material in a kind of neutrality war of attrition. We are getting perilously close to the point where someone adds something factual and pertinent but negative from the Israeli nationlist perspective so an editor balances it by adding well sourced information saying that IAF planes use environmentally friendly fuel or that the drones are quiet to minimise the adverse effects of noise on children's developing ears. Less is more, we only need the important information.
For example, we don't need to keep repeating over and over again in many different ways in many different places that the IDF say they took precautions to avoid harming civilians. Yes they did. They also killed lots of civilians. These are just simple facts that are related to eachother. We don't need to ram them down people's throats repeatedly. Wiki editing shouldn't be about competing sets of biased editors. We're all expected to be neutral in our edits. It should be easy. It's an editor's job to balance their own edits and ensure that they don't introduce imbalance. I don't think you are doing that enough. I think you insert far more material promoting the MFA/IDF version of events than you either remove or balance with opposing views. Over time this one sided dedication is problematic because you can't rely on others to fix it. Try to switch your 'you don't like it' argument around in your mind. Ask yourself why you are adding more material to a section that already has clear neutrality problems without obtaining consensus and apparently with little concern over it's effects on neutrality other than the expectation that others will fix the problems. Perhaps the problem is that you like the information rather than that I dislike the information. Either way it doesn't matter, motives are irrelevant. What matters is that adding the information takes us even further away from neutrality. Removing it may be constructive although I take your point about this being the first IDF statement in that section. More material should be removed/condensed/summarised in that section in my view.
What I would ask you guys is to try to imagine it as a long (~270 words) section derived from Hamas government sources describing the lengths they went to according to their propaganda to 'defend their people' and maximise the number of IDF kills and ask yourself honestly whether you would treat the information in the same way you would treat MFA sourced info and whether you would think that it adds value to the article. I don't think you would treat it the same way. I think you would recognise it for what it is, propaganda and treat it accordingly, taking steps to balance it with Israeli or other sources.
It seems to be difficult for you guys to understand how utterly different our perspectives are in these matters. I am not at war. I don't have enemies or comrades in a nationalist battle. I don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not within scope of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counseled. Are you ? My concern is partisan editing in Wikipedia, it's a problem and it's one of the few things I take seriously. It's really as simple as that. I am pro-Wikipedia, not anti-X, Y or Z. This article isn't on my watchlist because it was a 'great human tragedy'. There are plenty of those. It's on my watchlist (along with several others) because of highly motivated editors with strong partisan perspectives (like you guys) who impact the neutrality of articles sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. I have no interest in promoting any particular narrative here other than describing what happened neutrally. Israel vs Palestine, IDF vs Palestinian militants etc are X vs Y for me and civilians are civilians so in that sense I have a pro-human bias which inevitably translates as a pro-human rights bias (and unfortunately being totally sociopathic in my editing is too much of a stretch).
As for implying that you 'deliberately mispresented' something, yes I can see your point so if it makes you feel better, stops you crying like a girl and helps us move forward I apologise for that. I stand by my removal of the text though but note that the text you re-inserted is an improvement but again without consensus. I would ask you to take a dispassionate look at the part in the Air Strikes section shown below and see if you can come up with any convincing arguments as to why we need all of this material to convery the simple fact that measures were taken to alert civilians. Is there a good reason why we can't sum this up something like below ?
OLDAmong IDF's measures to reduce civilian casualties were the extensive use of leaflets and phone messages to warn Palestinians, including families in high-risk areas and families of Hamas personnel, to leave the area or to avoid potential targets.[37][91][92][93] Israel used F-4 Skyhawks to deliver more than 2 million leaflets urging the population to evacuate.[85] In a practice codenamed roof knocking, the IDF issued warning calls prior to air strikes on civilian buildings. Typically, Israeli intelligence officers and Shin Bet security servicemen contacted residents of a building in which they suspected storage of military assets and told them that they had 10–15 minutes to flee the attack.[94][95][75] At several instances, the IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes.[91] In some cases, IDF commanders called off airstrikes, when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof.[91] IAF developed small bomb that is designed not to explode as it was aimed at empty areas of the roofs to frighten residents into leaving the building.[37][92] Israel's military used low-explosive missiles to warn civilians of imminent attack and to verify that buildings were evacuated prior to attack.[85] Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[96] The Israeli Government report claims that while the warning systems implemented by the IDF did not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were apparently effective, due to the fact that in many incidents aerial video surveillance by IDF forces confirmed the departure of numerous residents from targeted areas as a direct result of the warnings prior to the attacks.[97]
NEWThe IDF used various measures with the stated aim of reducing civilian casualties including leaflets, phone messages, sound bombs and roof knocking. An Israeli Government report stated that while the warning systems did not eliminate all harm to civilians, they were "frequently effective, as aerial surveillance many times was able to confirm the resulting evacuation of numerous civilians prior to an attack by the IDF".....preserving all of the refs if you like.
Lastly I'd like to thank NMMNG for showing the restraint to simply write 'hear hear' which is genuinely appreciated. Having said that, if you ever feel like having another rant, go ahead. It's unlikely to have the desired effect. It's nothing personal. I have encounters with highly belligerent kraits, pythons, cobras, rat snakes etc in my normal day to day activities. If you can find a way to literally spit toxic venom via a talk page it might help but probably not. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind note. I get a good laugh every time you admonish Sceptic for not being neutral. I don't know if you really think you're some kind of example of neutrality, or you just like to say you are, but seriously, your edits are often POV. And considering there's one Sceptic fighting multiple Seans, you can give the guy a break every so often from harping on his supposed POV when you're at least as bad as him, if not worse. Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day. I hope a snake doesn't eat you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC).
Well, I can't seriously claim to be an example of neutrality given that statements by the likes of NGO Monitor about Palestinians and statements by Stormfront about non-Aryans often look pretty much the same to me. I am an example of mostly not caring though which helps. Sceptic gets plenty of breaks and he's made great contributions to the article. He's also about as biased as it's humanly possible to be without actually pulling a muscle, bless him. If you see me make what looks like a POV edit to an article from your perspective let me know because it will look like a neutral edit to me. Although I'm never wrong about anything ever it's possible in theory I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you can show me where you repeatedly told someone you thought was pro-Palestinian that he is not neutral, that he's posting propaganda, that he should take a break from being a mouthpiece for whoever, etc. The fact you spend most of your time on talk pages making life difficult for people like Sceptic, is POV pushing just as if you actually edited articles rather than mostly just revert edits you find too pro-Israel... errrr... "not neutral enough". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are pretty clear and important differences in my experience. Experienced editors who you might regard as pro-Palestinian tend in general to add material that complies with WP:V and WP:NPOV using reliable international highly respected sources (at least in the pages I pay attention to). In the real world the sources are regarded as reliable and approximately neutral but in the parallel universe of Wikipedia where many editors seem to rely on extremist/propaganda sites like CAMERA/NGO Monitor etc for information (or actually work for them) these highly respected sources are regarded as biased against Israel or anti-Semitic or some other nonsense. The material is usually entirely uncontroversial e.g. ~100% of sources agree...occupation status, illegality of settlements, Golan Heights are not Israeli territory, the West Bank is the West Bank etc etc. These so-called pro-Palestinian editors are almost always opposed by extremist/fringe editors (often obsessive returning banned editors) who manufacture controversies and accuse them of things like dehumanising jews and anti-semitism which would be laughable if it didn't happen almost everytime over and over again about the same non-issues. In fact any pro-Wikipedia editor who tries to deal with Israeli nationalist pov pushing in Wiki gets labeled pro-Palestinian (as per you are with us or against us). If you revert edits by pro-Israel crazies using the nonsense produced by extremists criticising HRW or some other the highly respected organisation you are labeled a marxist etc. This is what happens when you deal with extremists. Of course extremists don't realise they are extremists which makes it even funnier. They think they view is perfectly sensible and that the rest of the world is wrong. Luckily this page is largely extremist-free apart from the occasional drive-by but the long term dedication of non-extremist nationalists can be just as problematic. If there were no pro-Wikipedia editors this encyclopedia would fill up with Israeli propaganda in no time. I don't see a similar problem with pro-Palestinian editors. Their motivation in my experience is to simply describe reality using RS rather than distort reality using biased sources and propaganda. The similarity to the evolution related articles is very clear. We have a lot of trouble with fringe editors on all of the evolution related articles. I don't waste my time telling 'pro-evolution' editors that they're not being neutral. That would be pretty dumb and a waste of time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"I don't see a similar problem with pro-Palestinian editors". That's priceless. You don't see "long term dedication of non-extremist nationalists" among pro-Palestinians? Really? I won't even ask about pro-Palestinian extremists because at this point I doubt you'd recognize one if he was sitting in your lap.
What you just said amounts to "I agree with the pro-Palestinians, therefore all their sources are legit, their opinions mainstream, and they're generally a bunch of really nice people who only want a better encyclopedia and don't have a single nationalist bone in their bodies".
I must return to my first suggestion and encourage you to take a good hard look in the mirror. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean you are not usually so long-winded! (But crystalline commentary as always.) I note that the Israeli armed forces' phone calls to the citizens of Gaza ("we are going to bomb you") are in the concerned section introduced as "IDF's measures to reduce civilian casualties"; whereas the calls made from Gaza to Israeli citizens ("we are going to bomb you") are being treated as "psychological warfare". Does this distinction result from quantity or quality of the calls placed? RomaC (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need this kind of favors from you, Sean, and I will move forward with you regardless of you apologizing or not. This, though, is not a proper way to do it ("...makes you feel better, stops you crying like a girl and helps us move forward I apologise for that...). If you don't feel like doing it - don't do it at all, be a man, stand behind your word.
So I will move forward, after I'll find time to remove that 'small' tag 'cause I don't see a thing. Just a general comment - as long as the contents is kept, there will be no problem to work out the wording. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Come on, that was clearly a joke, remember you have a sense of humour. Don't make me get Falk to ask you to apologise for crimes against neutrality. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

rewriting the para. about IAF effors to reduce casualties

→I've read your suggestion. Here is my countersuggestion:

  • 1. add "specific" before "phone messages".
  • 2. the following sentence is missing: "In some cases, IDF commanders called off airstrikes, when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof.[91]" it is stated as fact by Haaretz, but i wouldn't mind adding some word of speculative nature, like "presumably".
  • 3. you omitted the sentence: "Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[96]"
  • 4. "see also" link would be added to "Roof knocking" article at the start of the subsection. and yes of course all the refs preserved. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. fine
  • 2. i don't think it's important enough in the whole the air campaign. maybe it means that sometimes they didn't call off the airstrike, who knows. it's a statement about a subset of the set of all airstrikes and we don't know how big the subset is i.e. did it happen 1 time, 10 times, 100 times etc. it's difficult to assess it's due weight. it's also a statement in the israeli press about the behavior of palestinians during a conflict between israelis and palestinians. i'd rather see this kind of information from neutral RS. Anyway, others may disagree with me.
  • 3. again i think this is a detail about an unknown sample size. i can see that someone might consider it important from an IHL perspective or a IDF psy warware perspective but it's speculative. some of the airstrikes probably missed their targets too.
  • 4. okay. that's not how spiders build webs but that's what the manual of style says we should do for reasons i've never understood.
Let's see what others think. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 3. You are full of surprises, Sean. I thought it was merely an oversight of yours. Let me give you an argument here (and I desire it is registered as 'speak for the enemy'). In some IDF units, there is a goal to reduce car accidents to zero. Examining the statistics, it is clear it is unreachable practically, but it should be sought. The same applies here. The coordination between those who give warning and the pilots should be 100%, lives are at stake. The reality is different. I agree we don't have a sample size, this is why it is impossible to make any conclusions, but we don't have to. We merely say that according to some sources, some attacks were executed earlier than expected or without warning at all. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, forgot to mention, of course some strikes missed the target - p. 141 in the IMFA report (Al-Daia family) is apparently the most unfortunate one. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 2. I'll start with the 2nd part of the sentence. I don't mind removing the words "when residents of suspected houses have been able to gather on its roof". It could be substituted with (citing from IMFA report p.96) "when a pilot approaching a target identified the potential for disproportionate collateral damage, he or she would refrain from attacking the target or even — when possible —would divert a missile already fired, as occurred occasionally during the Gaza Operation.221".
  • 2. 'it's difficult to assess it's due weight' - yes; 'maybe it means that sometimes they didn't call off the airstrike' - maybe. but I think 'in some cases' addresses these speculations pretty well. You know, I once came across this argument that charges against Hamas of human shielding are irrelevant because there is not a single case when IDF refrained from such an attack. Well, at least according to Israeli sources, this is untrue. I can't find at the moment the most suitable words to explain why this is extremely important, but it is. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If no further cooperation emerges, I'll do what I see fit. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

off-topic

Hey Sceptic, still awaiting your reply re the distinctions above (IDF phone messages are "efforts to reduce casualties"; while Hamas messages are "psychological warfare"), would like to hear your reasoning -- especially considering Israelis could evacuate to say, the USA or Sweden; whereas Gazans were pretty well stuck in the war zone. Is the difference in the messages qualitative or quantitative, do you think? RomaC (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have this feeling, Roma, that you are not so familiar with the article yet. Read 'Propaganda and psychological warfare' section, it has both Hamas threats and IDF leaflets and phone calls.
I'll give you a distinction though. There were two types of phone calls and IMFA report details it. The first one was general one, saying that e.g. staying in the house where ammunition is stored is dangerous. The second type was a specific warning to residents of the legitimate military target several minutes before the strike. If you would hear the testimony of prof. Newton, expert in laws of war, to the Goldstone mission, you'll understand that the rules require to give civilians at risk an effective warning that is feasible from the standpoint of the commander in charge. So, either way you look at Hamas messages, they fail the requirement, because even if they have no other feasible means, they are too general and in no way could be considered 'effective'. On the other hand, the 2nd type of calls above, several minutes before the imminent strike, provided that it is followed by the surveillance to confirm civilian's departure - fall within this requirement. It could be mentioned as a counterargument that (according to Palestinian sources) many such calls were not followed by the attack at all and so were merely sofisticated means of psy war. Well, this is a speculation and we can't know for sure. Number of explanations could be given here, e.g. there was still doubt that civilians evacuated. Anyway, even if it could be seen as a part of psy-war, it could also be seen as effective warning to civilians aimed to spare at least to some extent their lives.
There are about 1 million Israelis (maybe slightly less) within the radius of rockets available to Gaza armed groups. How exactly do you think they are supposed to evacuate to USA or Sweden? 2 more million are within the reach of Hizbullah rockets in the North - so why woudn't we all depart to Alaska or Birobidzhan or maybe simply drown ourselves in the sea to save the world from excessive trouble? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So your argument, if I understand it, is that Israel's phone messages were qualitatively superior to Gaza's phone messages because Israel delivered warnings of their attacks in a more selective and timely manner. This may be true, but in any case I find it ironic that information on Israel's phone messages falls under a section titled "efforts to reduce casualties"; as Israel inflicted far more civilian casualties on Gaza than Gaza did on Israel during the time period in question. Now, both Israel and Gaza's phone messages are, as you note, already covered in the 'Propaganda and psychological warfare' section. If we want to include reference to only Israel's phone messages in a new section, shouldn't it be titled something like 'Israel's failure to reduce civilian casualties'? That might reflect reality, rather than an intention as claimed by one side. RomaC (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no such section "efforts to reduce casualties", it is merely a paragraph inside "air strikes" section - so we have nothing else to discuss, don't we? Anyhow, without these efforts, the number of civilians killed could have been ten or hundren fold. Moreover, the sources used clearly describe these practices as "efforts to reduce casualties". Whenever you have sources that say 'Israel's failure to reduce civilian casualties', we'll resume this. Bear in mind that the responsibility for the vast majority of civilian deaths is on Palestinian armed groups who did not do what's feasible not to intermingle with civilian population.
Do you know how many US civilians were killed by Japanese during WWII? and how many civilians in Japan were killed by US forces?
The so-called "irony" of yours does not make International Humanitarian Law. It says nothing about absolute number of civilians killed. Go listen to that testimony I mentioned above to have the slightest of the slightest idea of what IHL is. Maybe ratio of civilians to fighters have some meaning in regard with some specific attacks, but certainly not always. Absolute numbers are invalid.
You are fooled by PCHR numbers. Gaza populace is very young, 50% are kids below 18, the rest are adults, about 25% men and 25% women. PCHR state that out of 908 civilians killed, 117 are adult women and 311 are children below 18. The rest, 479 (and I verified it by putting their list in Excel manually) are men. If you are familiar with 5th grade algebra, you can do the rest. And now the advanced lesson - ratio of boys to girls aged below 13 is close to 1:1 within statistical margins; but among children aged 16-17 the numbers are 11 girls vs 68 boys. Interesting, isn't it? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Roma, do you read Italian? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Allo Sceptic. A distinction should be made between reflected and projected when analysing information. The media has reported and neither side has denied that both Israel and Gaza sent warning phone messages to people on the other side of the conflict. This information is unchallenged as it is a reflection of reality. However, information such as "without these efforts, the number of civilians killed could have been ten or hundred fold", which is basically what you are trying to communicate through your edits to the article, is informed by the projection of an alternative reality (a reality, in your example, in which 90,800 Palestinian civilians would be killed). Hypothetical models may serve speculation but they are not encyclopedic, suggest we stick to the facts, including absolute numbers, which do not make moral judgments. The Empire of Japan and the United States of America both killed many civilians in the Pacific Region and I have edited and continue to edit a few articles related to that conflict, perhaps you could come and participate there, it might be good practice in objective editing? RomaC (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Tell me again, where in the media did you see that 'Gaza sent warning phone messages'? Show me the word 'warning', would you? And all the words about my edits in the article are nothing more than speculation of yours. My edits are always as far as I recall are well-sourced and written in NPOV manner and I never elude the debate whenever my opponents assume good faith. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please check the (Israeli) link I provided, the word "warning" appears in the first sentence. RomaC (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, you're right: "...warning them that the offensive in Gaza will only bring about massive rocket fire on Israel". But maybe you'll agree with me that there is different connotation in 2 following cases: (1) "i warn you that if you wouldn't leave my sister alone, i'll kick your brains out" and (2) "i warn you not to feed the crocodile in the zoo to keep your arm intact". --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no sister and I avoid zoos, and I don't deal in connotations or abide advocates -- I have a suggestion, please begin editing articles about zoos and I will help you in whatever way I can -- Sceptic did you know there are 3,025,766 articles on the English Wikipedia? Most have nothing to do with Israel. I hope you are interested in contributing to the project ~ it's a good one! RomaC (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in contributing wherever I regard myself competent, and I wish others would too. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Roma, these are superlatives and platitudes you and everyone else who will have to deal with this article needs to familiarize oneself with. Either you speak their language or you don't. Hey, good luck. Cryptonio (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here goes Dr. Mads Gilbert

if someone is interested: Ninety percent of casualties brought to Gaza's main hospital during Israel's winter offensive against Hamas were civilians, according to a new book by one of Norway's most famous and controversial physicians; According to the IDF, Hamas' leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, operated a command center inside Shifa Hospital throughout the three-week offensive. But Gilbert says he saw no indication of this.

Nevertheless, The Palestinian Authority's Health Ministry accused the Hamas-run de facto government's security services of turning medical centers into virtual prison;

also, Cremonesi had a good reason to say that "It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas" - full article in Italian explains that the reason is that Hamas fighters were not taken to conventional hospitals. I'll try to find the link later. So yes, actually Dr. Gilbert is right. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

...and of course another journalist reporting from Gaza ...when Israel destroyed the prison on Sunday he and the others were transferred to the hospital. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Case in point Tiamut. Cryptonio (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

rocket remnants etc.

i excuse myself for not being all that active etc and also whatever...but i didn't want to remove the picture for the remnants of rockets fired etc. [...] just the caption about capt. Obama. So please, if you don't feel too bothered, Agada or anyone else, put the picture back on the page. Thanks, and my apologies, just haven't had the time necessary to deal with all of this. Cryptonio (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought Nab removed that pic after I added the rocket chart in the same section on the basis that the rocket remnants pic was pants. (That phrase won't make sense in the US). Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I did, it is a useless picture. The chart actually provides some information, that pic does not. nableezy - 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't following. Do you know who did that chart? What is the source? Is it possible to separate numbers of rockets in December to before the official date of lull expiration, after the date and before the start of the hostilities, an afterwards? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The source ref is on the chart but its ITIC. You can just click the chart to get further details but in terms of priority, any interest in fixing this Israel_outline_north_haifa.png, currently my favourite map in Wiki ?
  1. ^ "Middle East: Israel Halts Operations To Allow Aid Shipments". Washington Post. January 7, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_55&oldid=1136276510"