Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:44, 18 June 2009

The Al Jazeera images have the logo because the Creative Commons license requires it. These are free images with an attribution restriction. Al Jazeera allows this page to use them.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008.

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 January 2009.

For previously archived Lead section material: Archive 22 and 23

The move from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict to Gaza War is discussed in /Archive 47#Requested move

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza War (2008–2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70Auto-archiving period: 7 days

International law Hamas subsection layout

The same as above could be applied to Hamas. Right now, allegations are mess. ITIC report sorts them out, see See 5 – Legal Appendix. Here is a copy-pasted unedited first part:

• (A) Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects.
  • (1) Contravention of the principle of distinction.

The act of directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects contravenes the Principle of Distinction; according to this principle, parties must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Moreover, under this rule, it is strictly prohibited to direct attacks at civilian objects or civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities. The principle is encapsulated by Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), stating that: "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." The violation of this basic prohibition also amounts to a war crime. See for example, Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), which includes within its list of acts constituting war crimes, the following: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities".' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking a stereotype: never thought B'Tselem would publish anything apart from criticizing Israel. Apparently I was wrong. This is what they write about Rocket and mortar fire into Israel: 'Palestinian organizations that fire rockets and mortar shells into Israel openly declare that they intend to strike Israeli civilians, among other targets. Aiming attacks at civilians is both immoral and illegal, and the intentional killing of civilians is defined a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime that cannot be justified, under any circumstance. Furthermore, the rockets and mortar shells are illegal weapons, even when aimed at military objects, as they are greatly imprecise and endanger civilians present both in the area from which they are fired and where they land, thus violating two fundamental principles of the laws of war: distinction and proportionality. In a significant number of cases, Palestinians have fired the rockets and mortar shells from civilian residential areas. International humanitarian law (IHL) prohibits attacks from inside or near the homes of civilians, and using civilians as human shields. Palestinian organizations that choose to carry out attacks against communities in Israel from within or near populated areas breach this rule, and in doing so, demonstrate not only their intention to harm Israeli civilians, but also indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an attempt to introduce the edited first part:

1. Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects (1) Contravention of the principle of distinction

As stated by various sources, including the UN official and Human Rights Watch report, deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian objects in southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups' rocket attacks violates International Humanitarian Law. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) note that such attacks contravene the Principle of Distinction, as encapsulated by Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949: "it is strictly prohibited to direct attacks at civilian objects or civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities". Furthermore, former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor, Irwin Cotler, and ITIC point out that violation of this prohibition also amounts to a war crime as defined in the Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

HRW and B'Tselem reports notice that even if the above attacks were directed at a specific military objective, they would still be unlawful, due to the fact that the types of rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are imprecise and cannot be directed in a way that discriminates between military targets and civilians.

In 2007, exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self-defense". Hamas leaders "argue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes". Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has said that such justifications do not overcome the illegality of the attacks under laws governing reprisals, which prohibit direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(2) Contravention of the prohibition of committing acts intended to spread terror among the civilian population

HRW points out that primary purpose of the rocket attacks seems to be at least to spread terror among the Israeli civilian population. HRW adds that the rockets have created a pervasive climate of fear among people in the areas where they can reach. During the fighting, the psychological effect of the rocket attacks paralyzed life across Israel's south.. HRW official stated that "firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza". ITIC asserted that the attacks aimed at sowing terror among Israel's civilian population are prohibited under International Humanitarian Law and violate Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(B) Unlawful Methods of War employed by Hamas (1) Human shielding

The BBC reported on January 5 that "Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas. Amnesty International assessed that Hamas fighters put civilians in danger by firing from homes. United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes accused Hamas "reckless and cynical" use of civilian facilities during the hostilities in the Gaza Strip, and told that the above, as well as indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations, are clear violations of International Humanitarian Law. In the course of the fighting, evidencies for Hamas uses of civilian infrastructure were recorded in ITIC reports. Irwin Cotler said that attacks from within civilian areas and civilian structures in order to be immune from a response, e.g. apartment building, a mosque or a hospital, are unlawful; he explained that in these cases Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians, as enshrined in general principles of International Humanitarian Law. ITIC accused Hamas of making systematic use of protected civilian areas (including homes and mosques) for the hiding and storage of rockets, explosives and ammunition; using of civilian facilities (such as universities) for weapons development; calling on Palestinians to flock to targets which are expected to be attacked in order to form "human shields". Such conduct contravenes the Laws of Armed Conflict and some of the practices above, e.g. Art. 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the International Criminal Court, amounts to a war crime.

(2) Making improper use of the flag and insignia of the UN, as well as the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Convention.

The Israeli security services chief Yuval Diskin suggested at the start of the offensive that Hamas militants were hiding at Gaza hospitals, some disguised as doctors and nurses. IDF probe, issued in April 2009, asserted that Hamas seniors, including Ismail Haniyeh, were taking over a ward of the Shifa Hospital, the Gaza Strip's largest, and set up a command center for the duration of the campaign. The IDF also noted that senior Hamas commanders set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center stated that alleged evidences of improper use of protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions, as well as hiding in hospitals, constitute acts prohibited under the Laws of Armed Conflict, e.g. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention. Irwin Cotler told The Jerusalem Post that misuse of humanitarian symbols, like using an ambulance to transport fighters or weapons or disguising oneself as a doctor in a hospital, amounts to war crimes. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(3) Violation of perfidy principle

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs note that International Humanitarian Law forbids to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant, and militants dressed as civilians make it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed.

(4) Violation of laws regarding prisoners of war

Palestinian groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado and out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. JCPA points out that this is a violation of international law concerning prisoners of war. Israeli NGO Monitor claims that Shalit's abductors breach several provisions of the Third Geneva Convention, e.g. the right to humane treatment (Art. 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (Art. 23); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (Art. 126).

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is ready. Unfortunately, I don't have any direct evidence children below 15 took part in the fighting - if anyone will provide the evidence, additional subsection will be constructed. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

During last 2.5 weeks I recieved no objections and reservations. Hope it will be accepted and that we can move forward to the Israeli subsection. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gilad Shalit part is an issue, the sources dont tie those vios with this conflict. He has been brought up in the ceasefire negotiations so he should (and I think is) mentioned there, but in this section the relation is lacking. Nableezy (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also /Archive 39#Israel ties ceasefire to Shalit Nableezy (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else except you dropped - congrats on the achievement. On the one hand, you are right (and frankly I had similar deliberations prior deciding to do insert the subsection) - it is tied with the background and not with the fighting directly. On the other hand, he is held in the same terms before, throughout and after the war. You are probably not aware, but there was great pressure to include his reliese in the aims of the operation, and there was huge disappointment in Israel when it ended without. Moreover, the same argument could be applied to other issues mentioned in the IntLaw section - i.e. rocket attacks and the blockade of Gaza. Nevertheless, they are covered both in the background and mentioned in the IntLaw section and I think it is appropriate. Next, don't forget that 'Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of violating international law during and prior to this conflict' and that Golstone came to investigate violations during and prior to the war. The source I used, JCPA, presents all the issues in one complex and I think it is justified. Finally, the issue is indeed mentioned in the background, but it doesn't emphasize that terms of his captivity violate several int-laws. So, do we keep collective punishment and Shalit, or we drop both? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

the source I use

I think the two issues (collective punishment and Shalit) are separate and should be treated as such. The collective punishment is cited by Hamas as a cause for launching rockets, as well as multiple organizations calling the attacks themselves collective punishment. I dont think that can be disputed as to its relevance. Shalit on the other hand was not brought up by the Israeli government until the ceasefire negotiations. If they had raised that as an issue then I think it should be in the section, but as far as I know they had not (if I am mistaken and there was a government official who did raise the issue as either a cause for the attacks or as an aim of them then please inform me as that would change my mind on this). Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First, to avoid any misunderstanding, I fully agree that the two issues are separate and should be treated as such, and that 'collective punishment' issue is totally relevant. But I wanted to emphasize that the logic to include both issues is similar. Second, please read the following article. Pay special attention to the following points: '“The are in the Gaza Strip, and I sincerely hope that the Strip will not be evacuated without returning Gilad Shalit,” Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said at the January 18 Cabinet meeting... Shas leader Eli Yishai, minister of Trade and Labor, agreed. “As long as Shalit isn’t home, we must not stop the IDF strikes,” he said.'; 'During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas departed from the sense it usually gives off that Shalit is a carefully guarded bargaining chip — with a price tag of around 1,400 Palestinian prisoners, according to recent demands. “Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been,” senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzuk reportedly told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat on January 11. “The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard, since he is as good as a cat, or less.”' - so during the war itself Hamas deliberately issued statements regarding their misconduct of the issue. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, I think it can go in, but I do think the whole section, not just the Shalit piece, needs to be compacted. Nableezy (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey should have a green colour at this map . Because PM Erdogan says: "They have made mistakes." Of course was his reaction to Israel bigger, but that is because Israeli troops killed more people in a shorter period than Hamas. -Randam (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that whole list is indefensible. It is, and can only be, a complete pile of OR. Some editor read a line in an article where a Latvian foreign ministry spokesman said something, so the editor just inserts the claim that Latvian policy is that, to the exclusion of all other things. An editor can't know that. A source can't really know that either but at least we can point to who said it in a Rankean way. So I think the whole list should be removed unless someone can explain to me how it can be done without OR. Lists like that are even worse than infoboxes. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty Report on who broke the ceasefire

This may already be in the article. But I will post this here anyway, for discussion.

This article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast references a new Amnesty report 'confirming' that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire, in November. It goes on to say that Hamas rockets caused no fatalities until the Israeli bombardment started. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable enough source.

As well, its- obviously- factually in dispute as to who bore the most responsibility for going against the ceasefire. Hamas did not end the barrage upon Israel at any point and neither did it take respon; Israel did not stop its military incursions into Gaza at any point. It's hard to 'break' something that never was upheld by either side. Whichever side was more in the wrong is a matter of opinion. The Squicks (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up last week in the New Amnesty Report section above. It links the two relevant articles if you want to read them directly. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? I read that and found two links, neither of which was to AI. The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While Abunimah's posting in Comment is Free is a reliable source for opinion and commentary, with the proviso that it should be used sparingly and only in contexts where partisan opinions are genuinely useful, it is not a reliable source for the contents of the AI report. However, AI itself is a highly significant resource, in the top tier of reliable sources, and the attacks made by some editors here on AI's credibility (often nothing more than rote repetitions of claims by irrelevant and obscure Israeli groups like NGO Monitor) are appalling. It's dismaying that the same completely worthless arguments (AI reached a conclusion that is damning of Israeli actions, therefore AI is biased against Israel, therefore AI's conclusions are to be rejected - you can substitute "AI" with any source you like, even Israeli journalists) are recycled endlessly here despite their utter lack of foundation in Misplaced Pages policy or even common sense. <eleland/talkedits> 03:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

AI is not in the top tier of reliable sources, especially in these sorts of articles. Your assessment of NGO Monitor is absurd and so is your rant on the glory of AIs "proven" credibility inside Israel. AI always reaches conclusion that are damning against Israel, shocker there. Guess that's it then, AI is the truth-bearer and everything else is nothing less than a Jew Israeli fascist propaganda. Of course, Israel, being one of the most transparent countries in the Middle East (not much of an accomplishment when your competition is mixture of theocracies and dictatorships), has continually offered thorough rebuttals that have gone largely ignored. AI has a fetal obsession with Israel and promoting their "reports" as "highly" significant in terms of reliability is disturbing. Yes, we are obligated to use their info because they are inherently significant by virtue of being one of the most cited advocacy organizations in the world. I am just beefed with your false representation and POV that has little to do what constitutes reliable sources. Next. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are the best sources there are for information on human rights violations. They are widely regarded as the best sources. Your oh-so-witty remark about how I hate "Jew Israeli fascists" is a grave personal attack and you should erase it. Most of your post is irrelevant and unintelligible, to the point where you're responding to quotes that don't even appear in the previous post ("proven?" what?) <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

→This is what AI writes: A ceasefire agreed in June between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza held for four and a half months, but broke down after Israeli forces killed six Palestinian militants in air strikes and other attacks on 4 November. Of course, we can say that AI accused Israel of breaking down the ceasefire. The question is was it really so? As The Squicks pointed out correclty, neither side hold to ceasefire - Hamas did not end the barrage upon Israel and besides didn't stop smuggling, while Israel eased the blockade only slightly and did not stop its military incursions into Gaza. All the above the AI ignores, and what is more - they disregard that according to IDF, the attack on Nov. 4 was against a Hamas-dug tunnel from Gaza to Israel that could have presumably served to attack and even kidnap more Israeli soldiers. And you would argue, Eleland, that AI are not biased against Israel? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go on with the AI report to 'Military justice system' section, 'Prisoner releases' subsection. 'In July, the Israeli authorities released five Lebanese prisoners, one of them held since 1979 and four captured during the 2006 war.' Do you realize, Eleland, that the one held since 1979 is Samir Kuntar? Do you know what he did to that 4-year-old girl he held as a hostage? Now that is something truly appalling. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is dubious to say a ceasefire was agreed upon because both parties had their own specific conditions, many of which were not mutual. In regards to Sceptic's stat on prison release, Israel has traded over 7,000 prisoners for ~20 Israeli's and a pair of dead bodies. Funny, Israel is the only country on Earth that officially negotiates and completes transactions with recognized terrorist movements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's move further, to Palestinian Authority complemenary report: Background - 'The Israeli government maintained a tight blockade of the Gaza Strip, a form of collective punishment of its 1.5 million population, for the continuing detention there of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.' - oh really? Not only do they misquote the definition of collective punishment, they again 'forget' to mention here hundreds of rockets. Well, they do mention them in a distant 'Abuses by armed groups' section: 'Palestinian armed groups in Gaza frequently launched indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian areas in southern Israel. From the beginning of the year until the ceasefire in June, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, including groups affiliated to Hamas and Fatah, fired more than 2,000 rockets and mortars against nearby Israeli towns and villages.' and then 'After the breakdown of the ceasefire in November, rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza against Israel resumed but did not result in further deaths of Israeli civilians until after the onset of the 27 December offensive by Israeli forces' - does it mean Israel had to wait until someone got killed? There were more than enough who suffered from shock. Interestingly, on Dec.26 one rocket killed 'accidently' two girls in Gaza itself. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone but Eleland is disputing AI's habitual use of inaccurate and at times libelous sources to support analysis. But, the question is notability. How much weight should we give the AI report? It is a certified-RS and is widely used by media, most notably BBC. Whatever dirt we dig up as users is irrelevant and could constitute OR if it were crafted into the article. If we can find a 3rd party source or simply rely on IDF briefings, tackling the "facts" problem shouldn't be much of an issue. Though there must be 3rd party reliable sources that explicitly corroborate intellectual negligence on a part of AI's "investigations." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's always NGO Monitor, that Eleland so despises. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no issue with NGO Monitor and don't see anything particularly wrong in their assessments. It doesn't hide behind a facade of neutrality and moral outrage as the monitor is loaded with former IDF commandos and isn't really ashamed of it.:D If NGO monitor were to explicitly challenge AI, or offer a differing POV, we could include it..though that would be debated for sure. I honestly haven't read the full article in about a week so NGO might actually already be here. Here is Israel disputing, AP. That is basically a copy and paste of Harretz. Not sure are far this will go but it could be used to substantiate Israeli claims: Hamas did blah blah blah. NYT is a certified RS for those who are unaware. As far as I'm concerned it's a sick fight but obviously there is far more information from RS that illustrate a strongly critical portrait of Israeli actions and if so facto Israeli math no matter how logical it might seem. For now screening out blatant libel and preventing criticism forks should be a goal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Monitor do explicitely challenge AI, at least their annual report. The info you bring here is already in the article, scattered where due. What is more, I find it extremely important to keep the reports of the think-tanks - they provide valuable encyclopedic information.

→Back to the start. Of course, in accordance with Wiki policies, we can say that AI accused Israel of breaking the cease-fire on Nov. 4. The question is high will it improve the article from encyclopedical POV? We've established that neither side exactly obeyed the terms of the lull (and that is covered well in the article and subarticle); moreover, Israel (at least according to IDF) had a very good reason to launch an attack on Nov. 4. So, I am asking again - is there any encyclopedical reason to include the accusation, apart from singling out Israel and veil the Hamas' responsibility? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Outside of typical Arab media, AI is the sole crusader and I can't see why it deserves a unique voice beyond general concerns. The IDF has basically provided a tit-for-tat analysis in response to most, if not all AI accusations. We would legally have to include the evidence IDF presents because leaving AI's accusation unanswered gives a false sense of ambiguity that could be translated into reality. The issue is so contested and disputed that it might make sense to simply cut the issue right down the middle. The consensus isn't Israel violated the cease-fire but neither is it Hamas baited Israel into a war. So perhaps we should deal an equal voice to all sides, or fall on policy and only provide accusations per due weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying. CNN, (also quoting US News and World Report) The Manchester Guardian, the Irish Times, and yes even Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz are not "typical Arab media." I'd also like to know your reaction if somebody here started talking about "typical Jewish media." <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As a more general response to the above back-slapping session from WikiFan and Skeptic, you two have reached the point where you're using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for your personal views about Amnesty and about the Middle East conflicts generally. This is just disruptive. I'm tempted to point out some of the howling factual inaccuracies in your little gab-fest ("Israel is the only country on Earth that officially negotiates and completes transactions with recognized terrorist movements" is a favorite of mine, lolololol) but honestly, just quiet down. People are trying to edit Misplaced Pages in accordance with policy and can do without this kind of disruption. <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused. This has little to do with what you said previously. As far as I know Israel is the only country in the ME with several native RS-certified (wikipedia) media organizations, with the exception of AJ though I do not know why that is considered reliable. While clearly off topic and I apologize if this hijacking, but those agreements/parties/movements you linked are hardly comparable to Israeli policy. The ANC was more militant than terrorist, and the rest excluding Ireland aren't a fair mention either. Let me rephrase: Israel consistently negotiates with terrorist, more so than any other country in the Middle East and pound for pound more so than every country on Earth. This is what Syria does when its faced with a militant movement and what they perceive as a terrorist-threat: Hama massacre and Tel al-Zaatar massacre. Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go reread, Eleland, your initial post on this thread and try to realize how aggressive, disruptive and biased it is.

I wonder whether you read this Guardian article beyond the headline. At least according to IDF, there was a good reason for the raid. AI doesn't mention it. There were rockets and mortars during the lull well before Nov. 4. Nobody mentions it. Nevermind. All the details are already in the article. I ask you again - is there any encyclopedical value to add AI accusation, apart from singling out Israel and veil the Hamas' responsibility? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you claimed that no country except Israel had ever signed treaties with designated terrorist organizations; I showed this to be false, and now you come back saying well, maybe other countries have entreated with designated terrorist groups, but those groups aren't comparable with the groups Israel negotiates with (for unspecified reasons,) and anyway the point is Israel negotiates more with them, "pound for pound," (but you provide no evidence whatsoever for this, nor do you specify what "pound for pound" even means,) and oh boy those Syrians over yonder are a nasty bunch aren't they!

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously? You make confident declamations on matters you clearly know absolutely nothing about and when you're proven wrong you just make other confident declamations.

Sceptic, Wikifan claimed that only AI and those nasty A-rabs claimed that Israel broke the ceasefire, I show this to be false, and you come back saying maybe Israel broke the ceasefire but they were justified in doing so. Again, we can argue about that if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Wikifan has made anther false statement. If you want me to stop being "aggressive," get him to stop making things up. Until then I'm going to "aggressively" point out that he's talking smack. <eleland/talkedits> 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. I said beyond AI and state-owned Arab media (which you racistly refer to "nasty a-rabs," though perhaps that is in jest), no media endorses their version. BBC linked AI's report, as did several other news organizations. You've been making false assumptions and damn near libelous propositions that have fortunately not been edited into the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I made any claims about peace treaty signings. Find me a diff where I mention anything of the sort, please. Go ahead. I don't really expect anything. You equalized British/SA "treaties" as a competing example towards Israel's policy. Do you think the British army will ever trade 150 captured Iraqi insurgents for a dead british soldier? Have they ever done so? No, they haven't. To simply dismiss Syrian actions where their military killed more people in a single day than all Palestinians killed directly by Israeli fire over the last 40 years (when Egypt and Jordan no longer occupied the territories) as "yonder are a nasty bunch aren't they" says a lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What I find shocking that is that many people- such as Andrew Sullivan are proud of the fact that they don't think for themselves and they trust what they read on Misplaced Pages about things like who broke the ceasefire. The Squicks (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast There isn't anyone here who would consider this a reliable source in this context is there?

Definitely not by this blog, worth reading: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/06/nyt-repeats-egyptian-journalists-lie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• As of now, the section in this article on the cease-fire currently reads:

On November 4, 2008, Israeli forces raided a Hamas-dug tunnel near the Israel-Gaza border. The IDF claimed the tunnel was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers while Hamas asserted that the tunnel served defensive purposes. The raid and the associated air strike killed six Hamas fighters. Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel in what was described by a Hamas spokesman as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce". According to a November 17 article in The Daily Telegraph, "since violence flared on November 5, Israeli forces and militants, some of them from Hamas, have engaged in almost daily tit-for-tat exchanges." Rocket attacks targeted at Israeli cities near Gaza sharply increased during November 2008, approaching pre-truce levels.

I don't really see what the AI report would add to this paragraph. It already has all the information necessary. Prehaps something like Amnesty International later point to the raid as the effective end of the ceasefire. would be worth including in the 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire main page? I don't see any real reason to add it to this page (Although I'm not opposed to it to the extent that I would make a big deal out of it). The Squicks (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever prior feelings I had toward the Palestinians, the image that Sceptic linked to of a Palestinian man brutally mistreating a harmless pink fluffy bunny that only wanted to be his friend has torn it.

I bet they kick puppies in their spare time as well. / sarc The Squicks (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the man is considered a national hero among the Palestinians and much of the Arab world. Most militants/convicted murders/etc.. are glorified, shocker. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palis are more 'Duck' fans then they are 'Bunny' fans. I can somewhat sympathize. That fuzzy little bro probably crossdressed to entice and then confuse the man, honked him on the nose, stole his aid package, and then remarked "Ain't I a stinker?" The Squicks (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the language and the contents of the latest posts, maybe that's for good 'cause I don't think it's appropriate. If this is about Kuntar, than it should be noticed that he is Druze by nationality btw. All this is completely irrelevant - all nations has its heros and villains - but was to show the bias of AI, that are unable to call spade a spade. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN inquiry

I don't like the paragraph:

Ban Ki-Moon ordered a UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry led by Ian Martin to independently investigate the nine most serious attacks on UN personnel and property. Israel was faulted in seven of the nine cases including an attack on a UNRWA school in Jabalia that killed between 30 and 40 people. The report accused Israel of "gross negligence amounting recklessness" men and stated that allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted." Hamas was found guilty in one of the nine cases. Ban was to seek up to $11 million in damages from Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, '...an attack on a UNRWA school ...' - even the source cited says that mortar shells landed near an UNRWA school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering. Seven people were wounded inside the school, but an estimated 30-40 people were killed nearby.

Second, '...allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted."... Well, at least in case of the UNRWA school, this is not exactly correct:

Witnesses, including Hanan Abu Khajib, 39, said that Hamas fired just outside the school compound, probably from the secluded courtyard of a house across the street, 25 yards from the school. Israeli return fire, some minutes later, also landed outside the school, along the southwest wall, killing two Hamas fighters. Nearly all the casualties were in the street outside the compound, with only three people wounded from shrapnel inside the walls.

I would have added another sentence, like: 'Israeli officials rejected the report as one-sided, saying it ignored the fact that Israel was fighting a war against a "terrorist" organization -- the militant group Hamas.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be also noted that 'During the probe, the army also looked into a complaint filed by the United Nations that the air force had bombed an UNRWA vehicle in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City. The probe revealed that the vehicle was bombed since it did not have markings and was driving at night in an area off limits to civilian vehicles' - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

For those who want to read an IDF side of the story (if there are any) - here you are. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic the UN and media treats every Israeli report with extreme hostility and doubt - opposed to accepting everything from the Palestinian camp as unquestioned truth. The UN is above Israel in terms of "reliability" because it is considered a 3rd party and does not "take sides" (i.e, does not "officially" endorse Hamas or IDF). We should definitely beef up IDF dispute but I don't see how we can screen out not-so-nice UN rhetoric without compromising wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban Ki-Moon ordered a UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry led by Ian Martin to independently investigate the nine most serious attacks on UN personnel and property. Israel was faulted in seven of the nine cases, and Hamas was found guilty in one of the nine. One of those included an attack near a UNRWA school in Jabalia that the UN says killed between 30 and 40 people, while the IDF says 12- most of them militants- died. The report accused Israel of "gross negligence" and also stated that allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted." The report confirmed that Hamas militants fired from near the school and then ran beside it. Ban plans to seek up to $11 million in damages from Israel.

Is this better? The Squicks (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, the 2nd to last sentence obviously being the most crucial addition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Much much better. 2 small reservations: I would use another word for attack near school - an incident for example (it wasn't something planned beforehand); and militants didn't just die, it should be rephrased somehow. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have added also that: The IDF conducted its own probe into claims regarding incidents where UN and international facilities were fired upon and damaged. The investigation concluded that in all the 13 cases investigated, there was no deliberate intention to hit a UN vehicle or facility; the findings published argue that in all cases except one, the damage resulted either from retaliatory fire or from misuse of the UN vehicles by Hamas militants. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have added yet another sentence, like: Israeli officials rejected the report as one-sided, saying it ignored the fact that Israel was fighting a war against a terrorist organization. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The preamble to IntLaw section

Long long time ago, before I even concieved the idea of joining the forum, there was this sentence and a half that opened the preamble:

'Under international law warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensure that attacks on legitimate military targets are proportional, and guarantee that the military advantage of such attacks outweigh the possible harm done to civilians. Violations of these laws are considered war crimes.' - the source was this advisory service.

Interestingly enough, only the first part of it appear in the ICRC report. All the part about proportionality principle must have been taken from elsewhere. Anyway, I like the idea and I think this is a proper way to start the section. Here is a suggestion:

Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), contained in Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977, warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians and protect those who do not take part in the fighting (such as civilians and medical and religious military personnel) or those who have ceased to take part in the fighting (such as wounded).

It could also be noted (Cryptonio pay attentiont, but please don't make the whole thread out of it) that:

The law sets out a number of clearly recognizable symbols which can be used to identify protected people, places and objects, such as the red cross, the red crescent and the symbols identifying cultural property and civil defense facilities.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are such a kid. When you finish sucking on your thumb, why don't you also ask mommy to change your diaper? Cryptonio (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The preamble was out of place and not related to the prose. The information is still in but it was moved after plenty of discussion.Cptnono (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

recent additions

Does anybody have a problem with this revert? The "Backed by civilian human-shields, civilian buildings as covers." in the infobox for the Hamas strength has been going on with this user for some time, been reverted by multiple users and I dont really see the need to explain why it doesnt belong, but if somebody insists I will. The rest is all making the Israeli position appear to be undisputed fact and making Palestinian viewpoints seem to be complete bullshit. "Israel suspected" becomes "Israel confirmed", "Israel accused" becomes presented as absolute fact or even becomes "Israel verified". OR such as "But others have noted that Hamas deliberately kept non-combatants in dangerous areas, knowing that launching rockets would sooner or later draw Israeli fire. It has also been said that Hamas could have built shelters for the civilians in the areas they intended to make into "Hot Zones," as their prowess in building underground tunnels has been clearly demonstrated." is inserted, and other similar nonsense. Does anybody else see any merit at all to the material I reverted? Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Doonizs is the user that vandalised my user page with 'NEUTRALITY? YOU TALK ABOUT NEUTRALITY? YOU ARE AN ANTISEMITE ISLAMIC FANATIC TERRORISTS SUPPORTER.' and regarded replacing the word 'British' with 'English' as being related to punctuality. So I would say that they probably need to stop editing this article and read the guidelines or else they will end up getting posted on the Administrators' noticeboard when one of us loses our patience. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I agree with you entirely and would have done the same if I had spotted them before you. Those are unverifiable speculations, good for blogs rather than encyclopedia. However, if the guy appears on the talk page first, and presents the source to his speculations, I might help him to put them in the article.

I also agree with Sean - the guy got the warning. If those acts will continue - a noticeboard right away. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Miscomprehensions of AI report

1. 'AI stated that the destruction of hundreds of homes may be in violation of international human rights law, which applies in peacetime and times of war.' - I don't like this sentence. Too ambiguous and implies that apparently Israel violated IHL. You can say such a sentence about everything - for example, killing in war may be a breach of IHL. Let's see closer to the actual wording of the AI report: 'Israel is forbidden from destroying the property of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, unless it is militarily necessary to do so.' So, unless someone gives me a good reason to leave the sentence, I intend to delete it.
2. 'AI determined that Israel had violated human rights laws with regard to access to food, water, housing and education in the conflict.' - there is indeed sentence that 'Israel has not only failed to adequately supply the population of Gaza, it has deliberately blocked and otherwise impeded emergency relief and humanitarian assistance'. Well, I have some pieces of evidence that at least to some extent the contrary is true, so I would substitute the word 'determined'. Next, what about housing and education? The report says 'During the conflict in Gaza, the human rights obligations that have been breached include the obligations to respect, protect and promote: the right to life (ICCPR, Article 6)22; the right to adequate food and housing (ICESCR, Article 11); the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (ICESCR, Article 12), which also includes the right to water; and the right to education (ICESCR, Article 13).23' - it doesn't say breached by Israel. It is true the paragraph focuses on 'OPT under Israel control'. However, to determine that Israel (and not Hamas) breached them is to determine that all the houses/schools/etc. were not used for military purposes and were hit deliberately by IDF. This far even AI doesn't go. So, please, we should be very careful, should we not? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1: The whole quote from the AI report: As the occupying power, Israel is forbidden from destroying the property of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, unless it is militarily necessary to do so. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that:
“Any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”
Israel’s aerial bombardment, artillery shelling and ground assault have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. In some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed. It is too early to assess the full extent of the damage; but satellite images suggest that it is devastating – particularly in areas such as Rafah in the south, and parts of the north and east of the Gaza Strip that had already suffered from illegal house destruction by Israeli forces on a mass scale prior to the disengagement in 2005.
According to Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” is a grave breach and hence a war crime.

I dont think you can remove it, but if you want to add "unless it is militarily necessary to do so" fine, but I would also add this (paraphrased) "Israel’s aerial bombardment, artillery shelling and ground assault have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. In some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed."

2:remove housing and education, doesnt fit with the rest. Nableezy (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, I'll rephrase later the statement about the destruction and you'll add the rest. In a meanwhile I'll seek something about the buildings that were deliberately destroyed. You'll see that eventually it will be transformed to the subsection on its own.
2. We'll leave the food and the medicine, but if you don't mind with the little contribution from the MFA: 'The World Food Programme has informed Israel (on Dec. 31) that they will not be resuming shipment of food commodities in to Gaza due to the fact that their warehouses are at full capacity and will last for approximately two weeks.'; 'Today (Wednesday, December 31 2008), 12 Palestinians entered Israel for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals...Ninety three trucks, with approximately 2500 tons of humanitarian aid, medical supplies and medication were conveyed through Kerem Shalom cargo terminal.' BTW, at one point Egypt blamed Hamas for preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from leaving for treatment in Egypt. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

GAZA HUMANITARIAN SITUATION REPORT 2 January 2009 as of 14:30; Food shortages in Gaza; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, FYI, Israeli response to Amnesty International report. Do you remember, Nableezy, our disagreement over reports that Hamas intimidates Gaza civilians (not necessarily political rivals)? I couldn't find strong and appropriate words to convince most of you that it is important info and must be included. At least, it turns out I am backed by Israeli officials: 'The witnesses providing the descriptions appearing in the report are interested parties and under Hamas pressure, as has been documented by many independent investigations in the international media. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and employs terror against its own citizens, thus rendering their testimony unreliable.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Found a secondary source: 'Officials added that the UN's World Food Program contacted the IDF on Wednesday and said that it would not need to transfer more food into Gaza, since its stockpiles were full and would last for another two weeks.' However: 'UNRWA has no wheat grain for the 750,000 people who need it," he said. "The wheat grain warehouses are empty. We need to get that wheat grain in now. This is a must'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As usual, JCPA makes most valuable observation: 'Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories such as Gaza. Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Moreover, under Article 23, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel would only be required not to interfere with consignments of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women. Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Israel has excellent grounds for fearing this result, especially after Hamas seized fourteen Red Crescent trucks carrying humanitarian aid on February 7, 2008, on the pretext that only Hamas may decide how to distribute aid in Gaza. Fuel and electricity are almost certainly not items that Israel or other warring parties are required to supply.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

→

1. Amnesty International points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL. AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip.
2. AI accused Israel of failure to provide adequate supply to the population of Gaza and deliberate impediment of emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. JCPA asserted that according to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel is only required not to interfere with consignments of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women; under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Israeli MFA claimed that more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid were allowed to Gaza from Israel and that numerous efforts for providing medical help took place in the course of the fighting. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of homes and property

Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons, when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate, citing Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which defines a site being used for military activities as a legitimate target. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence; moreover, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". Amnesty International points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL. AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Food, medical supplies and relief

AI accused Israel of failure to provide adequate supply of food, essential supplies, medicine and medical care to the population of Gaza, as well as deliberate impediment of emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. JCPA asserted that according to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel is only required not to interfere with passage of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women; under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Several instances of Hamas seizing convoys of humanitarian aid were reported before and in the course of the fighting. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid were allowed to Gaza from Israel and that numerous efforts for providing medical help took place in during the war. The emergency clinic, opened at the Erez crossing at the end of the fighting, was shut down shortly due to the low number of Palestinian patients, supposedly as a the result of a direct order by Hamas not to transfer the wounded to Israel.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone and Hamas

I'm not sure if this is in the article yet but according to the washington post Goldstone considers a possible war crimes trial for either combatants is "unlikely." More: "Israel has refused to cooperate, depriving his team access to military sources and victims of Hamas rockets. And Hamas security often accompanied his team during their five-day trip to Gaza last week, raising questions about the ability of witnesses to freely describe the militant group's actions. Not sure how crucial this is but I figured it was worth a mention. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. So far, we have: 'Israel will not participate in the inquiry'. I will add a few details to the paragraph and move it from preamble to separate subsection. Reservations/objections are welcomed. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN announced it has commissioned a team of experts, led by South African prosecutor Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the Gaza war. Israel has stated that UN Human Rights Council, which commissioned the investigation, has a history of bias against Israel and will not participate in the inquiry or cooperate with the probe. The team was deprived of access to military sources and victims of Hamas rockets in Israel, and denied Gaza Strip entrance via Israel. The Associated Press reporter noted that Hamas security had often accompanied the team during their visit to Gaza, suggesting that the ability of witnesses to freely describe the events is questionable. At the end of a four-day fact-finding trip to Gaza, the head of the team expressed his shock by the scale of the destruction in Gaza areas. Goldstone refused to comment on the ongoing investigation's content, but announced that the team will hold public hearings with the war's victims later in June, in Gaza and Geneva.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another possible addition: 'Alex Whiting, a professor at Harvard law school, said such cases are hard to investigate, especially without military records.';

As for the deliberations regarding trial for either side as "unlikely" - I wouldn't be rushing to put it in. After all, Whiting said there are few mechanisms for prosecution if crimes are uncovered. Moreover, 'A Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, said he hoped the group's report would be "like ammunition in the hands of the people who are willing to sue Israeli war criminals.". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Israel has been criticized for violating laws covering distinction. Israel has stated that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." This has been criticized as being too broad. Amnesty International has said that this definition includes, "presumptively civilian" targets such as police and government ministries that serve no military purpose. Israel has said that these government ministries and the parliament building are part of the Hamas infrastructure and as such legitimate targets. B'Tselem describes Israel's reasoning as being "legally flawed," stating that simple Hamas' affiliation does not make such locations legitimate targets.

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

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

Attacks on civil police

HRW points out that under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. HRW representative stated that a decision that police and police stations are legitimate military targets depends on whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose. IDF stated that it perceives police in Gaza as equivalent to the enemy's armed force and as such legitimate targets. Various NGOs, specifically Amnesty International, criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police. NGO Monitor responded to this criticism by saying that AI has no basis relabelling Hamas operatives as "civilian" police officers and that AI presents no evidence supporting its claim that these men were not "directly participating in the hostilities". Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) cites Gaza police officials who said that police were instructed to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias

You're only showing pictures of buildings in GAZA getting blown up. Maybe you'd like to mention the bombings of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.11.107 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We use the pictures that we have available, which for this article means free images. And we do show "bombings of Israel," the kindergarten classroom in the article is an Israeli building. However, the Palestinians didnt hit as many buildings in Israel as the Israelis did in Gaza (and the ones they did hit took much less damage), so there are not a whole lot of images of Israeli buildings being flattened to show. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/01/un_mulls_breach_in_civilian_le.html
2. "Palestinian Rocket Attacks since the IDF Withdrawal".
3. ^ "Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. January 2009.
4. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576202&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull Law professor: Hamas is a war crimes 'case study'
5. "Palestinian Rocket Attacks since the IDF Withdrawal".
6. http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/Qassam_Missiles.asp
7. "Hamas: Rocket Attacks on Israel Are 'Self Defense'". Associated Press. April 29, 2007.
8. "Palestinian Rocket Attacks since the IDF Withdrawal".
9. "Palestinian Rocket Attacks since the IDF Withdrawal".
10. Cite error: The named reference ap-msnbc-psych-war was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. "Civilians must not be targets".
12. ^ Heather Sharp (January 5 2009). "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?". Jerusalem: BBC News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. . BBC. April January 8, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
14. "Top UN official blasts Hamas for 'cynical' use of civilian facilities". Haaretz. 2009-01-28.
15. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e046.htm
16. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e055.htm
17. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e044.htm
18. ^ "Law professor: Hamas is a war crimes 'case study'". JPost. 2009-01-13.
19. "Israeli Leaders Reject Gaza Truce With Hamas". CBS5. 2008-12-31.
20. ^ Katz, Yaakov (2009-04-22). "'Haniyeh hid in hospital during Gaza op'". JPost. Retrieved 2009-04-22.
21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hamas tried to hijack ambulances during Gaza war was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
22. Cite error: The named reference Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
23. ^ "International Law and the Fighting in Gaza". JCPA. 2009-01-05.
24. ^ "Exploitation of International Law". NGO Monitor. 2009-01-21. Cite error: The named reference "Exploitation of International Law" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
25. Worsnip, Patrick (2009-05-05). Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN05321386. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
26. . United Nations. 2009-05-05 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sgsm12224.doc.htm. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
27. "Weighing Crimes and Ethics in the Fog of Urban Warfare". The NY Times. 2009-01-16.
28. "Hamas leader, 20 Palestinians killed in IAF strikes". Ynet. 2009-01-09. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
29. ^ Cite error: The named reference AI_briefing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
30. ^ "Hamas raids aid trucks, sells supplies". JPost. 2009-01-12. Cite error: The named reference "Hamas seizes aid meant for Red Crescent" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
31. "Humanitarian aid to Gaza during IDF operation". Israel MFA. 2009-01-18.
32. "Israel to close clinic at Erez crossing". YNET. 2009-01-27.
33. ^ "Goldstone's UN inquiry team arrives in Gaza". BBC. 2009-06-01. Retrieved 2009-06-04.
34. ^ "UN's Gaza war crimes investigation faces obstacles". Washington Post. June 9, 2009.
35. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090452.html
36. "Q & A on Hostilities between Israel and Hamas". HRW. 31 December, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
37. Cite error: The named reference hrw_civilians_release was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
38. "Consent and advise". Haaretz. 2009-02-05. Retrieved 2009-06-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
39. "Mounting evidence indicates". ITIC. 24 March, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles