This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RomaC (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 25 July 2009 (→"Deadliest attack in 60-year conflict"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:27, 25 July 2009 by RomaC (talk | contribs) (→"Deadliest attack in 60-year conflict")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | 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. |
|
| 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. |
 | 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.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | 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. |
|
| 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 |
Beginning of Gaza War
Further information: 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire(the dissolution section)
Since the cease fire ended in November 2008 but wasn't official till December 18, shouldn't the Gaza War battle box say the war began on November 4 when the Israelis launched their attack on the border tunnel. Resulting in 6 dead Hamas terrorists. It was then the terrorists began launching rockets at Israel again, leading to the December 27 air and artillery campaign and then the January 3 groung assault. I will now change the date to beginning on November 4 2008 instead of December 27 2008.
Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction (IntLaw-Israel)
Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction (IntLaw-Israel)
Israel has been criticized for violating laws covering distinction. Israel has stated that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." This has been criticized as being too broad. Amnesty International (AI) has said that this definition includes, "presumptively civilian" targets such as government ministries that serve no military purpose. Israel has said that these government ministries and the parliament building are part of the Hamas infrastructure and as such legitimate targets. B'Tselem describes Israel's reasoning as being "legally flawed," stating that simple Hamas' affiliation does not make such locations legitimate targets. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs asserted that under various provisions on International Law (e.g. UN Security Council Resolution 1566), Palestinian governing authorities in Gaza, whether directly involved in terror attacks or not, are criminal terrorists, by virtue of their willing provision of finance, plan, support and safe haven for terrorists. AI and B'Tselem point out that in many instances, IDF targeted civilian buildings without providing explanation for the attack, and some of such attacks raise the strong possibility that Israel may have violated the prohibition against targeting objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. AI asserts that those instances would violate Articles 51, 52 and 54 of Protocol I. CSIS report notes that the IDF admits it did hit some purely civilian targets, including UN facilities; it is not clear, however, that combatants were not in or near such targets, and the laws of war only require an effort to discriminate - not perfect success. AI further notes that Israel’s firing of artillery, shelling from tanks and from naval ships into densely populated civilian areas in Gaza and may also amount to indiscriminate attacks.
In June 2009, HRW issued a report entitled "Precisely wrong", presenting an investigation of several UAV attacks that resulted in large civilian death. HRW concluded that in the cases probed, Israeli forces either failed to take all feasible precautions to verify that the targets were combatants, or failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only the former; as a result, HRW deduce that these attacks violated International Humanitarian Law. The Israeli military did not cooperate with HRW on the report and said that the report appeared to be based on "unnamed and unreliable Palestinian sources" whose military expertise was "unproven". In cases where IDF operations led to the loss of civilian lives, the army said it was not intentional, but a "regretful result of the circumstances that were not under the control of the military forces, or the result of unexpected operational mistakes." Spike's manufacturer, Rafael, says the missile can be fired by helicopters, infantry units and naval craft; ...But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Amnesty's117-page report was based on physical evidence and testimony gathered by a team of four researchers, including a military expert, from dozens of attack sites in Gaza and southern Israel during and after the war.
The pattern of Israeli attacks and the high number of civilian casualties "showed elements of reckless conduct, disregard for civilian lives and property and a consistent failure to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects," Amnesty charged.
Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed using high-precision weapons, while others were shot at close range, the group Amnesty International says.
The report, the IDF said, ignores the efforts the military made to minimize harm to innocent civilians. "During Cast Lead, the IDF used technologies, combat methods and advanced platforms all intended to minimize the risk to the civilian population," the statement read.
The IDF said that in many cases, before entering an area in Gaza, it dropped millions of flyers, made personal phone calls to homes of Palestinians and broke into the radio waves to warn civilians of the impending operation.
--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Week without progress - very bad. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- On hold. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of proportionality (IntLaw-Israel)
AI claims that some attacks on homes of Hamas leaders have killed dozens of civilians, even though it should have been apparent to Israeli forces that the target of attack was not likely to be present or that civilians were likely to be killed in the attack. This conduct may amount to disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, that: “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” (Article 51(5b) of Additional Protocol I). Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence; moreover, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". CSIS report notes that Israel planned its air and air-land campaigns in ways that clearly discriminated between military and civilian targets and that were intended to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage, by systematic and comprehensive use of its IS&R assets, careful mapping, GPS abilities and guidance from targeting experts briefed in the laws and conventions of war. The report concludes that this aspect of the IDF‘s actions met the key legal test that the anticipated military advantage did not outweigh the risk to civilians.
--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- This section is under construction - feel free to edit and add. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
→In a meantime, I want you to take a look at B'Tselem report. I am reading it now and frankly - I am surprised. I expected much more criticism in a more harsh manner. I think I will not be able to stop myself from providing a few exerpts from there. But before that - a little soapboxing. p. 13 - 'It is clear that Hamas is responsible for the firing of rockets at Israelis. However, as the governing authority in the Gaza Strip, it is also responsible for the functioning of daily life.' - so it is inevitable to conclude that Gaza is not occupied by Israel any more. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I admit, I wasn't aware of the fact that B'Tselem can actually criticize something Palestinian as well, but on the 1st page of the report they say: 'As an Israeli organization, B’Tselem focuses on the acts of Israel and its human rights responsibilities; accordingly, this document does not address the conduct of the Palestinian side in the fighting. However, B’Tselem states at the outset that Hamas committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Directing rockets at a civilian population, shooting at soldiers from inside civilian neighborhoods, while endangering the lives of the residents, storing weapons in civilian structures, and execution of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel are all absolutely forbidden.'
- 'It is undisputed that application of these principles in the Gaza Strip is complex, given that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and any error could be fatal. In addition, it appears that Hamas members systematically breached these principles. Indeed, it is not exact science and commanders in the field must make rapid decisions while often lacking full knowledge of the facts. However, Israel is still required to act according to the principles of international humanitarian law, and to take into account the presence of civilians both near and within areas that the military attacks.' - fair enough. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Attacks on civil police
HRW points out that under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. HRW representative stated that a decision that police and police stations are legitimate military targets depends on whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose. IDF stated that it perceives police in Gaza as equivalent to the enemy's armed force and as such legitimate targets. Various NGOs, specifically Amnesty International, criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police. Israeli NGO Monitor responded to this criticism by saying that AI presented no evidence supporting its claim that these men were not Hamas operatives. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) cites Gaza police officials who said that police were instructed to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip.
--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- This subsection is almost ready. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the allegation that some/many police moonlight as militants is important. Do you need me to pull a couple sources? I can see this not screwing up any section as long as it is worded carefully.Cptnono (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would take out the NGO monitor sentence, it provides nothing in the way of an actual rebuttal and amounts to just saying "no you are wrong" Nableezy (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cptnono, by all means. If you come across additional sources - please bring them in. Meanwhile, I came across another piece of info recently. Unfortunately, it is only a newspaper article and the factual report couldn't be found on inet. FYI, Orient Research Group is a team of Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Report: Most Hamas 'officers' killed in Gaza were terrorists: 'The report says 286 of the 343 "police officers" killed were members of terror organizations, the vast majority of them belonging to Hamas' military wings.'; 'The report also refers to the claim that the first Air Force strike of the Gaza offensive hit a ceremony attended by members of a Hamas traffic police training course...78 of the 89 were terror operatives, many of them belonging to the al-Qassam Brigades.'. I consider a "castling" - to insert this report in the 'disputed figures' subsection instead of ITIC, and here to add another sentence, saying that 'ITIC presents numerous examples of double affiliation of civil police with the Hamas military wing, during the fighting and in ordinary times'.
- You know, Nableezy, as a general policy I would agree with you not to include baseless statements like "you are wrong" / "no you are wrong". However, in this particular case there was a rationale, I would be delighted to receive feedback from others on the matter. So, here was my line of thinking: criticism from HRW on the police issue ('Israel should not make a blanket decision...') was at least fair - they did provide the legal definitions and pointed out under what circumstances it would be acceptable to attack civil police. The case with AI report on this particular matter is different. The only sentence devoted to police is: 'They attacked civilian police, killing more than 150.'. They don't bother to mention that under certain circumstances it is legal to attack them. Nor do they present evidence that 150 killed were indeed civilian policemen, unaffiliated to Hamas military wing. (it should be noted that AI was more fair elsewhere - in the destructed homes section they mention that houses may be demolished if there was a military necessity). So, I think that Monitor makes a correct observation - AI presents no evidence supporting its claim, while Israeli-affiliated sources (like the ITIC I cite constantly) present numerous evidencies that police in Gaza is an integral part of a military establishment and that its members serve as fighters as well. What I'm trying to say is that AI makes nothing more than a baseless statement "you are wrong" themselves; the fact that AI is more notable than the rest should not undermine the case of unfair and unsubstantiated criticism - as I showed above, HRW was more constructive in their criticism. By keeping the AI sentence and removing Monitor sentence we are left with a very presumptuous one-sided and unbased statement, aren't we? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well I disagree that AI provided no evidence but that isnt all that important (they provided evidence that the initial striks took place in a traffic police and a cadet graduation ceremony, not exactly hardened fighters). The important stuff is what the ITIC said because they actually said something, the NGO monitor provides nothing of use here. I dont really care, but I would say cutting out whatever is redundant and can go should be done. Nableezy (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- The NGO statements acts as a justified affirmation that analysis outside of the IDF exists to combat AI's reports. Considering the relevance and relationship NGOM has with Palestine I believe the inclusion makes sense and is not "redundant." However, I do think this needs to be improved:"Various NGOs, specifically Amnesty International, criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police." Can we be more specific in regards to "Various NGOS?" What NGOs? Did they all collectively criticize Israel (we should say Israel military/IDF for accuracy) for targeting Hamas policeman? Where is Hamas in this picture? I know for a fact leaders such as Khaled Mashal have routinely referred to the population of Gaza as a unified weapon against the Zionist entity...more or less. They have not denied ordering fighters to dress up as civilians, or civil-serviceman, or using women as shields or tactical assets, etc..etc..etc. Can we merge the opinion of the main and true combatant rather than continuing to rely on AI and other activist organizations to rebuff Israeli actions? It would certainly make the article more informational and less-propaganda driven. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Laziness, Wikifan, is one of the sins, and I was definitely lazy. I am almost sure B'Tselem said those cadets were trained to carry out purely civil duties, I will look it out later. If anyone can bring similar acusations from other NGOs - please help. As for the second part - 'the opinion of the main and true combatant' - I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. Well, I recall in one of the articles cited there are words of a Palestinian fighter, who says something like 'I am a fighter and I am a civilian...' , but I don't see how is it helpful, especially here (apart from the fact that he violated perfudy principle...)
- Nableezy, please don't take offense but seems like you still don't understand the meaning of fighter/combatant/member of terrorist organization. The fact that at the moment of the attack those cadets didn't held guns and shot and attended ceremony, doesn't contradict that at some point they were trained for terrorist activities as well/were instructed to fight IDF in case of intrusion/took part in some of Hamas actions. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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...)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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'.
- 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)
- 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)
<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)
- That is a BLP vio (the senile part) and for somebody who cries about others soapboxing you seem to have yours out pretty regularly. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you are saying here, but like Eleland I dont feel like having to prove your inane assertions to be bogus. Sceptic, I'll answer you in a bit. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Relax. It's just the internet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Take your time, Nableezy. I didn't plan to insert the police subsection before the upper section is constructed and there's a work to do. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- That is a BLP vio (the senile part) and for somebody who cries about others soapboxing you seem to have yours out pretty regularly. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you are saying here, but like Eleland I dont feel like having to prove your inane assertions to be bogus. Sceptic, I'll answer you in a bit. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- I thought you were banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
→From B'Tselem report (see above): 'On the first day of the operation, 27 December 2008, the air force bombed the central Police headquarters in the Gaza Strip, killing 42 cadets standing in their morning formation. One of the cadet trainers told B’Tselem that during the course, cadets study first-aid, crowd control methods, exercises in maintaining order, and the like. The policemen are then assigned to various branches of the civilian police in the Gaza Strip.' I am not sure this is a bold accusation, but it certainly implies that the attack on the cadets wasn't exactly "kosher". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not "kosher?" Uhhh...bad joke methinks. I'm almost certain civilian police are under the auspices of Hamas. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly what we are talking about. Nobody denies they received the special training in trafficing/first aid/etc. But it doesn't change the fact that most of them (78 of 89 according to the source above) were at the same time active members of terror squads; moreover, all the Israeli sources I cite agree that under Hamas, police is anyway integrated in its military wing (an indirect evidence is that police chiefs got specific instructions to fight IDF in case of incursion). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Source 302 Heather Sharp (January 5 2009). "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?". Jerusalem: BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm. "The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted." and http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-gaza-scene1 "Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank u, Cptnono, we will use LA Times. As for BBC, we have 2 huge problems with it, and one problem was already discussed here. You see, BBC writes: 'However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities.' As I tried to show before, this sentence is very inaccurate interpretation of what HRW actually said. HRW said that if a policemen is a Hamas fighter - he can be attacked; if he is not a Hamas fighter but from time to time moonlight with Hamas squads - they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities. The second problem with BBC is the following sentence: 'The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".' - this is a complete miscomprehension of both ICRC and Geneva conventions. The whole subject is not so straight-forward. Later today I will start new separate subsection and will provide actual ICRC deliberations on the issue; I hope that will end our endless loop discussions on the police matters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, I think you are wrong on what HRW said. Also, and this isnt directly related and I am having trouble finding it, but the ICRC during the Lebanon war said that they had to treat Hezbollah fighters once they put down their weapons, ie no longer directly engaged, saying that once they did so they became non-combatants. But will get sources for this and for what HRW said. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- HRW: Police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. source This seems fairly clear, that police who are Hamas fighters can be targeted "whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in hostilities". Not that they can be attacked at any time. Nableezy (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking at it as Israel's reason not if it is justified or not. There is no reason not to put in "Israel targeted police since they/some/most are militants. HRW and others say it is bad and illegal because...." we can go plenty of different ways but we need to keep in mind that some source (BBC) will show both side of the coin sometimes. As long as the mention is in there from whatever source I am happy, though.Cptnono (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know, Nableezy. it amazes me how we see the same text and cite the same sources, but we read it differently and can't convince each other. As I said, I will soon publish the latest ICRC deliberations on the matter. Meanwhile, try once again to follow me: each civilian (policeman for that matter, or worker, or engineer or a nurse at the hospital) can be sorted to one of the three groups. First one - strictly civilian, not affiliated to any kind of armed forces, never participated in any kind of armed struggle - they are not legal targets. Second group - those who are not formally part of armed forces, but once in a while "moonlight" with armed groups - they loose their civilian protection for the course of the active participation in hostilities. Third group - those who are regular fighters - they are legal military objectives any time. What you fail to understand is that a policeman (or a nurse or a baker - whoever) can simultaneously hold a civil job and at the same time - be an active member of armed group. The ITIC report I cite regularly presents evidence that some of the policemen killed had ranks in a civil police and at the same time had ranks at al-Qassam brigades. How do I make you comprehend this? A youngster can at the same time be a pupil in school and a member of Scouts movement - he doesn't cease to be scout when he attends his classes. I was at a certain point an officer in the IDF and a student in university - I didn't cease to be an active member of military forces when I went to studies. This is why 'while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted' means that if a policeman is a Hamas fighter - he can be targeted anytime. If he is not, i.e. he has no rank or membership in military wing and only seldom helps launching rockets - only then can you say that they can be attacked only when participating in hostilities. (N.B. still they can be targeted if the police as an establishment is incorporated in armed forces). Again, you don't have to answer right away - wait for ICRC sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The difference with your situation was that Israel has a standard "army" which makes the definitions much easier with them, you did not cease being an officer because you were formally incorporated within that defined structure. With Hamas they certainly have "fighters" but no real army so the definitions get muddled up. I am going to look for some other sources that can help shed some light for us, and I swear I read the ICRC thing about Hezbollah but cannot find it on any of the internets. Will get back to this over the weekend. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, it is how you read it. Is being active while participating in that function or regularly participating in it. I don't really care. We should throw the info in (using direct quotes if necessary) and let the fact speak for themselves since it looks like we are bordering on attempting to translate bureaucrospeak to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nableezy, yes, the definition for the soldier in the regular army, IDF style, is much easier - you know exactly when the person was recruited, when he demobilized and when he was remobilized as a reservist. But still, it doesn't mean that al-Qassam brigades do not qualify as regular armed forces - they do, they have clear military structure, hierarchy, etc. Maybe you are not familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now I believe you that somewhere in the not-so-distant past you saw the ICRC commentaries on Hizballah fighters - and if you find it I will be delighted to read it. Cptnono, I have no problem in presenting both sides of the story and to throw the info in, but I do object using info (like BBC article) that claim to cite someone - and it turns out the citation is erroneous. I think this is the case where secondary source is much much worse than the primary one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure they have a command structure and hierarchy, but for our purposes it is hard to say they have an "army" or "armed forces". Now I am not an expert in international law (I sometimes play one on Misplaced Pages) but from what I have read, including an Israeli High Court decision, is that people who partake in hostilities are civilians breaking the law and may be attacked while doing so, but while not doing so they can be arrested but not attacked by the military, and this is specifically because it is not a standard "army". Nableezy (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong - read below. BTW, you realize I hope that when talking about Gaza Strip, it is simply unrealistic to just arrest the one who breaks he law. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I mean, the Israeli law... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- We get into this discussion we will go in circles about the rule of law in an occupation or whether or not it is an occupation. Will look at the below and see if I can find some more authoritative sources. Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The occupation isuue is simply irrelevant because the ICRC report covers all the possible situations - if you want to understand the issue (and stop relying on mass-media), and you don't trust my exerpts - read it yourself. You will see that either way you look at it, Hamas military wing is an armed group to the conflict. Just because they are not a regular army as IDF and just because they sometimes violate conduct of a regular army (and become unpriveleged combatants, not only because Israeli court said so, but because any court, including ICRC would say the same) - don't give them more protection, and I left a remark there specifically for you, Nableezy. And I don't understand - ICRC is not authoritative enough? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was talking about getting into a discussion on the plausibility of arresting somebody. And I meant in addition (the ICRC is the authority on this topic along with the International Court). And I don't dispute that the Hamas military wing is an armed group of the conflict, I was saying that the definitions are much easier with Israel because what is the Israeli army is clearly the Israeli army, with Hamas it is more difficult to say that, especially when discussing the police and otherwise ordinarily civilian institutions. Will take a look at what you presented and see what else I can find. We do have to be careful though with how this proceeds, we cannot be evaluating the sources to try to determine on our own how they apply to this conflict. We need sources actually applying it. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- The occupation isuue is simply irrelevant because the ICRC report covers all the possible situations - if you want to understand the issue (and stop relying on mass-media), and you don't trust my exerpts - read it yourself. You will see that either way you look at it, Hamas military wing is an armed group to the conflict. Just because they are not a regular army as IDF and just because they sometimes violate conduct of a regular army (and become unpriveleged combatants, not only because Israeli court said so, but because any court, including ICRC would say the same) - don't give them more protection, and I left a remark there specifically for you, Nableezy. And I don't understand - ICRC is not authoritative enough? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- We get into this discussion we will go in circles about the rule of law in an occupation or whether or not it is an occupation. Will look at the below and see if I can find some more authoritative sources. Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I mean, the Israeli law... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong - read below. BTW, you realize I hope that when talking about Gaza Strip, it is simply unrealistic to just arrest the one who breaks he law. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure they have a command structure and hierarchy, but for our purposes it is hard to say they have an "army" or "armed forces". Now I am not an expert in international law (I sometimes play one on Misplaced Pages) but from what I have read, including an Israeli High Court decision, is that people who partake in hostilities are civilians breaking the law and may be attacked while doing so, but while not doing so they can be arrested but not attacked by the military, and this is specifically because it is not a standard "army". Nableezy (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nableezy, yes, the definition for the soldier in the regular army, IDF style, is much easier - you know exactly when the person was recruited, when he demobilized and when he was remobilized as a reservist. But still, it doesn't mean that al-Qassam brigades do not qualify as regular armed forces - they do, they have clear military structure, hierarchy, etc. Maybe you are not familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now I believe you that somewhere in the not-so-distant past you saw the ICRC commentaries on Hizballah fighters - and if you find it I will be delighted to read it. Cptnono, I have no problem in presenting both sides of the story and to throw the info in, but I do object using info (like BBC article) that claim to cite someone - and it turns out the citation is erroneous. I think this is the case where secondary source is much much worse than the primary one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, it is how you read it. Is being active while participating in that function or regularly participating in it. I don't really care. We should throw the info in (using direct quotes if necessary) and let the fact speak for themselves since it looks like we are bordering on attempting to translate bureaucrospeak to the reader.Cptnono (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The difference with your situation was that Israel has a standard "army" which makes the definitions much easier with them, you did not cease being an officer because you were formally incorporated within that defined structure. With Hamas they certainly have "fighters" but no real army so the definitions get muddled up. I am going to look for some other sources that can help shed some light for us, and I swear I read the ICRC thing about Hezbollah but cannot find it on any of the internets. Will get back to this over the weekend. Nableezy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know, Nableezy. it amazes me how we see the same text and cite the same sources, but we read it differently and can't convince each other. As I said, I will soon publish the latest ICRC deliberations on the matter. Meanwhile, try once again to follow me: each civilian (policeman for that matter, or worker, or engineer or a nurse at the hospital) can be sorted to one of the three groups. First one - strictly civilian, not affiliated to any kind of armed forces, never participated in any kind of armed struggle - they are not legal targets. Second group - those who are not formally part of armed forces, but once in a while "moonlight" with armed groups - they loose their civilian protection for the course of the active participation in hostilities. Third group - those who are regular fighters - they are legal military objectives any time. What you fail to understand is that a policeman (or a nurse or a baker - whoever) can simultaneously hold a civil job and at the same time - be an active member of armed group. The ITIC report I cite regularly presents evidence that some of the policemen killed had ranks in a civil police and at the same time had ranks at al-Qassam brigades. How do I make you comprehend this? A youngster can at the same time be a pupil in school and a member of Scouts movement - he doesn't cease to be scout when he attends his classes. I was at a certain point an officer in the IDF and a student in university - I didn't cease to be an active member of military forces when I went to studies. This is why 'while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted' means that if a policeman is a Hamas fighter - he can be targeted anytime. If he is not, i.e. he has no rank or membership in military wing and only seldom helps launching rockets - only then can you say that they can be attacked only when participating in hostilities. (N.B. still they can be targeted if the police as an establishment is incorporated in armed forces). Again, you don't have to answer right away - wait for ICRC sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking at it as Israel's reason not if it is justified or not. There is no reason not to put in "Israel targeted police since they/some/most are militants. HRW and others say it is bad and illegal because...." we can go plenty of different ways but we need to keep in mind that some source (BBC) will show both side of the coin sometimes. As long as the mention is in there from whatever source I am happy, though.Cptnono (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank u, Cptnono, we will use LA Times. As for BBC, we have 2 huge problems with it, and one problem was already discussed here. You see, BBC writes: 'However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities.' As I tried to show before, this sentence is very inaccurate interpretation of what HRW actually said. HRW said that if a policemen is a Hamas fighter - he can be attacked; if he is not a Hamas fighter but from time to time moonlight with Hamas squads - they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities. The second problem with BBC is the following sentence: 'The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".' - this is a complete miscomprehension of both ICRC and Geneva conventions. The whole subject is not so straight-forward. Later today I will start new separate subsection and will provide actual ICRC deliberations on the issue; I hope that will end our endless loop discussions on the police matters. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Source 302 Heather Sharp (January 5 2009). "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?". Jerusalem: BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7811386.stm. "The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted." and http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-gaza-scene1 "Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly what we are talking about. Nobody denies they received the special training in trafficing/first aid/etc. But it doesn't change the fact that most of them (78 of 89 according to the source above) were at the same time active members of terror squads; moreover, all the Israeli sources I cite agree that under Hamas, police is anyway integrated in its military wing (an indirect evidence is that police chiefs got specific instructions to fight IDF in case of incursion). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What ICRC has to say on the matter
Clarifying the notion of direct participation in hostilities --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see the intro: 'After six years of expert discussions and research, the ICRC has published the "Interpretive Guidance", which aims to clarify the meaning and consequences of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law (IHL).'; 'A further problem arises where armed actors do not distinguish themselves from the civilian population, for example during undercover military operations or when they “act as farmers by day and fighters by night”. Consequently, civilians are more likely to fall victim of erroneous or arbitrary targeting, while military personnel - unable to properly identify their adversary – are vulnerable to attacks by individuals who are indistinguishable from civilians. All this underscores the importance of distinguishing not only between civilians and military personnel, but also between civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities and, those who do.'; 'While IHL stipulates that civilians be protected against direct attack, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities", neither the Geneva Conventions nor their Additional Protocols spell out what conduct constitutes direct participation in hostilities. In its efforts to redress this situation and to protect the civilian population from erroneous or arbitrary targeting, the ICRC initiated an informal process of research and consultation with the aim of clarifying three key questions: (1) Who is considered a civilian for the purposes of conducting hostilities? (2) What conduct amounts to direct participation in hostilities? (3) What modalities govern the loss of civilian protection against direct attack?' - what do we learn so far? That the matter is complex. One thing for sure - taking a direct part in hostilities won't necessarily mean shooting the gun or launchin the rocket. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- After reading the intro, let's turn to the Guidance - an upper link on the right. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Guidance
Part 1: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ICRC
p. 16, I & II: all persons who are not members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict or organized armed groups are civilians and, therefore, entitled to protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. In non-international armed conflict, organized armed groups constitute the armed forces of a non-State party to the conflict and consist only of individuals whose continuous function it is to take a direct part in hostilities ("continuous combat function").
- Do we have any doubt that al-Qassam brigades fall into definition of 'organized armed groups'? I hope not.
IV. Direct participation in hostilities as a specific act: The notion of direct participation in hostilities refers to specific acts carried out by individuals as part of the conduct of hostilities between parties to an armed conflict.
VI. Beginning and end of direct participation in hostilities: Measures preparatory to the execution of a specific act of direct participation in hostilities, as well as the deployment to and the return from the location of its execution, constitute an integral part of that act.
- The details will follow, but it is important to notice that it is not necessarily required to catch a man shooting or launching a rocket to attack him - the definition is a bit more flexible (however it is not too flexible, as we'll see later).
VII. Temporal scope of the loss of protection: Civilians lose protection against direct attack for the duration of each specific act amounting to direct participation in hostilities, whereas members of organized armed groups belonging to a non-State party to an armed conflict cease to be civilians (see above II), and lose protection against direct attack, for as long as they assume their continuous combat function.
- This is extremely important. It means that if IDF intelligence knows that a certain policeman has at the same time a rank in al-Qassam brigades - he can be attacked any time, regardless of his "moonlight" activities. The same would apply to Hizballah fighter - if he is not a casual civilian but a member of this armed group - it is irrelevant whether he holds a gun or takes it down (unless he surrenders).
--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, but 'moonlighting' is not the same. That would fall under losing it for the time, somebody who is otherwise a civilian and engages may only be attacked when the are engaged. But again, we are going to read things differently which is why we need sources that actually apply this to this conflict, so we dont try to fit fit together a real puzzle based on abstract clues. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Part 2: RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTARY
p. 22: '...Thus, while members of irregular armed forces failing to fulfil the four requirements may not be entitled to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status after capture, it does not follow that any such person must necessarily be excluded from the category of armed forces and regarded as a civilian for the purposes of the conduct of hostilities. On the contrary, it would contradict the logic of the principle of distinction to place irregular armed forces under the more protective legal regime afforded to the civilian population merely because they fail to distinguish themselves from that population, to carry their arms openly, or to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Therefore, even under the terms of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, all armed actors showing a sufficient degree of military organization and belonging to a party to the conflict must be regarded as part of the armed forces of that party.'
- Nableezy, do you see now? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, we are just disagreeing on how to define what is a member of the irregular armed forces. People who are fully incorporated in the al-Qassam Brigades would clearly fall under that, but the police is not as clear. What we need are sources talking about these police officers and whether or not they are civilians immune from attack when not directly participating or members of the armed forces that have no such immunity. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! I couldn't ask you for more. Set aside polce which is indeed not that clear, would you agree now that saying that a member of the armed forces (combatant, fighter, operative of the armed group - let's consider them synonims) can be targeted any time, not only when he takes direct part in hostilities? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the point you made below about when civilian protection is restored applies here as well, somebody who is integrated in civilian life ceases to be a valid target, which goes to the PCHR argument on Hamas members not involved in the fighting being counted as non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's get this straight - 'somebody who is integrated in civilian life ceases to be a valid target' is 100% correct. What is incorrect is a statement that a person who has a civilian job is necessarily integrated in civilian life. You still somewhat blur this point. There are cases when IDF soldiers get permission to work to help their faimilies, but they do not become integrated in civilian life until got demobilized. So, if a certain policeman has this job as a civil policeman but at the same time holds a rank with al-Qassam - he is still a valid target. Only when he fully disengages from brigades and consentrates on civil life 100% - only then he ceases to be a valid target. and if, being 100% civilian, he goes on "moonlighting" - he can be attacked when participating in hostilities. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the point you made below about when civilian protection is restored applies here as well, somebody who is integrated in civilian life ceases to be a valid target, which goes to the PCHR argument on Hamas members not involved in the fighting being counted as non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! I couldn't ask you for more. Set aside polce which is indeed not that clear, would you agree now that saying that a member of the armed forces (combatant, fighter, operative of the armed group - let's consider them synonims) can be targeted any time, not only when he takes direct part in hostilities? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, we are just disagreeing on how to define what is a member of the irregular armed forces. People who are fully incorporated in the al-Qassam Brigades would clearly fall under that, but the police is not as clear. What we need are sources talking about these police officers and whether or not they are civilians immune from attack when not directly participating or members of the armed forces that have no such immunity. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
p. 25: '...c) Determination of membership: For the regular armed forces of States, individual membership is generally regulated by domestic law and expressed through formal integration into permanent units distinguishable by uniforms, insignia, and equipment. The same applies where armed units of police, border guard, or similar uniformed forces are incorporated into State armed forces. Members of regularly constituted forces are not civilians, regardless of their individual conduct or the function they assume within the armed forces...'
- Indeed, it is irrelevant what is a function or the conduct of the soldier - even if he is killed in a car accident or during a war in which he doesn't take a direct part (if he is in the musician unit for one) - the man is a soldier and he will be buried as a soldier. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
'... For the purposes of the principle of distinction, membership in regular State armed forces ceases, and civilian protection is restored, when a member disengages from active duty and re-integrates into civilian life, whether due to a full discharge from duty or as a deactivated reservist.'
- This is exactly why Hamas claim for legality of their attacks on civilians (because every Israeli is a potential IDF soldier) is unlawful. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
p.31 3. Organized armed groups: too long to cite, worth reading. But here go 2 highlights: p. 34'...Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function. An individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and directly participate in hostilities on its behalf can be considered to assume a continuous combat function even before he or she first carries out a hostile act.'
- Again, a fighter (even if he has a job as policeman) of armed group can be attacked any time. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is a problem here, that the police are not simply the armed forces of a non-state party, they are an institution of the state. That the state is governed by Hamas does not equate to their being recruited trained, trained, and equipped by said party. There is a distinction between Hamas the government of Gaza and their 'army' the al-Qassam Brigades. That goes back to what HRW said about widening the scope to 'anything associated with Hamas is a valid target', Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your observation is of course correct, but I wasn't talking about police necessarily. I wanted to emphasize, echoing my old dispute with Sean and BBC, that a fighter of an armed group can be legally attacked as long as he continuous combat function, and not only when taking direct participation in hostilities. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is a problem here, that the police are not simply the armed forces of a non-state party, they are an institution of the state. That the state is governed by Hamas does not equate to their being recruited trained, trained, and equipped by said party. There is a distinction between Hamas the government of Gaza and their 'army' the al-Qassam Brigades. That goes back to what HRW said about widening the scope to 'anything associated with Hamas is a valid target', Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
'...Individuals who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group, but whose function does not involve direct participation in hostilities, are not members of that group within the meaning of IHL... Although such persons may accompany organized armed groups and provide substantial support to a party to the conflict, they do not assume continuous combat function and, for the purposes of the principle of distinction, cannot be regarded as members of an organized armed group. As civilians, they benefit from protection against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities, even though their activities or location may increase their exposure to incidental death or injury.'
p. 43: IV. Direct participation in hostilities as a specific act (of a civilian who is not an integral member of the armed group): The notion of direct participation in hostilities refers to specific hostile acts carried out by individuals as part of the conduct of hostilities between parties to an armed conflict.
- Where civilians engage in hostile acts on a persistently recurrent basis, it is still not enough to attack them arbitrary.
p. 65: VI. Beginning and end of direct participation in hostilities (again, of a civilian who is not an integral member of the armed group): '...In line with the distinction between direct and indirect participation in hostilities, it could be said that preparatory measures aiming to carry out a specific hostile act qualify as direct participation in hostilities, whereas preparatory measures aiming to establish the general capacity to carry out unspecified hostile acts do not.'; '...It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a qualification as direct participation that a preparatory measure occur immediately before (temporal proximity) or in close geographical proximity to the execution of a specific hostile act or that it be indispensable for its execution...' 'Where preparatory measures and geographical deployments or withdrawals constitute an integral part of a specific act or operation amounting to direct participation in hostilities, they extend the beginning and end of the act or operation beyond the phase of its immediate execution.'
- I hope it is clear now why BBC give erroneous impression about those who "moonlight" - they could be also an integral part of armed group, and even if they are not - it is sometimes permissable to attack them even when they don't launch rocket at this very moment. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I dont see where you are going with this, the specific strike on the police most often questioned was one of the first strikes during the graduation ceremony. If we accept that these officers were civilians then you can hardly say that was with the "beginning and end of the act or operation beyond the phase of its immediate execution" and if they were not civilians it doesnt really matter when they were attacked. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Again, you are correct, but that wasn't my point. Let's leave cadets aside for a while. BBC said 2 things that annoy me. First, they say that according to ICRC, combatant can be attacked only when taking direct participation in hostilities - we agreed that this is incorrect. A combatant (a one who has continuous combat function) can be attacked as long as he has continuous combat function, right? Second, they say that according to HRW those who "moonlight" can only be attacked when taking direct participation in hostilities - sometimes this is true, but sometimes it is not, for example when he is inherent member of armed group. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- I dont see where you are going with this, the specific strike on the police most often questioned was one of the first strikes during the graduation ceremony. If we accept that these officers were civilians then you can hardly say that was with the "beginning and end of the act or operation beyond the phase of its immediate execution" and if they were not civilians it doesnt really matter when they were attacked. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
p. 69: 'Under customary and treaty IHL, civilians lose protection against direct attack either by directly participating in hostilities or by ceasing to be civilians altogether, namely by becoming members of State armed forces or organized armed groups belonging to a party to an armed conflict' - read the whole section.
- It is also important to notice that if IDF has intelligence that a police as a whole is integrated in armed forces of Hamas (I don't have apriori evidence to that but I provided aposteriori evidence), it becomes irrelevant to what extent one single policeman is a member of al-Qassam brigades or not - each member of armed forces is subject to attack. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can present that as IDF sources saying, but just saying it is true based off the IDF's word isnt going to cut it (no offense) Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- To start with, I don't even have this intelligence that police is sort of integrated in al-Qassam brigades, only some bits of info from ITIC before and during the war. We might never know the exact truth, and anyway Wiki is not about the truth. What I actually want to say, and I say it all over again and again, is that in principle a policeman in Gaza can be directly attacked in following cases: 1) if he is an inherent fighter with al-Qassam brigades; 2) if he participates in hostilities on irregular bases - he is subject to attack when taking part in those hostile acts (including prepearation for that act or withdrawal from it; 3) if police as a whole is integrated in al-Qassam brigades. This is why HRW were pretty correct with their statements. This is why AI with that sentence that 150 civil policemen were killed say nothing at all - why do they think 150 policemen were civilians? Is it because they know something that others don't or is it merely because they are incompetent in the subject? This is why Monitor observes this statement correctly - they call AI to either bring their evidencies or say nothing at all. This is why B'Tselem miss the point completely about the cadets. They could have been trained in first aid or traffic regulations or assistance to the aged - it is irrelevant. What is relevant is to what extent each of them was an actual member of al-Qassam brigades and to what extent the police establishment is integrated or not in al-Qassam brigades. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- all right, I think it might be better if we go through what the article currently states:
- Israel has been criticized for violating laws covering distinction. Israel has stated that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target." This has been criticized as being too broad. Amnesty International has said that this definition includes, "presumptively civilian" targets such as police and government ministries that serve no military purpose. Israel has said that these government ministries and the parliament building are part of the Hamas infrastructure and as such legitimate targets. B'Tselem describes Israel's reasoning as being "legally flawed," stating that simple Hamas' affiliation does not make such locations legitimate targets. Israel responded to criticism regarding the targeting of police, who are "presumptively civilians" according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by stating that Israel regarded the police as a resistance force and that they were equivalent to "the enemy's armed force" and as such legitimate targets.
- Now the paragraph does not say that the police are civilians, it says they are "presumptively civilians" which should be clear that there are cases where that presumption would not apply. I think the line "Israel regarded the police as a resistance force and that they were equivalent to "the enemy's armed force" and as such legitimate targets" covers your points without the detail you are going into. Now the other section it is brought up in is the casualties sections which currently reads:
- Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that police are presumptively civilians but are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The IDF has made clear that it regards police under the control of Hamas in Gaza to be inherently equivalent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report claiming that during Gaza War many supposedly civil policemen were at the same time operatives in Hamas’s military wing.
- Again, it has the HRW saying "presumptively civilians" and the Israeli argument that they are a part of the armed forces. In addition here we have the PCHR saying that the classification was incorrect and why they classified them as non-combatants ans the ITIC counter that the PCHR was incorrect. I really dont see what we are missing here, though I get the feeling you want to include a paragraph, presumably under the Intl law section, that under the following circumstances police may be attacked in accordance with intl law. I dont think such a paragraph would be appropriate in this article (it might be in an article specifically about intl law). The thing we need are sources that make these arguments about these policeman, and we have that with the PCHR making one argument unequivocally asserting that these police were civilians and the IDF unequivocally asserting that they were not. And we also have the various NGOs, specifically HRW, that say under what circumstances a policeman may be attacked while connecting it to this conflict. In the intl law paragraph we have all sides covered as well. I hope you dont mind or think I am being purposefully dense (Im not), but could you tell me what you object to in the current sections being included or what you would want to also include. Nableezy (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, as for 'disputed figures' subsection, it is exactly as I wanted it to see, and it was constructed with you consent, I suggest we keep it untouched. As for IntLaw section, I am trying to reconstruct it. You saw me adding separate subsections about home demolition and food supply to Gaza. My object here is to construct a separate subsection for attacking civilian cites and below it - a subsubsection about police. As you see, police is an issue in its own. Actually, a subsubsection you see above, and we started this debate over it, even though the debate is about details - I didn't feel you habe principal objections to it. I hope you will assist me - even if you think that the whole IntLaw section is overinflated, I don't - I think it is most important one, and believe me I do everything I can to make it concise. What I intend to do next is to insert a sort of summary to the ICRC report - just for the sake of recording what actually IHL say. Then in a separate subsection I'll place again a paragraph about police, adding statement from B'Tselem and a response. Later, I'll keep working on a paragraph about attacks on civilian cites. One more thing: do you understand now why I (and Monitor too) have a problem when AI says '150 civilian policemen killed' and not a single word more? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- all right, I think it might be better if we go through what the article currently states:
- To start with, I don't even have this intelligence that police is sort of integrated in al-Qassam brigades, only some bits of info from ITIC before and during the war. We might never know the exact truth, and anyway Wiki is not about the truth. What I actually want to say, and I say it all over again and again, is that in principle a policeman in Gaza can be directly attacked in following cases: 1) if he is an inherent fighter with al-Qassam brigades; 2) if he participates in hostilities on irregular bases - he is subject to attack when taking part in those hostile acts (including prepearation for that act or withdrawal from it; 3) if police as a whole is integrated in al-Qassam brigades. This is why HRW were pretty correct with their statements. This is why AI with that sentence that 150 civil policemen were killed say nothing at all - why do they think 150 policemen were civilians? Is it because they know something that others don't or is it merely because they are incompetent in the subject? This is why Monitor observes this statement correctly - they call AI to either bring their evidencies or say nothing at all. This is why B'Tselem miss the point completely about the cadets. They could have been trained in first aid or traffic regulations or assistance to the aged - it is irrelevant. What is relevant is to what extent each of them was an actual member of al-Qassam brigades and to what extent the police establishment is integrated or not in al-Qassam brigades. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- You can present that as IDF sources saying, but just saying it is true based off the IDF's word isnt going to cut it (no offense) Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions based on ICRC report
- either way we look at this conflict, al-Qassam brigades are armed group to the conflict.
- each member of the armed group to the conflict can be directly targeted as long as he assumes continuous combat functions. continuous combat functions include acts such as training and preparations to hostile acts, not necessarily a specific act. members of such forces are not civilians, regardless of their individual conduct or the function they assume within the armed forces - unlike civilians, who are still immune from the attack when assuming indirect functions, members of such group are valid targets even if having indirect functions, such as cooks or medics.
- a member of armed group restores his civilian status and special protection when demobilizes from that group.
- civilian who irregularly takes direct participation in hostilities, loses his immunity for the course of each specific act. a notion of direct participation in hostility includes also preparation to this act, deployment and disengagement from it.
- the report emphasizes that despite a temptation to include arbitrary a civilian person who only takes direct participation in hostilities in a list of legal any-time targets, this would undermine the notion of special protection granted to civilians. still, i didn't get an answer to the case of "farmer at days, fighter at nights" - each day he is a legitimate target from 9p.m. to 3a.m. and from 3a.m. to 9p.m. he is not?
--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Now a short test: read the following sentence from BBC: The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".. Try to count mistakes in it. If you come up wit less than 2 - go reread ICRC. If you count more than 3 - congrats, you are an expert! --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Attacks on civil police, take 2
HRW points out that under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian - and thus immune from attack - unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. HRW representative stated that a decision that police and police stations are legitimate military targets depends on whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose. IDF stated that it perceives police in Gaza as equivalent to the enemy's armed force and as such legitimate targets. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) alleged that the distinction between the internal security forces and Hamas military wing is not sharply defined and cites Gaza police officials who said that police were instructed to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip. Many security force members were reported to "moonlight" with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigades. Amnesty International criticized Israel for targeting and killing large number of civilian police. Israeli NGO Monitor responded to this criticism by saying that AI presented no evidence to support its claim that these men were not Hamas operatives. One of the traffic course trainees who had participated in the ceremony attacked by IAF on 27th December, 2008, told B'Tselem that they were trained in first-aid and in maintaining order. The Israeli 'Orient Research Group' claim that 78 of the 89 killed during the first IAF strike were terror operatives, many of them belonging to the al-Qassam Brigades. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay Sceptic, I've read everything discussed (as you suggested) and concluded that misinterpretations are easily avoided by not making any interpretations or cherry-picking sources/statements to lead the reader one way or another regarding the legality of the action. Let the key sources speak for themselves. Their statements/views will be contradictory but no amount of discussion/interpretation here can or should resolve that. The basic facts are enough aren't they ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Engagement with Israeli forces
1. The references to para. about Hamas fighters using medical uniforms and facilities got totally messed up, and I think it is because of your POV edits, Nableezy. This how it was before (see the actual URLs): 'Testimonies from local Gazan population, as well as IDF probe published on April 22, stated that Hamas operatives donned paramedic uniforms and commandeered ambulances. IDF officer says his men saw gunmen coming out of ambulances. One ambulance driver told about attempts to lure the ambulances into the battle to transport fighters to safety. An IDF probe also revealed an incident when the UN vehicle had been used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad.'
Apart from several IDF-affiliated reports, there are 2 non-israeli sources that confirm the practice. And you ask what about the driver? it is not just 1, it is 1 + 1. AI don't read inet and wiki? Too bad, but don't accept AI as absolute truth. Maybe the para. could be rearranged. But please fix the links and then insert that AI sentence. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, I removed 2 things; what the 1 ambulance driver said, and I still do not see the need to include that account, and the NY Times quote from the ITIC report. I removed that because of two reasons; first, it is covered thoroughly in the intl law section and dont see the point in including it here as well, especially when these are allegations not treated as fact by RSs, and second because I dont think we should be relying on the ITIC report so much. We talk about most of the subjects raised in that report in the intl law section, and I do not see much of the relevance in this section. On a related noted, I plan on going through the psych war/propaganda and anything that is not called either of those two things by a reliable source (read not ITIC) should be removed. Nableezy (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Testimony from ambulance driver
As you know, the media access to Gaza during the fighting was, ehh, restricted. Each neutral testimony counts. We have 2 reporters, Cremonezi and this one, who collected evidence of Hamas misuse of medical facilities. And you remove one. The most I can offer as a compromise - to merge the source in one of the preceding sentences.
I will repeat - you try to make a case out from the AI report. Just because they failed to see this testimonies, you conclude that all the rest is insignificant. Why not go further and replace the entire article with AI report? I've already reproduced the very 1st sentence of AI report: Without warning, Israel unleashed an attack on Gaza. What else do we need? Hamas refused to prolong the lull? insignificant. Fired dozens of rockets on Israel between Dec. 19 and 27? insignificant. Olmert warned Hamas on Dec. 25? insignificant. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- It can go like this:
- Several testimonies from local Gazan population and from IDF soldiers stated that Hamas operatives donned medic uniforms and commandeered ambulances for fighters transportation. An IDF probe, released on April 22 2009, also revealed an incident when the UN vehicle had been used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I didnt try to "make a case" I just dont see the point of repeating what a single ambulance driver said. Everything else you mentioned is not insignificant, and that info should be, and is, in the background section. nableezy - 17:48 11.07.2009 (UTC)
- I merged it, OK? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Only problem is the use of the word "revealed" would rather it say "stated that an incident occurred where a UN vehicle ..." nableezy - 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I merged it, OK? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Uhhh, I didnt try to "make a case" I just dont see the point of repeating what a single ambulance driver said. Everything else you mentioned is not insignificant, and that info should be, and is, in the background section. nableezy - 17:48 11.07.2009 (UTC)
ITIC report
1. 'is covered thoroughly in the intl law section and dont see the point in including it here as well' - it goes other way round. First the allegation is brought in the main body of the article, then repeated in brief in Int-Law next to the description of the breach in accordance with IHL. Words '... Hamas made a main component of its combat strategy “channeling” the army into the densely populated areas to fight' definitely belong to Engagement with Israeli forces subsection.
2. 'allegations not treated as fact by RSs' - hmm, let's see. NY Times say 'the study presents photographs of militants manufacturing and storing weapons inside houses and of Israeli soldiers finding weapons hidden in a mosque in northern Gaza during a military incursion in March 2008'. Still not enough. OK. Tell me again, what would be that RS you are asking me about? Mass media, like BBC? I showed you already they can't even reproduce accurately statements from HRW and ICRC. NGOs like HRW and AI? They are notable and maybe considered reliable according to your policies, but there's zero chance they would. Apart from 2 examples above, I can easily show you another dozen from AI report of a biased unobjective approach. ICRC? They are concerned with humanitarian issues, and again they are so sympathetic with Palestinian cause they would never produce something from ITIC and we both know it. Who else? JCPA and NGO Monitor you dismiss. Cordesman report is based primarily on issues from Israeli MFA that cite ITIC. Vicious circle, isn't it?
3. 'I plan on going through the psych war/propaganda and anything that is not called either of those two things by a reliable source (read not ITIC) should be removed.' - removed under what grounds exactly? Almost all that they say in that section was backed by info from mass media. Anyway, why do I argue about it anyway? The statements are attributed to them. It is NGO. It provides data in academic-style format, much more academic than AI. Show me policy that prohibits using info from a think-tank, that was not picked up by so-called RS. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. In the first section we are presenting verifiable facts, not simply accusations and refutations. In the international law section we do present these arguments, but I dont care too much do what you want.
- 2. cant follow
- 3. removed on the basis that it is not called propaganda or psychological warfare by reliable sources. The RSs may say these things happened, but they do not call them propaganda or psychological warfare. ITIC may present information in an "academic format" but they are not an academic institution, they are a think-tank that does not meet WP:RS. If you want to put something in the section "Propaganda and psychological warfare" you need to have a RS calling these things either propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 18:13 11.07.2009 (UTC)
- OK, I reread the policy. Found two appropriate points. First - 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.' For example, one of the sources cited in the section that Hamas threatened to turn Gaza to graveyard to Israeli soldiers. You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war and thus I didn't violate the policy sentence. Second - 'Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' - believe me ITIC are experts in everything related to terrorism and Israeli war with Hamas; NY Times picked up their report, so again I see no clear violation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, I havent removed the ITIC report for stuff on their opinions, like in the intl law section, but it cannot be used to support a statement of fact, but I think the ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions and responses to the accusations from others. When you say "You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war" what you are doing is synthesizing sources (which is covered by WP:OR), by saying that there is a source that says the threats are psychological warfare, then another source that says they made a threat, so you combine those two sources to say what they did was psychological warfare. If you want to call something propaganda or psychological warfare you need a reliable secondary source that specifically calls those things propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions' - then why it is inappropriate in psy-war section? They issued several reports that present the way Hamas was engaged with psy-war. It is not presented there as facts, it is well attributed. I'll find explanations I provided several month ago. Anyway, since when do we remove data like that? I intend to restore it the way it was. Got reservations? No problem, discuss them, but don't remove all of a sudden something that was there for months. Now about SYNTH policy - as I noted above, editing in wiki is subjected to judgement. You leave here no room for judgement. You even challenge trivial things based on common knowledge. Threat is a form of psy-war, I never intendeded to back this statement with source. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- one more time, if we put something in the "propaganda and psychological warfare" section, we, wikipedia, are saying that those actions are psychological warfare or propaganda. To say, as a statement of fact, that these actions are psychological warfare or propaganda we need to have a reliable secondary source saying that specifically these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. Judgment does not enter into it, if a reliable secondary source has not called these specific actions propaganda or psychological warfare then neither can wikipedia. What if I were to say that bombing densely populated areas is a form of psychological warfare and so I then plan on including each instance in which Israel dropped a bomb in a densely populated area? Or the use of incendiary weapons was an example of psychological warfare intended to cause panic among the population, so I list each time Israel used white phosphorous weapons? We dont do that, that is synthesis and original research. You need to provide a reliable source that explicitly says these specific actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Look at the Israel section for comparison, everything in there is actually called propaganda or psychological warfare in the reliable secondary source cited. nableezy - 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- one more time, if we put something in the "propaganda and psychological warfare" section, we, wikipedia, are saying that those actions are psychological warfare or propaganda. To say, as a statement of fact, that these actions are psychological warfare or propaganda we need to have a reliable secondary source saying that specifically these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. Judgment does not enter into it, if a reliable secondary source has not called these specific actions propaganda or psychological warfare then neither can wikipedia. What if I were to say that bombing densely populated areas is a form of psychological warfare and so I then plan on including each instance in which Israel dropped a bomb in a densely populated area? Or the use of incendiary weapons was an example of psychological warfare intended to cause panic among the population, so I list each time Israel used white phosphorous weapons? We dont do that, that is synthesis and original research. You need to provide a reliable source that explicitly says these specific actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions' - then why it is inappropriate in psy-war section? They issued several reports that present the way Hamas was engaged with psy-war. It is not presented there as facts, it is well attributed. I'll find explanations I provided several month ago. Anyway, since when do we remove data like that? I intend to restore it the way it was. Got reservations? No problem, discuss them, but don't remove all of a sudden something that was there for months. Now about SYNTH policy - as I noted above, editing in wiki is subjected to judgement. You leave here no room for judgement. You even challenge trivial things based on common knowledge. Threat is a form of psy-war, I never intendeded to back this statement with source. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, I havent removed the ITIC report for stuff on their opinions, like in the intl law section, but it cannot be used to support a statement of fact, but I think the ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions and responses to the accusations from others. When you say "You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war" what you are doing is synthesizing sources (which is covered by WP:OR), by saying that there is a source that says the threats are psychological warfare, then another source that says they made a threat, so you combine those two sources to say what they did was psychological warfare. If you want to call something propaganda or psychological warfare you need a reliable secondary source that specifically calls those things propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I reread the policy. Found two appropriate points. First - 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.' For example, one of the sources cited in the section that Hamas threatened to turn Gaza to graveyard to Israeli soldiers. You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war and thus I didn't violate the policy sentence. Second - 'Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' - believe me ITIC are experts in everything related to terrorism and Israeli war with Hamas; NY Times picked up their report, so again I see no clear violation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Psy-war
If you would be nice to read it: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 47#Propaganda and psychological warfare. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just did, and what I see as the most appropriate response was, oddly enough, my initial one: "That heading is there because the sources describe what is covered in that section as propaganda and psychological warfare". I was gone after that and what I see of the discussion after that response is examples of syntheses, and (by extension) original research. You take statements that you feel meet the threshold of propaganda or psychological warfare without reliable sources that actually describe those actions as propaganda or psychological warfare. We cannot do that. nableezy - 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- How surprising. Let's start from the easier example. Please tell me where is synth or OR in the following sentence: 'According to the Israeli ITIC, Hamas also prohibited the publishing of photographs, names or details of its members who got killed or injured in the fighting. '. I guess you can find the word 'propaganda' without my assistance there. And please don't tell me they are not RS. They are NGO, and there's no prohibition
notto use them. After all, we agreed in some instances to cite directly HRW, without doubt a notable and profound human-rights organization, even though their expertise in Int-Law is questionable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)- But they are not a RS, they do not have the reputation HRW or AI has for fact-checking and making corrections when necessary, they do not publish in a peer-reviewed medium, and you are using them to support a statement of fact, namely that these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. The actual line is fine as it explicitly cites the ITIC, but putting it under the heading of psych warfare or propaganda is saying, as a fact, that it is such. You need a secondary reliable source saying so. nableezy - 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Setting aside reliability and propaganda issues, Sceptic please can you explain why a theory postulated by a partisan source closely aligned with a belligerant and presented without any corrobrating evidence whatsoever is even notable and worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. What it is that makes it notable ? If tomorrow ITIC says 'Black is white' are we to include that too ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, wiki is not about truth, you know. Anyway, this is what we constantly do - AI says 'black is white' but we use them as a source for things other than human rights too and when I point out their (and HRW's) horrible lack of competency in the fields of IHL interpretations and military investigations - you dismiss it, you shut your eyes, you don't want to hear it, you don't want to read it (but I still will remind you that AI reproduce the definition of occupation and 2 sentences later conclude that Gaza is occupied by Israel, despite the fact that it is in contradiction to the definition and despite the fact the those 2 additional sentences has nothing to do with definition too). 'Partisan source' - they are NGO, not more partisan than B'Tselem or PCHR for example. The fact that in general B'Tselem or PCHR are more notable is because of political reasons and because topics of human rights (or ecology for one) attract more attention than fight with terrorism. 'Presented without any corroborating evidence' - quite the contrary, each their bulletin including this one presents original evidence that seems authentic (of course, everything in our world can be photoshopped, but still). 'What it is that makes it notable'? - it is cited by numerous Israeli-affiliated sources including JCPA (I know your view on JCPA, but that won't change fact that they are notable too, the conference above demonstrates this), and we know of at least one instance when it was cited by NY Times. 'source closely aligned with a belligerant' - so now origins of who contributes to report do matter? PCHR is a propagandist Palestinian source, but we cite them. Goldstone has good ties with Israel, and? Current head of UN-Watch NGO from above is definitely Israeli (if I'm not mistaken, he was somehow connected with Israeli HCJ), and? One of the seniors in HRW was (or is?) a member of Electronic Intifada, and? One of the Goldstone team-members already concluded that Israel committed war-crimes, and? ICIT members were high-ranked officers in IDF, and? Nableezy, saying that AI and HRW 'have the reputation for fact-checking and making corrections when necessary' is extremely bold sentence and it is not so true when dealing with Israel. They do have the reputation in the field of human-rights, but they fail whenever we deal with Int-Law and investigation of warfare. I know you regard this conduct as unappropriate to wiki, but nevertheless I can easily point out to several (and even more) inaccuracies and mistakes in their recent reports, while you hardly will be able to find one in ICIT or JCPA (not because they are perfect, but because one must be true professional to do so; in case of AI talking about Int-Law, even a dilettante like me can). 'You need a secondary reliable source' - not necessarily. We already saw what happens when ' a secondary reliable source' like BBC distorts completely words of HRW and ICRC. Wasn't it Sean who concluded that it is better in some circumstances to cite a primary one?
- To sum it up: (1) AI and HRW are indeed notable in the field of human rights, but their credibility is disputable in other fields (like interpretation of Int-Law). (2) Even though general policy is to search for secondary source, in some cases it is better not to. See BBC incident. (3) NGO ICIT does not violate wiki principles, as they were cited by NY Times. Taking into consideration the subject and quality of their publications, I regard them as perfectly fine. (4) I don't see how a well-attributed sentence like the one above breaches wiki policies.
- Conclusion: Wiki policies should be guidance, but the policies themselves leave room for judgement. In my subjective view, your judgement on the issue is unobjective too.
- Recommendation: I don't see the point of further discussions in this format. Your opinions on ICIT (and other Israeli-affiliated sources) is clear. I recommend to turn to third-party neutral arbiter. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, you made me read all of that and yet you didn't read my question and answer it. I only want to know "What it is that makes it notable ?". I don't want to get onto a debate about whether their theory is correct. How would I know ? I would have to phone up Hamas and ask them and then I would have no way of establishing whether they answered my question honestly. I just want to know why ITIC's theory is in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read your question and I answered it, but maybe I didn't understand it in the first place. "What it is that makes it notable?" Too much it. What exactly do you ask? Why do I like ICIT? Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section? or in all the other sections of the entire article? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The closest to what I meant is "Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section?"..or anywhere in the article. What I mean is how have you established the notability ITIC's theory to justify it's inclusion in the article ? If someone publishs a theory and claims that it explains some data, Misplaced Pages doesn't normally include it until the theory has appeared in RS and established a reasonable level of notability. Do you see what I mean ? Imagine for a moment that the article was about something else, the honeybee dance language, evolution, crime etc etc. We wouldn't add information to the article simply because someone puts a theory on their website ? The information always goes through reliable filters before it gets to us. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean and the general policy is clear. (1) About 'anywhere in the article' - the ITIC 'theory' Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields was quoted by NY Times. I guess that resolves the question about this particular report and allows to quote it in the article wherever appropriate.
(2)By saying 'The information always goes through reliable filters before it gets to us' - you put an impossible constraint. The question is what is RS? Mass media? According to wiki standards it is, but you saw a case of BBC, misquoting HRW and ICRC. So, mass-media is RS only as long as they report news netto, not when they invade in fields they understand nothing about. Next, are NGOs a RS and can we cite them directly? The general answer is yes. We used a quote directly from HRW, there's a direct quote of PCHR in 'disputable figures', as well as ICT (another Israeli NGO). Moreover, I made use of direct quote from B'Tselem in not yet published paragraph (despite the fact that the B'Tselem sentence is complete rubbish in my view). When there are so many notable NGOs, it is absurd to expect that every relevant revelation will be cited by mass media. So, when it comes to NGOs, provided that they are notable and competent in the subject of the conflict, I don't see why not to use them. Try to understand - wiki policy does not prohibit such use, it allows it on the basis of judgement and common sense. When I have a relevant notable NGO (and ICIT is notable, at least in Israel), and when they publish relevant material, that was not necessarily cited by mass-media, there's nothing wrong to use judgement. Look at the para. below. ICIT take facts, backed-up by mass media, and merge it in its bulletin. I think it is absurd to search for yet another mass-media, who would say 'ICIT published bulletin that describe Hamas propaganda efforts'. Consider all these NGOs as a scientific journal. For example, there are many scientific journals dedicated to cancer - types, treatments, research, etc. Each has an editor. The same with NGOs. I can write to ICIT and point out that relevant info was published in some Arab newspaper. The chief of ICIT will decide whether to include it in his bulletin or not.
To sum it up, I challenge the concept of 'mass media news sources must always cite notable NGO publication in order to be included in Gaza War article'. I regard it as taking wiki policies to impossible absurdity and if there's no breakthrough here - I'd appeal to 'higher authorities'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see what you mean and the general policy is clear. (1) About 'anywhere in the article' - the ITIC 'theory' Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields was quoted by NY Times. I guess that resolves the question about this particular report and allows to quote it in the article wherever appropriate.
- The closest to what I meant is "Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section?"..or anywhere in the article. What I mean is how have you established the notability ITIC's theory to justify it's inclusion in the article ? If someone publishs a theory and claims that it explains some data, Misplaced Pages doesn't normally include it until the theory has appeared in RS and established a reasonable level of notability. Do you see what I mean ? Imagine for a moment that the article was about something else, the honeybee dance language, evolution, crime etc etc. We wouldn't add information to the article simply because someone puts a theory on their website ? The information always goes through reliable filters before it gets to us. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read your question and I answered it, but maybe I didn't understand it in the first place. "What it is that makes it notable?" Too much it. What exactly do you ask? Why do I like ICIT? Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section? or in all the other sections of the entire article? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, you made me read all of that and yet you didn't read my question and answer it. I only want to know "What it is that makes it notable ?". I don't want to get onto a debate about whether their theory is correct. How would I know ? I would have to phone up Hamas and ask them and then I would have no way of establishing whether they answered my question honestly. I just want to know why ITIC's theory is in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- How surprising. Let's start from the easier example. Please tell me where is synth or OR in the following sentence: 'According to the Israeli ITIC, Hamas also prohibited the publishing of photographs, names or details of its members who got killed or injured in the fighting. '. I guess you can find the word 'propaganda' without my assistance there. And please don't tell me they are not RS. They are NGO, and there's no prohibition
Psy-war, 2nd para.
In a report compiled by ITIC, evidences of Hamas’s effort to perpetuate a victory myth in the warfare are produced: in the course of the fighting, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters, claiming that more IDF soldiers were abducted; declaring destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; taking (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hitting an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. Following the end of the fighting, Hamas declared "remarkable victory", claimed that only 48 Hamas fighters were killed and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 killed in direct clashes with its fighters.
This para. is tricky. Almost all the info ITIC use was backed-up by secondary sources (that Hamas abducted more soldiers, that Hamas proclaimed remarkable victory, that only 48 Hamas fighters and no less than 80 IDF soldiers were killed). All that ITIC did - it merged all these into one bulletin entitled "Battle for hearts and minds" (which is of course a synonym to the word propaganda, that is used several times in the text). So I hope you'll agree, despite the saying above, that there's no SYNTH or OR from my side. Your only possible reservation could be the dislike of ITIC in general, even though in this case they present known and verifiable facts, which I backed-up. Still not enough for the psy-war section? for the article? for entire wikipedia? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the attribution to ITIC is not strong enough... I go through RS policy again an again, it allows you to use judgement and common sense. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you come across a statement in PCHR site that says that casualty numbers published by IOF is a propagandist effort of zionist entity to deceit the world, what difference would it make if secondary source will quote this or not. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, I renew my objection not because I do not like the ITIC in general, but because, and I repeat, to call something propaganda or psychological warfare we need to have a reliable secondary source calling it that. That the ITIC assembled a set of statements they classified as propaganda is not the point, none of those statements were called propaganda by reliable sources. Have you looked at the sources in the Israel section? Every single thing brought up there is called propaganda or psychological warfare by the reliable sources cited. If there is a reliable source calling any of these things propaganda or psychological warfare include it. nableezy - 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'we need to have a reliable secondary source calling it that' - says who? ICIT is notable NGO and as I tried to explain Sean above, I see it as attempt to take wiki policies to absurdity. I desire appeal to 'higher authorities'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just listen to yourself for a second, you imply that words of Al-Jazeera reporter have more weight than words from notable NGO. (Btw, the same would be true for JPost reporter, if there were such). You define mass media as 'reliable secondary source'. I say it is absurdity. You impose impossible constraints, leave no room for common sense - I don't think the intention of wiki was to make it a place of copy-edited headlines from mass media rubbish. I want independent hearing. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'we need to have a reliable secondary source calling it that' - says who? ICIT is notable NGO and as I tried to explain Sean above, I see it as attempt to take wiki policies to absurdity. I desire appeal to 'higher authorities'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- The difference RS make...
- It means that RS (not us) have evaluated it's notability and decided that it is of some importance and worth publishing
- Good reliable sources try to filter crap out, check facts, require evidence for assertions or at the very least provide qualifications for statements so that they don't participate is disseminating propaganda and nonsense.
- Good RS use common sense when dealing with partisan sources so that we don't have to. This is good because there's nothing common about common sense. If there were we wouldn't need to write this article in the first place.
- Sceptic, I'm going to try to appeal to your common sense because this seems like a very important issue to me that goes to the heart of what this article and indeed all Misplaced Pages articles should contain. ITIC postulate a theory that the absence of casualty data is part of a propaganda effort. I postulate a theory that is simply sensible military tactics. Which one is right ? It doesn't matter because an encyclopedia shouldn't be filled up with unsubstatiated theories especially ones where notability has not been established. This article needs to present the facts, the data and leave the theories alone. If we just present data this kind of issue goes away. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- The difference RS make...
Its not that mass media is the best source, it just meets the threshold (the best sources are academic sources published by academic institutions or peer reviewed journals). And the BBC didnt misquote HRW, the line you keep bringing up was almost verbatim from a press release from HRW. There are a number of avenues if you want to "appeal to a higher authority". You could go to WP:RS/N if you want to get other editors to weigh in on whether terrorism-info is a reliable source (though I highly recommend you do not try and go there to say that mass media such as the BBC is not a RS, because it is without any real dispute and the mass news media is specifically mentioned in WP:RS as a reliable source). I have also challenged the text on OR grounds that the sources cited do not call it propaganda or psychological warfare and it is synthesis to say that these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare without a single source calling these specific statements either of those two. You could raise that at WP:OR/N. nableezy - 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, Sceptic, have you noticed for all the NGOs, AI HRW PCHR whoever, we do not treat their claims as fact, we treat them as their opinion? Do you at least agree that having these statements under the heading Propaganda and psychological warfare asserts that they are such as a fact? nableezy - 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- ...and here is an example of how good RS deal with and present ambiguous information "The Israeli army media briefing of 22 April, in the section on “incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles, and crews”, contends that “Hamas systematically used medical facilities, vehicles and uniforms as cover for terrorist operations”, but provides no evidence for even one such case. Amnesty International does not exclude the possibility that such cases may have occurred, but found no evidence during its on-the-ground investigation that such practices, if they did occur, were widespread"...my bolding. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- ...and ITIC "It should be noted that a similar policy was followed by Hezbollah in the second Lebanon war, when it purposefully did not publish the names of killed operatives, preferring instead to bury them in secret, without media coverage, to reinforce the “divine victory” myth it sought to create"...."It is our assessment that such a policy is designed to ... to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message"...seriously, this is an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Nableezy
- 'And the BBC didnt misquote HRW' - you must be kidding. Indeed, they copy-pasted one sentence, but "forgot" to produce the second one, which is crucial. And what we did eventually in the article - substituted BBC with original full quote from HRW. What is even worse, and I'll refresh your memory, The International Committee of the Red Cross - ... - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities". I showed you above the genuine ICRC report, who defines combatant as one who assumes continuous combat functions. I'll say it again, I don't argue that BBC/JPost/Al-Jazeera are RS as long as it comes to news. But when BBC reporter starts to write about International law - the result is nonsense. The same would apply if Katz from JPost would elaborate on partial theory of relativity. I wouldn't care if he would do it right or not - I would simply go to the source profound in physics and cite it directly. Policy allows it as long as a source is indeed notable in the field.
- 'I have also challenged the text on OR grounds' - I understand the challenge with regard to threat sentences, even though I would have liked it better if you discussed first and removed later. Maybe we could have reached conclusion to move it elsewhere. But look at the para. above - you can't blame me for OR and SYNTH. ITIC does it. If there was a consensus that ITIC is RS, would there be problem with that para.? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'have you noticed for all the NGOs, AI HRW PCHR whoever, we do not treat their claims as fact, we treat them as their opinion?' - I absolutely agree that we treat info that comes from various NGOs as their opinion, and so far, I tried to well-attribute opinions/theorys from Israeli NGOs in the same manner. And it was never meant to be presented as fact, but as a bulletin (call it opinion/theory) from pro-Israeli NGO.
- 'Do you at least agree that having these statements under the heading Propaganda and psychological warfare asserts that they are such as a fact?' - not sure I understand what exactly do you mean. But I'll ask you again (and tell me if it is connected to your question) - why do you think it is OK to use an opinion of Al-Jazeera correspondent in Gaza (who says IDF engaged an aggressive psy-war by spreading leaflets and it is possible that he distorts their meaning and intent in the first place) and it is not OK to use an opinion of NGO in this section? Also, words of PCHR advocate are reported via the Guardian, but they are still opinion of this PCHR man, not exactly objective, neutral and reliable organization. Anyway, what makes Al-Jazeera correspondent in Gaza more qualified than opinion of NGO?
- Not that important, but in Israeli part there's short sentence that says IDF dropped 400,00 lealfets, taken from here. No referene to propaganda there. But it is a good source, maybe Cptnono will be delighted to take this further.
- This one is tricky. 'Maneuvering the enemy' - of course this falls within definitions of propaganda. But does it withstand the impossible standards you set?
- This one is very good. Take a look, 'The fate of Sgt. Gilad Schalit, who was captured by Hamas-linked militants in 2006 and whose whereabouts remain unknown, is repeatedly evoked in broadcasts and statements by Hamas'. So, one of your deleted sentences will be restored, by simply using another source. MSNBC use 'threat' under headline 'psy-war', but when you see it under different headline, the same phrase is no longer adequate. I understand the policy, but again I think you take it to absurdity. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. I dont see the point in getting into this again other than adding another 100kB of text to this page.
- 2. Yes, if there is consensus that the ITIC can be used to support a statement of fact it would OR or SYNTH would no longer be an issue. But to clarify what I mean by calling it a fact. If we, Misplaced Pages, place something under the section title "propaganda and psychological warfare" we are saying that it is a fact that these actions were propaganda or psychological warfare, not just the opinion of somebody, but a fact reported as a fact in a reliable source. Why use Al-Jazeera, because they are a RS and they reported it as a fact. What are you talking about with the PCHR advocate in the Guardian? If there is a problem on the other side then I, or you, will fix it. I am nothing if not consistent.
- 3. I do not think ynet article qualifies, the msnbc one does, so put that line in with that source. nableezy - 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't answer me. I'll ask direct questions: (1) 'we are saying that it is a fact' - why? Why must it be a fact? Why can't we place an opinion of notable NGO and say that some notable NGO thinks that some acts amount to propaganda? (2) Open the link to Al-Jazeera. Why do you say AJ presented and treated it as fact? Quoting direct speech of AJ correspondent in Gaza is a fact? And if that correspondent would have said "by dropping bombs on schools, mosques and children asleep IDF is engaged in genocide of Palestinians", you'd say it is a fact too? In the same AJ piece, direct speech of Azmi Bishara is produced as well. Does it mean that "the war against slums and refugee camps can only be a war crime" is a fact? Btw, the sentences based on AJ are poorly written, I'll fix it a bit, without deleting it all. (3) Seems like you are fixed on this RS thing, i.e. whenever there's source defined as RS, you infer that everything they say or anyone they quote, becomes worth publication. Don't you think it must be treated with caution? Don't you think there are cases when a primary source is better than secondary RS source (BBC quoting ICRC)? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. If we do that I would suggest renaming the section to allegations of the use of propaganda and psychological warfare (which is a bit unweildy), but as it was constructed it is presenting it as fact, at least that is how it read to me. And truthfully that is how I think it should be; this article can be divided into 2, one part is simply saying this is what happened (the actual war section and the casualties section) and arguments (the intl law section). Now it is understandable why the intl law section is like that, unless an authoritative source comes out with detailed verdicts on these allegations is almost has to be presented as such. But the stuff on the military aspect of the war should be facts as reported by RS. 2. Yes, when an AJ reporter makes a news report they are saying this is a fact. 3. Not exactly, not anything they say or quote we should include, but anything they say or write can be included, at that point it is an editorial decision on what we include. nableezy - 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. I'll comply (but I think it is inevitable in the future that we'll have a serious discussion about ITIC qualification elsewhere). I hope there will be no objection to disperse the info from RS throughout the article (e.g. Hamas threats in the start of ground invasion; there is already sentence in casualties figures that "Hamas has claimed that it killed at least 80 Israeli soldiers"). 2. Still disagree, the AJ piece attributes the direct speech to correspondent in Gaza, and I believe it would be fare to reproduce the the attribution. 3. At least, 'it is an editorial decision on what we include' is a form of consent with me, as long as 'an editorial decision' means of several editors, and not just one partisan. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. not sure what you mean, do you want it to be allegations of ...? 2. Disagree, when a reporter makes a statement of fact in a report the publication is making that statement of fact. 3. Absolutely it means several editors, I dont own the page. nableezy - 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to seal off the psy-war section, but then, all of a sudden, I came across this: The unreported battle with Hamas: psychological warfare. I'm still left with RS saying that Hamas seniors threatened to turn Gaza into graveyard for Israeli soldiers. This was an intense statement and I think it deserves its place in the article (outside psy-war, but still) in the same way that we're discussing other statements with Cryptonio (I asked you to check it out). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. not sure what you mean, do you want it to be allegations of ...? 2. Disagree, when a reporter makes a statement of fact in a report the publication is making that statement of fact. 3. Absolutely it means several editors, I dont own the page. nableezy - 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. I'll comply (but I think it is inevitable in the future that we'll have a serious discussion about ITIC qualification elsewhere). I hope there will be no objection to disperse the info from RS throughout the article (e.g. Hamas threats in the start of ground invasion; there is already sentence in casualties figures that "Hamas has claimed that it killed at least 80 Israeli soldiers"). 2. Still disagree, the AJ piece attributes the direct speech to correspondent in Gaza, and I believe it would be fare to reproduce the the attribution. 3. At least, 'it is an editorial decision on what we include' is a form of consent with me, as long as 'an editorial decision' means of several editors, and not just one partisan. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. If we do that I would suggest renaming the section to allegations of the use of propaganda and psychological warfare (which is a bit unweildy), but as it was constructed it is presenting it as fact, at least that is how it read to me. And truthfully that is how I think it should be; this article can be divided into 2, one part is simply saying this is what happened (the actual war section and the casualties section) and arguments (the intl law section). Now it is understandable why the intl law section is like that, unless an authoritative source comes out with detailed verdicts on these allegations is almost has to be presented as such. But the stuff on the military aspect of the war should be facts as reported by RS. 2. Yes, when an AJ reporter makes a news report they are saying this is a fact. 3. Not exactly, not anything they say or quote we should include, but anything they say or write can be included, at that point it is an editorial decision on what we include. nableezy - 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't answer me. I'll ask direct questions: (1) 'we are saying that it is a fact' - why? Why must it be a fact? Why can't we place an opinion of notable NGO and say that some notable NGO thinks that some acts amount to propaganda? (2) Open the link to Al-Jazeera. Why do you say AJ presented and treated it as fact? Quoting direct speech of AJ correspondent in Gaza is a fact? And if that correspondent would have said "by dropping bombs on schools, mosques and children asleep IDF is engaged in genocide of Palestinians", you'd say it is a fact too? In the same AJ piece, direct speech of Azmi Bishara is produced as well. Does it mean that "the war against slums and refugee camps can only be a war crime" is a fact? Btw, the sentences based on AJ are poorly written, I'll fix it a bit, without deleting it all. (3) Seems like you are fixed on this RS thing, i.e. whenever there's source defined as RS, you infer that everything they say or anyone they quote, becomes worth publication. Don't you think it must be treated with caution? Don't you think there are cases when a primary source is better than secondary RS source (BBC quoting ICRC)? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Sean
will follow.
- 'It doesn't matter because an encyclopedia shouldn't be filled up with unsubstatiated theories especially ones where notability has not been established.' - correct. the argument revolves thus around the question 'is ITIC notable'? I think it is, the moment NY Times picked them up and because they are cited elsewhere in Israeli sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'This article needs to present the facts, the data and leave the theories alone. If we just present data this kind of issue goes away.' - I understand your desire, but I'm afraid it is impossible. First of all, this means the whole psy-war sections is removed - for example, leaflets that IDF dropped, are they a genuine effort to reduce civilain casualties or a means of psy-war? Depends on who you ask. Al-Jazeera correspondent told is is part of aggressive psy-war against civilians. But who is he exactly to spread such theories? Another example - fatalities. Let's assume everybody agrees there are 1400 dead. How many civilians? How many fighters? How figter is defined? Was those killings legal? Was it a war-crime? What lead to those attacks? It is virtually impossible to establish facts to these questions, and actually wiki is not about the truth. PCHR says most of them civilians, ITC says PCHR's own data implies that most are apparently fighters. The same I tried to demonstrate you about Goldstone team. You can't separate it from context. One thing if the team is totally neutral, objective, independent, reliable and accepted by all sides. Another thing is when the team was assembled to probe war crimes from one side, its members' mind is set up and the "boss" of the team is obsessed with condemning only one side. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'but provides no evidence for even one such case. Amnesty International' - one of the most funny parts in AI report (if the word funny is applicable here). Of course IDF did, it was published on April 22 in IDF site and in JPost - Hamas presumably used hospital as its hide-and-command center. And maybe I see your point, they presented the data they possessed and left room for reservation. But what happens next? The whole mass-madia world reprints this headline - 'AI found no evidence that Hamas used medical facilities'. So let's be honest with ourselves - maybe this particular sentence AI wrote with RS manner (even though I can find many other that don't), but they showed their complete lack of competence in investigating such matters in the first place. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You'd better read a part about destroyed houses. And to give more credit to their unbelievable assessment, they provide words of ... low-rank soldier from tank unit. What exactly low-rank soldier knows about military necessity, about intelligence his commanders have? With all my respect to that soldier - nothing, believe a reservist officer.
- '...and ITIC "It should be noted that a similar policy was followed by Hezbollah in the second Lebanon war, when it purposefully did not publish the names of killed operatives, preferring instead to bury them in secret, without media coverage, to reinforce the “divine victory” myth it sought to create"...."It is our assessment that such a policy is designed to ... to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message"...seriously, this is an encyclopedia.' - what is this supposed to mean? That Hezbollah didn't conceal more believable number of their dead? They did. That Hezbollah didn't proclaim victory? They did. I think these lines are fine and adequate to encyclopedia. You think otherwise? Fine, luckily for me your opinion has no more weight than mine. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Threats in psy-war
Please explain why you kept this: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1103314/Israel-rolls-tanks-Gaza-storm-Hamas-rocket-bases.html Meanwhile, Hamas threatened to turn Gaza into a "graveyard" for Israeli forces. 'You entered like rats,' Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan told Israeli soldiers in a statement on Hamas' Al Aqsa TV. 'Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing,' he said.]
but deleted this: In Damascus, the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal warned Israel that it faced a “black destiny” if it decided to launch a ground offensive. He also threatened that militants in Gaza could attempt to seize Israeli troops as hostages, as they did two years ago when the young soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. "If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, who knows, we may have a second or a third or a fourth Shalit," said Meshaal. "If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you," the Syria-based Meshaal said in a pre-taped speech aired on Al-Jazeera television. "You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God.". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Honest oversight? removed it too. nableezy - 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I expected. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hamas response to rocket attacks.
There was a response previously before the section got reworked. Don't know why it wasn't added.
I found this and added it.
Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar stated during the operation "they shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is an appropriate addition. Two points: first, you added it to 'acts of terrorism' subsection, while it seems more relevant to 'attacks directed at civilians subsection'. Second, there's already a sentence in 'attacks directed at civilians subsection' in Hamas response to AI report - Hamas official rejected the report as "unbalanced, unfair and unprofessional," calling the firing of rockets "self defense" and a legitimate response to Israel's actions. - Maybe these two sentences can be merged as one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- There should be a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has, and very detailed ones. That somehow the wording is similar, well the subjects are similar...rockets. Cryptonio (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice - the subject, i.e. the specific charge, is different,
but nevermind. The word 'rockets' in the heading is inappropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)- Changed my mind. While the notion of 'a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has' is perfectly fine, the response should address the charge. Words "they shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques, ... and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way" say nothing about 'legitimacy' to spread terror. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- In case you didn't notice - the subject, i.e. the specific charge, is different,
- There should be a response, or the idea of one, in every charge(subsection) like Israel has, and very detailed ones. That somehow the wording is similar, well the subjects are similar...rockets. Cryptonio (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It did addressed rockets though, we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then . It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing). Cryptonio (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - say it again please? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It did addressed rockets though, we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then . It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing). Cryptonio (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
From the source:" On Monday Hamas militants fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel despite a 10-day Israeli military campaign that reportedly has left more than 500 Palestinians dead.
Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes "for many months" and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory. He spoke on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV.
Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar also gave a televised address Monday, saying the leadership in Gaza salutes "the resistance men" and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done.
"They shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." Cryptonio (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read the source, and as said, no objection to use words of Hamas official. I don't agree to quote them in 'attacks spreading terror section' because the words address the charge of indiscriminate attacks and not terror. You said 'we could include the whole part(within the news article) related to rockets then' - I didn't understand what you mean or what do you suggest. Please say it again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- On the section of spreading terror, how is it that they spread terror? Rocket attacks. "It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing)". There is nothing else mentioned on the spreading terror section besides rockets. And finally, if they say this ""They shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." they expressed that they are doing what Israel is doing, and if Israel says that's spreading terror, then obviously Hamas thinks Israel is spreading terror as well. It's all they saying with the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'shelled children and hospitals and mosques' - seems like indiscriminate attack. Actually, all our dispute here is speculative, and I didn't express stronger objection because it falls somewhere in the grey zone. I still tend to think it is not so qualified in the terror attacks section. You see, many (including human-rights NGOs) said for a long time that the prime aim of rockets on Israel is not to kill but to spread terror and this in itself is a violation. Israel never said that (and it is impossible to determine it decisively) the aim of attacks in Gaza was to terrify Gazans. Well, I don't know. I told you my opinion. Maybe I'll ask third party to take a look. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- On the section of spreading terror, how is it that they spread terror? Rocket attacks. "It addresses the subject of firing rockets, and of course Hamas is not going to say they are doing it in order to sow terror, that is Israel's line of thought(Hamas' line is that it has the right to imitate Israel(paraphrasing)". There is nothing else mentioned on the spreading terror section besides rockets. And finally, if they say this ""They shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." they expressed that they are doing what Israel is doing, and if Israel says that's spreading terror, then obviously Hamas thinks Israel is spreading terror as well. It's all they saying with the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said 'no stronger objection" and "grey area" and I agree with you. I won't be mad if someone else besides you removes(or moves) the quote. Cryptonio (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
→I'll try to get attention of Cptnono (leading military) and Nableezy (leading wiki-policy) experts to decide. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a military expert in any way (I just think the aspect is important) Thanks, though : ) . I look at this article as a military conflict more than a series of international law violations. My initial thought is to put it in the "Rocket attacks into Israel" section. From the way I am reading the source, dude is vowing to fight on and feel's justified. He also thinks their method is similar to Israel's. It is easy to assume that he knows it is controversial and that is why he made the statement but in all reality, "warned Israel that Izzedine al Qassam Brigades will continue rocket strikes 'for many months' and vowed to strike deeper into Israeli territory" "the leadership in Gaza salutes 'the resistance men' and that their actions were justified because of what Israel has done." and "They shelled everyone in Gaza. ... They shelled children and hospitals and mosques," he said. "And in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way." are all good quotes describing a tactic used. To make it easier on us, the source doesn't mention international law so we don't need to put it in such a section at all.Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds. It is the accusation that must refer to or at least allude(per today's standards) to Inter Law violations. Cryptonio (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- "I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds." - then under what grounds? Definitely not grounds of laws of war. The accusation is (a direct quote of int-law): "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited". It turns out Cptnono and I think alike - the quotes are good, but the placement is not. Let's see if Nableezy will show up. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think he refers to "legitimacy" under moral grounds. It is the accusation that must refer to or at least allude(per today's standards) to Inter Law violations. Cryptonio (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
→So far, Cptnono and I think alike, and Nableezy didn't show up. How do we move towards resolution? Cryptonio, you want to bring in anybody else? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, i can wait for Nableezy to say something. Cryptonio (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Outcome through swimming pool
Zhou Enlai: "It is too early to say..."
Couple of days ago there was report by Hebrew language RS that some school teachers in Sderot are getting fired (losing their jobs), since "rocket fire" positions are being eliminated by Israeli authorities. In eyes of BBC it is a question of International Law. They also publish picture of Sderot swimming pool which was closed for four years because of the rocket attacks and now "recovering uneasy". Sderot mayor said: "We don't hate the people in Gaza, we feel pain for them, but we have to remember they don't suffer because of us, they suffer because of their leaders." Maybe it's time to update outcome in this article to reflect the reality. Hamas temporary cease-fire was week long and Hamas leaders officially announced it as expired at due time. This point is not clear at all in the Infobox. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, look who it is! What do you suggest replacing it with ? I suppose it just says what it says at the moment because that was the outcome at the end of the conflict which I guess is consistent with the dates above. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Sean, missed you too. I love signature meme which infected you replicating with slight modification at nableezy. Kind of Darwin evolution ;-). To your point, don't make me lough with "momentary truth" argument. Clearly so far there is no precedent of Hamas declaring "cease-fire" with Israel unilaterally or otherwise: most advanced state of relation normalization process with Zionist occupying entity is so called "temporary lull". I hope this fact is visible even at Thailand. As far as military conflict context, I'd follow general trend of Operation Defensive Shield WP precedent. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Status: Israel and Hamas declare separate unilateral ceasefires.- Result: Israeli success
- Let me know if there is any objection. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I object, can you provide sources that say Israeli success or victory? nableezy - 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I explained why current description does not reflect reality. Could you relate to that? Do you have better suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I have a better suggestion, follow the sources and not decide for ourselves who "won". nableezy - 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey man, you don't relate to my argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thats because it is your argument. The conclusions you draw from the facts are not really relevant to what we say are facts in the article, those have to be from reliable sources. I could present my own OR argument showing Hamas achieved victory. But it would not matter because it should not be in the article. We let people who are qualified to say what the outcome was, and the sources when describing this conflict invariably say that it came to an end when each side declared unilateral ceasefires. That is what we say. nableezy - 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of afraid that your reaction conditioned by mine identity. This would not be Wikipedian worthy behavior. Anyway, currently it is not outcome, but "Status". Do you agree that Hamas temporary cease-fire expired after one week, about half year ago? The status expired, you know. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Your" is not specific to you, it is about any wikipedia editor using their own analysis as the basis of inserting material into an article. And what has come since the ceasefires were declared are treated in the sources as occurring after the "Gaza war", so the two each declaring separate unilateral ceasefires is accurate for describing the end of the "Gaza war". nableezy - 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of afraid that your reaction conditioned by mine identity. This would not be Wikipedian worthy behavior. Anyway, currently it is not outcome, but "Status". Do you agree that Hamas temporary cease-fire expired after one week, about half year ago? The status expired, you know. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thats because it is your argument. The conclusions you draw from the facts are not really relevant to what we say are facts in the article, those have to be from reliable sources. I could present my own OR argument showing Hamas achieved victory. But it would not matter because it should not be in the article. We let people who are qualified to say what the outcome was, and the sources when describing this conflict invariably say that it came to an end when each side declared unilateral ceasefires. That is what we say. nableezy - 19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey man, you don't relate to my argument. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I have a better suggestion, follow the sources and not decide for ourselves who "won". nableezy - 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I explained why current description does not reflect reality. Could you relate to that? Do you have better suggestion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I object, can you provide sources that say Israeli success or victory? nableezy - 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
cease-fire, which is limited in time
Let's be more accurate. Was Hamas "cease-fire" limited in time? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- The answer to that question doesnt really matter, the sources describe the end of the "Gaza War" as when Israel and Hamas declared their own ceasefires. That is what the infobox says. nableezy - 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable with sources puppet role, encyclopedia require some thinking. To the point there are couple of problems here:
- 1. Indeed BBC say "unilateral ceasefires" about events that happened half-year ago. Status is current state of affairs though. BBC report that now Sderot swimming pool is open since rocket attacks rate allow it after four years. From ceasefire point of view - it is last year snow.
- 2. Sometimes people just can not imagine that language of Shakespeare is not reach enough - some things just get lost in translation. Maybe this is also wishful thinking. We already agreed in the article to translate "status" of affairs as "lull".
- So if we stay with Status we should go with lull. Maybe it's too early to achieve Result. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, status is the status of the war, not what is going on in the world today, which the sources say ended Jan 19 with the unilateral ceasefires. And WP policy is pretty clear that we are puppets of the sources. nableezy - 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
a one-week ceasefire - citation needed
I agree that Misplaced Pages require citation. Supporting "puppets of the sources" looks to me a bit drastic though ;-)
- Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced on Sunday (January 18th) a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip to allow Israeli soldiers to withdraw.
- The Hamas leadership announced Sunday (January 18th) a one-week ceasefire in Gaza, saying Israel should use that time to withdraw its forces and open all border crossings in the territory. The news from Hamas's Syrian-based deputy leader, Moussa Abu Marzouk, came about 12 hours after Israel declared its own unilateral ceasefire to end its 22-day-old offensive in Gaza.
Status: Israel and Hamas declare separate unilateral ceasefires.- Status: Israel declared unilateral ceasefire, 12 hours later Hamas announced a one-week ceasefire
Hope this is more accurate and backed by sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- If noone objects I'm going to apply this change. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking the Silence
The report is based entirely on sources within the IDF, and seems to support third-party criticisms of the assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Anonymous testimonies from low-ranked soldiers with IDF spokesman dismissing the report as *shocking* hearsay. Considering the program is bankrolled by governments/organizations that have taken sides most wouldn't say the report isn't particularly unique. Spec gave a nice reasoning in a separate section for a very similar report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- According to BBC "But Breaking the Silence has a long - and to many, credible - record of getting soldiers to talk about experiences which might not reflect well on the Army. The group is funded by the British, Dutch and Spanish governments, as well as the EU." Toolsother (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Anonymous testimonies from low-ranked soldiers with IDF spokesman dismissing the report as *shocking* hearsay. Considering the program is bankrolled by governments/organizations that have taken sides most wouldn't say the report isn't particularly unique. Spec gave a nice reasoning in a separate section for a very similar report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- re Wikifan: Your description is even less exactly, Wikifan, given the available information. e.g. Haaretz quotes "The soldier said he was present at several such operations", and BBC: "we simply began to fire". That's 1st person talking, not hearsay. Then the IDF-reaction is just spreading fog. And being payed by government doesn't say anything about the statements being incorrect, as you suggest by your research. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- You consider that meticulous data? An anonymous soldier claiming he was present in x war-crime? Not to SOAP here (ok, maybe a little), but these organizations possess some of the largest confirmation bias on Earth. Regardless, this is hardly empirical and wouldn't pass in a court of law (maybe international law though, haha). Same deal with Operation Defensive Shield. Organizations from AI, UNRWA, and even the UN published confident reports that evidence of a large-scale massacre conducted by Israeli soldiers existed. They relied on very similar evidence, anonymous yet vivid testimonies that ultimately wasn't consistent when the experts showed up. You need impartial, apolitical specialists to conduct these sorts of investigations, Hamas holding Goldstone's hand doesn't say much integrity-wise. And neither does this "damning" report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- re Wikifan: Your description is even less exactly, Wikifan, given the available information. e.g. Haaretz quotes "The soldier said he was present at several such operations", and BBC: "we simply began to fire". That's 1st person talking, not hearsay. Then the IDF-reaction is just spreading fog. And being payed by government doesn't say anything about the statements being incorrect, as you suggest by your research. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since you write "international law though, haha", on a war-crime topic, why are you here in the first place? If you don't take war-crimes & Geneva serious, why use the word serious on other writings? -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I take war-crimes and Geneva convention seriously when they apply to all countries, not just Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here are the good Honest Reporting's questions to those from "Breaking the Silence" : Unanswered Questions, July 15 2009 - Igorp lj (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think this would actually be an organized, informative, not bloated like a whale, and neutral enough article if it was written like today's Associated Press piece.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly compelling. Nothing particularly offensive about calling the Guardian and enemy of Israel. It is a watchdog and partisan organization (duh), but isn't even comparable to Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs that claims Israel is probably behind the assassination of JFK. At least HR is honest and doesnt pretend to be something it's not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
→Peled: Soldier who testified in Cast Lead report 'was not in the field at the time'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I may email the BBC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, wasnt the 30 testimonies in the report anonymous IDF soldiers? Cant really follow this 'was not in the field at the time' claim. Someone explain please. Toolsother (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can't follow? Low-ranking soldier who gave testimony admits to not participating in the conflict, what more is there? It sure is convenient to keep everything anonymous, or else the IDF could actually confirm or disprove soldier's location (i.e, brutal acts occurred here - soldier was at gay night club in Tel Aviv). :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, wasnt the 30 testimonies in the report anonymous IDF soldiers? Cant really follow this 'was not in the field at the time' claim. Someone explain please. Toolsother (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
→I guess this is one of those cases it is better to look at a primary source, instead of speculations of secondary ones. Cast Lead Testimonies. Pay attention: there are exactly 2 incidents of alleged human shields. Peled claims one is based on hearsay. I havn't read all the testimonies yet, but those that I did read say nothing new. It is concievable that such instances did occur, and even more of them than published. But for most of what I read, they might be disturbing/shocking for the guys like that Michael Something (breaking the silence advocate, who escaped the military service because declared himself pacifist) or for liberal-oriented foreigner who understands nothing about fighting terrorist organization. Most of what I read is an inherent part of such war. Unfortunate for innocent civilians, as it always is. Cptnono made a correct observation. No doubt some IDF soldiers are dicks, some cases involved reckless actions, some caused much harm there. But all these so far change nothing in the whole picture. No other army would have done it better. No other state would have suffered rockets' humiliation longer. Ah, and it seems like there's no evidence of direct and deliberate murder of unarmed civilians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to declare myself as a liberal-oriented foreigner who understands nothing about fighting terrorist organizations (hmmm a new barnstar methinks). I do know quite a lot about massive earthquake damage though. Not sure whether that means I am or that I'm not qualified to comment on what happened in Gaza. Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Is there consensus to add anything new to the article or not ? Thoughts.. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan please provide a source for your assertion that whistle-blowing IDF personnel frequent homosexual nightspots, otherwise it is original research. RomaC (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan and Sceptic dont seem to spread any wisdom about this obvious contradictory of anonymous IDF soldier for sure was not in field at a given point according to Israeli military brass and some Israeli media. To me its obvious that some here are not sceptical enough to whitewashing and Israel propagandaeffort. And look at this not so suprising revelation. (Israeli Government, AIPAC Stepping Up Attacks on Human Rights Watch). Attacking Rights Groups is generally a bad sign imho. I do hope no editors here got those mails. Toolsother (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You, Toolsoother, obviously didn't read my post properly. According to genuine report of BtS, there are 2 (two) cases of alleged uses of civilian shields. Suppose they are true. Suppose more such incidents had occured. It is a bad practice, banned by Israeli HCJ. Any such soldier/his commander should be brought to trial. And? Israel is an ordinary country with ordinary people, placed in extraordinary circumstances. There are good and not so good people. Just as in every other country on Earth. Single incidents still say very little about general trend. Do you know statistics? Go to AI site or to UNHRC, make some statistics on anti-Israeli remarks there and compare the number to other troubled spots on Earth. US and UK declared war and wage war thousand miles from their homeland, after just a couple of terrorist attacks. Much more civilians died there than in those attacks. Take a look at what happened to Chechnia in recent 15 years. Take a look at China dealing with disturbances in occupied provinces. No other army did this better. Britons, who at least have some standards, did not do it better - says their former commander. Russians, Turks, Chinese and all the rest do not have such.
- You know, Sean, what is the funniest part here? If I'd say that based on BtS report there are 2 instances of alleged human shields, Nableezy would revert this and say that as long as we do not have secondary RS, it is OR. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not true, if you say that "There were 2 instances of using human shields" cited to this I would revert you. If you introduced this into the campaign section I would revert you. If you introduced this in the intl law section with an explicit cite to the article I would leave it alone. nableezy - 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You know, Sean, what is the funniest part here? If I'd say that based on BtS report there are 2 instances of alleged human shields, Nableezy would revert this and say that as long as we do not have secondary RS, it is OR. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read your post. Like you I havnt read the whole Breaking the Silence testimony word for word. What in world are you complaining about? Did I disputed your claim about the testimony of two incidents of using human shields? Most of the other you wrote goes under general discussion in a quite bad tone and I wrote a long answer but didnt published it as this is not the right place. Then Sean answered you in a good way.
- In this case is easy to see through Israel propaganda tactics. You brougt the link Peled: Soldier who testified in Cast Lead report 'was not in the field at the time'. Peled didnt gave any trustworthy reasons why the IDF soldiers wasnt in field. The IDFguys was anonymous. Again. How could Peled knowthat they wasnt in field then? Sounds like a blatant lie. You understand now? Doesnt look good bringing such cheap propaganda. Don you see it? Toolsother (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet through Honest Reporting (Breaking the Silence: More Rumor & Hearsay, 16 July 2009):
Israel MFA - Reaction to "Breaking the Silence" human rights repor, , 15 Jul 2009
"As with the testimonies made at the Rabin (Pre- Igorp_lj)Military Academy several months ago, a considerable number of the testimonies in this report are also based on hearsay and word of mouth". - Igorp lj (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
→Latest from JPost, could be relevant: The 110-page report, which included videotaped testimonies in which soldiers' faces were blurred out, did not represent a cross-section of the army. Rather, they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. Two were junior officers and the rest were enlisted personnel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Something very interesting about credibility of latest HRW report from Reuters - "Human Rights Watch based its findings primarily on debris from Israeli-made Spike missiles, which it said are fired from drones. Spike's state-controlled manufacturer, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., says the missile, which has been sold widely abroad, can be fired by helicopters, infantry units and naval craft...Asked how it was possible to know that the Spikes in question had been fired by drones rather than these other means, Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch's senior military analyst, cited corroborative evidence such as Palestinian witnesses who said they had seen or heard the unmanned aircraft. But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft...". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why even bother question here? It's BBC. It's WP:V right? That's all you hear in these god forsaken articles. Mallerd (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
You Israeli guys sicken me, perhaps not every army really knows how to deal with urban guerilla warfare, but they sure as hell do know how to recon and acquire targets with a tank. When they spot a school full of women and children they don't fire. Believe me, you know where you're shooting at when you fire the cannon. If you claim otherwise, you claim those soldiers are idiots. Contradicting that would be. Mallerd (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Next time you show up to spit venom on the Israelis, please care to do 2 things: first, remind us when exactly did Israeli tank shot at school full of women and children; second, 'sure as hell do know how to recon and acquire targets with a tank' - do you have sources to that? Because, you know, numbers of civilian deaths in Chechnia, Sri Lanka, Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Kurdistan throughout last decade say otherwise. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Is that some kind of defense mechanism? Always shift the attention? You know you are no different than the Russians in Chechnya, the Sri Lankese on their island, the Russians and Americans and what not in Afghanistan and Iraq. The world must confront your people, the most ridiculous nation in the world, for always shifting the attention. There is a incriminating report? Let's just say the sources are dubious. In Russia, a journalist is being too frank? Let's just kill her. In Iraq, people are celebrating New Year's? Let's just shoot them. Thank god you mentioned those horrible crimes in those countries, you fit in just right. Military from those countries know how to shoot a tank or rifle, they just don't care when they destroy a school, hospital or infrastructures. You know this is the case, you just wanted to say something hoping I wouldn't respond. That's the attitude of Isreal towards the world in a nutshell. Dismissing international reports by Amnesty. Blamage! Mallerd (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do you or do you not have source behind 'tank shot at school full of women and children'? Amnesty report will be discussed, trust me, but later. And one more thing. 'You Israeli guys sicken me' - this is an insult, an uncivil remark inappropriate here. Please refrain from such language in future. An apology would be appreciated. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder, do you have similar feelings towards Palestinians (and other nations mentioned above too) or it is reserved exclusively to 'the most ridiculous nation in the world'? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again, an opinion of former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, res. colonel Kemp
A British military expert tells truth to prejudice --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would note that this commander has linked al-Qaida with Iran, which for me makes it hard to take anything else he says seriously. I dont see why his views would be barred from the article, but I do not see the need to include them either. Enlighten me Sceptic. nableezy - 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is no more than this former commanders opinions as he dont mention anything that indicate he has informed himself more than anyone reading news. His speach is about the importence of winning the media war for UK military campains. His examples from and about the Gaza War subject is, or well, shouldnt impress anyone. Not professional at all. Melanie Phillips editorial or blog doesnt bring more than her opinion either. Both forwarding IDF and Israels view. Perhaps Melanie Phillips endingwords "Go figure" should be directed to herself. Now, Sceptic Ashdod, what is your point with this link? I also need enlightment. Toolsother (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Or we could just let the facts speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. ^^^^ Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Many are engaged in this 'headline' game. If the circumstances would require, I'll use it too.
- "On the strategic level, any mistake, or in some cases legal and proportional response, by a Western army will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce international outcry and condemnation" - this is exactly what Toolsother does. "...to deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable." - says former commander. At least Sean has balls to admit he understands nothing in military matters. Do you, Toolsother?
- Nableezy, it never seemed to bother you the article provides words of Richard Falk (who implied 9/11 was a conspirasy and compared Israeli acts towards Palestinians to that of Nazis)? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- No it hasnt. Richard Falk though is currently a United Nations Special Rapporteur and when he speaks in that role he is speaking for the UNHRC. If this colonel is speaking on behalf of the British army then by all means include it. If he is just speaking on behalf of himself I dont see the point. nableezy - 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nableezy is right. Falk could be Adolf Hitler and his "analysis" is still crucial according to wp:V. He acts on behalf of Egypt and Saudi arabia, errr...I mean the UNHRC. There is however plenty of criticism directed at him by organizations and countries beyond Israel (in regards o Gaza). It certainly is suspect to select political activists/crazy professors over apolitical specialists and experts which Israel continues to request. Guilty until proven guilty, as far as the UN is concerned. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- No it hasnt. Richard Falk though is currently a United Nations Special Rapporteur and when he speaks in that role he is speaking for the UNHRC. If this colonel is speaking on behalf of the British army then by all means include it. If he is just speaking on behalf of himself I dont see the point. nableezy - 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, do you think Israel will military 'win' and keep the occupied land without a neverending asymetrical war? And in the long run, how long do you think this behavour from the state of Israel will be confined to the view on Israelis and not be what jews will be judged by? Deep shit, yes. And why dont Israel buy peace for land before Iran or some other country got the real big bomb and use it. Many many thougts how bad this might end if Israel continue like it does now. Damn, Im bloging. Fuck you for baiting me to this, well, /general discussion off. Toolsother (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel gave up Gaza and look what happened. Israel gave up Sinai for a cold peace which mostly benefited Egypt. Peace requires reciprocation, and until the PA meets its obligations according to the Oslo Accords and Road map for peace nothing will change. When Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David Summit the whole world including Bill Clinton, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia blamed the Palestinians. Israel offered them Gaza, 90+% of the WB, and East Jerusalem. Clearly land isn't the issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Both of you stop soapboxing. nableezy - 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can I please, please, just something very very short? Please? Palestinian children stand at a gate to the Rafah border crossing in the southern Gaza Strip during a protest against the Israeli blockade. Nableezy will be my witness that we already clarified - Egypt control Rafah on Egypt's border and Egypt sealed Rafah by herself, regardless of agreements between NPA-Egypt-Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sceptic's excellent proposal to use more photographs in the article to illustrate the plight of civilians caught up in the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a decent goal in itself - as long as we preserve the context... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sceptic's excellent proposal to use more photographs in the article to illustrate the plight of civilians caught up in the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can I please, please, just something very very short? Please? Palestinian children stand at a gate to the Rafah border crossing in the southern Gaza Strip during a protest against the Israeli blockade. Nableezy will be my witness that we already clarified - Egypt control Rafah on Egypt's border and Egypt sealed Rafah by herself, regardless of agreements between NPA-Egypt-Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Both of you stop soapboxing. nableezy - 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel gave up Gaza and look what happened. Israel gave up Sinai for a cold peace which mostly benefited Egypt. Peace requires reciprocation, and until the PA meets its obligations according to the Oslo Accords and Road map for peace nothing will change. When Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David Summit the whole world including Bill Clinton, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia blamed the Palestinians. Israel offered them Gaza, 90+% of the WB, and East Jerusalem. Clearly land isn't the issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nableezy, it never seemed to bother you the article provides words of Richard Falk (who implied 9/11 was a conspirasy and compared Israeli acts towards Palestinians to that of Nazis)? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- "On the strategic level, any mistake, or in some cases legal and proportional response, by a Western army will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce international outcry and condemnation" - this is exactly what Toolsother does. "...to deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable." - says former commander. At least Sean has balls to admit he understands nothing in military matters. Do you, Toolsother?
- Many are engaged in this 'headline' game. If the circumstances would require, I'll use it too.
- Agreed. ^^^^ Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Belated gloat
All I am saying is that I have been for naming this "Gaza War" since the tanks rolled in.
I am glad the consensus has held so far. This is the most relevant title until the next Gaza War or until there is no more Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
And argument that only hindsight provides, and that hence I didn't use at the time, is that this is not only a geographic descriptor, but actually focuses on what separates this conflict from previous ones: Israel didn't attack the west bank whatsoever as part of Operation Cast Lead. It was the first incursion by Israel in the Palestinian Authority era in which not only the focus but the entire operation concentrated solely on Gaza. It was not a war intended to dismantle/weaken the Palestinian Authority as a whole, but only the part administered by Hamas. This is a defacto change of posture by Israel, and a historically significant difference from previous wars on Palestinians which didn't defacto make a difference between Palestinian actors while on the ground - and which treated the entire PA controlled areas as under attack.
Of course, this is all secondary to the overwhelming support in reliable sources. Good job guys and gals! --Cerejota (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to see you back. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your gloat is somewhat undermined by the fact that until the day before yesterday and for the whole period you were away the article was called 'Operation Cast Lead - A Righteous Victory'. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, please don't feed em!... Wikifan, I never left, just have severely constrained editing opportunities. I read teh wikis daily. --Cerejota (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Testomonies & "testimonies"
As I see, so disputed part, being passed to the end of "Ground invasion" and thanks to "balanced" editors, now has already no evidence nor for lie of D.Zamir & Haaretz, no enough for real soldiers' opinion who's honor are trying to dirt those from BTS, D.Zamir & Haaretz and their friends here and throughout the world.
Only example: these words "Soon after the publication of the testimonies, reports implying that the testimonies were based on hearsay and not on the first-hand experience" are deleted regularly without any relation to their truth.
Let's be honest and do not make this article yet battlefield or yet place for Arab propaganda as it stated now just in the beginning of article: "and known as the Gaza massacre"
What massacre? HAMAS wanted this War, made all what it can for the War, and is responsible for all disasters what it (not Israel!) brought for its voters. Somebody can find anything about that in the article?
Returning to the testimonies.
I propose to make a separate part with above-mentioned title and to add there all what is concerns to. Any way, I am going to add to the current paragraph all links what are really missed yet and what were already discussed here in "3.3 Second paragraph (Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about" above.
- Igorp lj (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- discussed and ended without any type of consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. Yourself (as minimum) did agreed about Maariv, Channel-2 ... as RSs and did not bring some evidence that Camera - no.
- Moreover you did not agree to include the evidence & appeal of 65 reservists (who REALLY jeopardized in the War against terrorism) to Mazuz for criminal investigation against Haaretz, and you too did not oppose to include (or added by yourself - I do not want to investigate) the word "several" to the "another kind of evidence was collected from several soldiers". So you give me the good argument to return this link as well. - Igorp lj (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what it is you are saying. nableezy - 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. Yourself (as minimum) did agreed about Maariv, Channel-2 ... as RSs and did not bring some evidence that Camera - no.
- I agree with some of what you say, Igorp lj, but as someone mentioned to me above, try not to go too nuts. (Some of us do it more than others when frustrated with other editors). If we are going to use individual reports for subsections, this one can get one pretty easily with the sources available. However, it would be pretty easy to separate into the prose with related information. As a reminder, the AP piece says about everything anyone would need to know. Good and balanced in my opinion: Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is about WP:V. Truth is irrelevant. AP source is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have some good sources too: IDF soldiers give testimonies to counter Gaza war crimes claims. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- The 110-page report, which included videotaped testimonies in which soldiers' faces were blurred out, did not represent a cross-section of the army. Rather, they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. Two were junior officers and the rest were enlisted personnel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- And just to make sure we're even steven with Toolsother about HRW: Fundraising Corruption at Human Rights Watch - some counter-propaganda to that blog of yours.; "According to Steinberg...HRW work in other Middle East countries, since the attention Israel gets is way out of proportion to those given those countries, and since much of the work in countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria only really began after 2006 because some of the organization's key donors earmarked their funds for reporting there". Real sorry for ruining the decent thread with biased agenda. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Update on Goldstone
The mandate is to find the evidence for a verdict that has already been handed down by an automatic anti-Israel majority in the HRC. It is not only immoral, but shows contempt for the international community and the truth. We will not cooperate with the mission because its duty is not to find the truth, but to find semi-judicial ways to attack Israel. We know this shpiel and are not willing to play a game that's stacked against us." Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- says Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy. nableezy - 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways I thought it might be relevant since it is the most recent direct conversation between Israel/UN. It's more precise then simply saying "Israel refuses to cooperate" which is a woeful understatement and borderline dishonest factually-speaking. It is clear Israel has legitimate reasons why it won't cooperate and the UN has legitimate reasons why Israel should cooperate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was just making it clear that this came from the Israeli government, specifically the MFA spokesman. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont plan on arguing with you on the legitimacy of the complaints. nableezy - 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- So what? The article is about Israel. I'd imagine their POV is rather important. Edit: Also, if you read the article you'd see that other prominent figures such as Ehud Barak gave similar comments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not read "Nothing more, nothing less"? For what? So that it is clear who said the long quote you provided above. Did I say anything about not including something like this in the article? nableezy - 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said this only came from the MFA spokesman, that is incorrect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Really? The quote at the top of this section did not come from the Israeli MFA spokesman and only the Israeli MFA spokesman? The article linked contains somebody else saying that exact same thing? They printed the same quote twice or did they attribute it multiple people? Or maybe, just maybe, the Israeli MFA spokesman said this and I said he said this. Could it be? Gee golly, I dont know, what are we going to do? nableezy - 02:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- and my "says Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy" was referring to the quote you copied to the top of this section. nableezy - 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like this is about a special person? Toolsother (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan is indeed a very special person. nableezy - 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like this is about a special person? Toolsother (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- and my "says Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy" was referring to the quote you copied to the top of this section. nableezy - 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Really? The quote at the top of this section did not come from the Israeli MFA spokesman and only the Israeli MFA spokesman? The article linked contains somebody else saying that exact same thing? They printed the same quote twice or did they attribute it multiple people? Or maybe, just maybe, the Israeli MFA spokesman said this and I said he said this. Could it be? Gee golly, I dont know, what are we going to do? nableezy - 02:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- You said this only came from the MFA spokesman, that is incorrect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you not read "Nothing more, nothing less"? For what? So that it is clear who said the long quote you provided above. Did I say anything about not including something like this in the article? nableezy - 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- So what? The article is about Israel. I'd imagine their POV is rather important. Edit: Also, if you read the article you'd see that other prominent figures such as Ehud Barak gave similar comments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was just making it clear that this came from the Israeli government, specifically the MFA spokesman. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont plan on arguing with you on the legitimacy of the complaints. nableezy - 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways I thought it might be relevant since it is the most recent direct conversation between Israel/UN. It's more precise then simply saying "Israel refuses to cooperate" which is a woeful understatement and borderline dishonest factually-speaking. It is clear Israel has legitimate reasons why it won't cooperate and the UN has legitimate reasons why Israel should cooperate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
→Update to the topic: as our previous discussion revealed, Sean knows at least something about conflict in Sri Lanka. The question is do others? ... the council in May hold a session on Sri Lanka? Yes, but one that actually praised the government, instead of holding it accountable. Comparing the UN session on Sri Lanka with the January session against Israel, the one that created Goldstone's mission...
- Goldstone defends Christine Chinkin from bias charge. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, the Sri Lankan war. Is that the one where the army firebombed 20,000 civilians and nobody cared? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, at least according to CNN. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Somehow associates with "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." (no disrespect to civilians killed intended). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel sells newspapers, Sri Lanka does not. Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is silly. BBC world were covering this almost everyday for weeks and weeks. The Sri Lankan spokesman was on virtually everyday denying eveything. He's still on but now he's focusing on the evils of the ICRC etc. Come on guys, drop it. Also, if we're going to start quoting Orwell then I recommend his essay on nationalism as a more suitable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Word. I have given up trying to stop Wikifan from soapboxing, but Sceptic I sincerely hope you change your ways. This is not a forum, this is not a blog, this page serves a specific purpose. Unless you are arguing for a comparison of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel with its treatment of Sri Lanka to be placed in this article this discussion has no place here. If you want to talk amongst yourselves exhange emails or do it on your user talk pages where at least I wouldnt waste my time reading it. nableezy - 08:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's what we are talking about: "Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war?" Is that soapboxing? No, it isn't. Israel sell newspapers and Sri Lanka does not. It was a single sentence and not an attempt to stifle a dispute, though clearly Sean took the bait. Anyways, has any major media or notable person provided commentary on the Sri Lanka/Gaza war double standard/hypocrisy/discrepancy in the UNHRC and the world? I'd imagine the latter would go in the reactions page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't think it was an attempt to stifle debate. Quite the opposite. I thought it was an attempt to change the nature of the debate so that it could be directed along a particular trajectory which happens to coincide with a path already mapped out by pro-Israel advocacy organisations on their websites. Israel vs Sri Lanka comparisons are arbitrary. Why not Israel vs Malaria, Israel vs Heart Disease, Israel vs Road Safety. They're all capable of producing the desired propaganda effect and they're all irrelevant to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'Unless you are arguing for a comparison of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel with its treatment of Sri Lanka to be placed in this article ...' - I might do. I didn't decide it yet, and I'm not the only one to decide here, but the purpose of inserting this info to talk page about the Gaza War, which is part of I-P conflict, is exactly this. Israel is not above criticism. However, according to UN principles, each country should be treated in similar fashion. This is why Sean's sarcastic (yet again) question 'why not Israel vs. Malaria' is irrelevant. There's nothing bad in comparing comparable things. Sean says Sri Lanka conflict gets constant coverage in BBC. I believe him simply because I'm not competent enough not in this conflict and not in the echo it produces worldwide. Nevertheless, I'm puzzled to learn that UNCHR, the body that conceived the Goldstone team, continue to vote for anti-Israeli resolutions one after another, while hardly condemning conducts of others in conflicts with comparable number of killed. Many tragic events as a result of armed conflicts happen around the globe, but this is the first precedent of this sort - to assemble a fact-finding team to probe the war crimes of Israel alone. While some of the info I provide will be left out of the main article - I do strive to put things in proper context the way I see it. And I find it unfortunate that a decent man like Sean makes so many efforts to empty the article from it. Taking into consideration that Nableezy, as far as I understand, is generally tolerant to views of others even when he disagrees, I sincerely hope this won't jeopardize the combined effort to push the article further, despite recent confrontations. Finally, if the citation from Orwell was inappropriate - my apologies. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thats nice, but it doesnt have much to do with the article, only with the real world topic. Sceptic, you have a ton of respect from me; that is why I hope you switch things up a bit, I want it to stay that way. If you want to introduce a comparison to the UNHCR treatment of Israel and Sri Lanka we can talk about that (I would say take it to the UNHCR article, it isnt all that relevant to this article) nableezy - 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, my Israel vs Malaria etc examples aren't sarcasm. I'm trying to make a serious point which is that anything can be compared to anything. People will choose the comparisons that best suit their objectives. If those objectives include advocacy on behalf of something, the promotion of a particular viewpoint/context, the steering of a debate away from the pertinent issues etc then I don't think those comparisons are going to be very enlightening here. It has nothing to do with whether I personally agree or disagree with the views or even care about the issue. It's just that I think it's better if this talk page is an advocacy/flag waving free zone as far as possible. I appreciate that might be difficult. I can't imagine anyone objecting to the Orwell quote. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anything can be compared to anything, but the Sri Lanka and Israeli war are comparable events. Israel vs. heart disease is not. It is an unfair comparison. I think it's very legitimate to see if any main-stream people have commented on the discrepancies. I'd say most are disturbed that the UN has taken such a hard stance with Israel while ignoring the plights of others - others suffering under much, much worse conditions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan, I suppose our point is well understood, I suggest we terminate the thread. I'm intending to make some edits to the section in the article in the course of the next days. Of course, my edits are transparent to you and if any of you will have reservations, you know how to reach me.
- OK, Gentlemen. You read me, I read you. This is not the first time and I guess not the last that the fragile equilibrium is broken. The wisdom is to assemble the pieces together and move forwards - with good faith and mutual cooperation it won't be hard. C u tomorrow. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anything can be compared to anything, but the Sri Lanka and Israeli war are comparable events. Israel vs. heart disease is not. It is an unfair comparison. I think it's very legitimate to see if any main-stream people have commented on the discrepancies. I'd say most are disturbed that the UN has taken such a hard stance with Israel while ignoring the plights of others - others suffering under much, much worse conditions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'Unless you are arguing for a comparison of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel with its treatment of Sri Lanka to be placed in this article ...' - I might do. I didn't decide it yet, and I'm not the only one to decide here, but the purpose of inserting this info to talk page about the Gaza War, which is part of I-P conflict, is exactly this. Israel is not above criticism. However, according to UN principles, each country should be treated in similar fashion. This is why Sean's sarcastic (yet again) question 'why not Israel vs. Malaria' is irrelevant. There's nothing bad in comparing comparable things. Sean says Sri Lanka conflict gets constant coverage in BBC. I believe him simply because I'm not competent enough not in this conflict and not in the echo it produces worldwide. Nevertheless, I'm puzzled to learn that UNCHR, the body that conceived the Goldstone team, continue to vote for anti-Israeli resolutions one after another, while hardly condemning conducts of others in conflicts with comparable number of killed. Many tragic events as a result of armed conflicts happen around the globe, but this is the first precedent of this sort - to assemble a fact-finding team to probe the war crimes of Israel alone. While some of the info I provide will be left out of the main article - I do strive to put things in proper context the way I see it. And I find it unfortunate that a decent man like Sean makes so many efforts to empty the article from it. Taking into consideration that Nableezy, as far as I understand, is generally tolerant to views of others even when he disagrees, I sincerely hope this won't jeopardize the combined effort to push the article further, despite recent confrontations. Finally, if the citation from Orwell was inappropriate - my apologies. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't think it was an attempt to stifle debate. Quite the opposite. I thought it was an attempt to change the nature of the debate so that it could be directed along a particular trajectory which happens to coincide with a path already mapped out by pro-Israel advocacy organisations on their websites. Israel vs Sri Lanka comparisons are arbitrary. Why not Israel vs Malaria, Israel vs Heart Disease, Israel vs Road Safety. They're all capable of producing the desired propaganda effect and they're all irrelevant to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's what we are talking about: "Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war?" Is that soapboxing? No, it isn't. Israel sell newspapers and Sri Lanka does not. It was a single sentence and not an attempt to stifle a dispute, though clearly Sean took the bait. Anyways, has any major media or notable person provided commentary on the Sri Lanka/Gaza war double standard/hypocrisy/discrepancy in the UNHRC and the world? I'd imagine the latter would go in the reactions page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel sells newspapers, Sri Lanka does not. Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, at least according to CNN. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Somehow associates with "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." (no disrespect to civilians killed intended). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, the Sri Lankan war. Is that the one where the army firebombed 20,000 civilians and nobody cared? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Perfidy principle
The following doesn't seem to be supported by the source.
"Hamas fighters were accused of not distinguishing themselves from civilians during the conflict."
No accusation(under Inter Law) is made here "They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups.", which it was simply a remark brought by a Hamas fighter.
Additionally, no charge in relation to this operation is brought by JCPA. Cryptonio (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it then. Mallerd (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not so fast, Mallerd. Similar question was asked recently by Nableezy: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 51#perfidy. There are 3 sources, saying that: "Several reports stated that Hamas fighters shed their uniforms shortly after the start of the ground incursion.". JCPA writes: "International humanitarian law forbids perfidy, which, for example, means that it is forbidden to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant (citing Art. 37 of the Protocol I). The fact that Palestinian terrorists often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks makes it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed." Now what exactly do you ask, Cryptonio? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is all the Palestinian freedomfighters an army or some a guerilla? Toolsother (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not so fast, Mallerd. Similar question was asked recently by Nableezy: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 51#perfidy. There are 3 sources, saying that: "Several reports stated that Hamas fighters shed their uniforms shortly after the start of the ground incursion.". JCPA writes: "International humanitarian law forbids perfidy, which, for example, means that it is forbidden to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant (citing Art. 37 of the Protocol I). The fact that Palestinian terrorists often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks makes it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed." Now what exactly do you ask, Cryptonio? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
He says the source is simply a remark and no accusation. I say delete the source, find a better one since it is true, apparantly. Mallerd (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Toolsother - interesting question, they are apparently both. Anyway, the question is somewhat irrelevant. The ICRC issued lately the following publication - Clarifying the notion of direct participation in hostilities. If you'll read the complete report (see the link at your right), you'll understand that the same rules are applicable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Mallerd - the idea and the implementation of that source was of Nableezy's. From my experience, he's the most competent on wiki policies in this page. I'll ask him to write his opinion. I personally think the wording is fine and no need to discuss it further. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that shedding a uniform isn't enough for perfidy. Dressing as a civilian while openly carrying weapons/engaging in combat etc isn't an act of perfidy. It's allowed. It's when the weapons are concealed and the combatant status of the person is deliberately concealed that it becomes perfidy. So, looking at what is in the Perfidy Principal section it seems okay to me apart from the "and alleges that militants not dressed in uniform make it highly likely that innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed" part. JCPA are welcome to their opinion about uniforms of course and how it effects the behavior of IDF soldiers but perfidy isn't about uniforms, it's about feigning civilian status. It's the "not distinguishing themselves from civilians during the conflict" that makes it perfidy and that requires deliberate concealment of weapons to make the enemy believe that you are a civilian. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups. - this IS perfidy, right? And JCPA is correct when they cite Art. 37 of Protocol I, right (I've even provided a wikilink there)? This conduct endangers innocent civilians, right? So why do you interpret the JCPA words in the way it is not meant to? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is perfidy as I said. Perfidy endangers civilian and soldiers lives and the JCPA citing art.37 is fine. That's all fine. What isn't fine for me is the "and alleges that" etc at the moment. It may very well be true in practice but the connection to perfidy in the sentence has been broken because wearing civilian clothes by itself is not perfidy. At the moment the "and alleges that" part can be interpreted as -> no uniforms -> shoot anyone who might be a militant -> don't blame us. What JCPA actually said was "often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks" which is perfidy. Include that and the connection to perfidy is no longer broken. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I see now. This was a constructive contribution, I'll take care of it later, together with fixing sources, they got messed up. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is perfidy as I said. Perfidy endangers civilian and soldiers lives and the JCPA citing art.37 is fine. That's all fine. What isn't fine for me is the "and alleges that" etc at the moment. It may very well be true in practice but the connection to perfidy in the sentence has been broken because wearing civilian clothes by itself is not perfidy. At the moment the "and alleges that" part can be interpreted as -> no uniforms -> shoot anyone who might be a militant -> don't blame us. What JCPA actually said was "often dress as and pretend to be civilians while carrying out attacks" which is perfidy. Include that and the connection to perfidy is no longer broken. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups. - this IS perfidy, right? And JCPA is correct when they cite Art. 37 of Protocol I, right (I've even provided a wikilink there)? This conduct endangers innocent civilians, right? So why do you interpret the JCPA words in the way it is not meant to? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that shedding a uniform isn't enough for perfidy. Dressing as a civilian while openly carrying weapons/engaging in combat etc isn't an act of perfidy. It's allowed. It's when the weapons are concealed and the combatant status of the person is deliberately concealed that it becomes perfidy. So, looking at what is in the Perfidy Principal section it seems okay to me apart from the "and alleges that militants not dressed in uniform make it highly likely that innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed" part. JCPA are welcome to their opinion about uniforms of course and how it effects the behavior of IDF soldiers but perfidy isn't about uniforms, it's about feigning civilian status. It's the "not distinguishing themselves from civilians during the conflict" that makes it perfidy and that requires deliberate concealment of weapons to make the enemy believe that you are a civilian. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- The wording on accusation must be removed, if source 145 wants to be used. Something along the lines of "A news report included information on suppose weapons concealment by Hamas fighters, which would be a Inter Law Violation according to JCPA" etc. I'm not arguing about what JCPA is saying though. Cryptonio (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- And I saw the Archive, but I'm not sure how it was that Nableezy took care of it. It seems as if his original concern still remains. Cryptonio (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
→Wait a second please. In the article, the URLs somehow got messed up. Let's restore the sources and then choose the most appropriate for this section. The first one is from Times above: They wore civilian clothes, concealed their weapons, and no longer walked around in groups.. Second, the Hamas fighters were eventually ordered to get out of their security forces uniforms and fight in civilian clothes. This was done a few days after the Israelis entered the Gaza Strip, and Hamas realized that its fighters were no match for the Israeli troops. It was believed that having these men fight in civilian clothes would reduce Hamas casualties. Third, Hamas fighters have hurriedly shed their uniforms. Many of them simply deserted and returned to their families, taking their guns with them. Questions might arise about qualification of strategy page as RS, so maybe Times is the best. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is the wording on how is brought to the article that seems to be the conflict. The word accusation to be specific. Cryptonio (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the JCPA sentence completely, I think it is coherent with the first sentence now. Also, "presumptively" is better than "presumably", but still - there's nothing to presume. Times provide direct evidence from Hamas fighter who says this was a general practice (not just his) and besides there are several other sources to this. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is the wording on how is brought to the article that seems to be the conflict. The word accusation to be specific. Cryptonio (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't still present this as a fact, this is elementary. 500 sources could report the same thing, and Wiki still wouldn't presented as a fact, as you have done. Cryptonio (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting observation. I'll have to ask Nableezy about that. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- You can't still present this as a fact, this is elementary. 500 sources could report the same thing, and Wiki still wouldn't presented as a fact, as you have done. Cryptonio (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I would phrase it as "There were reports of Hamas militants wearing civilian clothes and concealing their weapons while carrying out attacks. The JCPA said that such actions violate the perfidy principle" or something like that. nableezy - 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"Lost info"
Time goes by and this articles will be lost if not archived here:
5. Many Hamas members have dug tunnels for themselves under their homes and hid weapon caches in them. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Was dismissed in the past by others but still: Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Not sure to what extent this is kosher, but anyway the testimony is interesting. They told me again and again that both civilians and Hamas fighters had evacuated safely from areas of Hamas activity in response to Israeli telephone calls, leaflets and megaphone warnings. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
8. The inadequacy of international law --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hamas political violence/Inter Law
Hamas political violence contains a response from Hamas that could be use in Inter Law section as well.
I will move then, the section to Inter Law to reflect the point.
Revert without discussion at will, but do address the concern that has been brought(by editing the Inter Law section to include such a response etc). Cryptonio (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Para on Pro/Psy
IDF spokespersons often reported that scores of demoralized Hamas fighters had been observed deserting. The claim strengthened the Israeli will to continue and undermined the confidence in Hamas in Gaza.
I'm inclined to ask why was this added. It might give further details about something, but I do not think it acts as correlation in a section where it seems is void of such articulation. Cryptonio (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because The claim can't be confirmed -- but it definitely affects morale. The whole Spiegel article is entitled "Psychological Tricks to Demoralize the Enemy". Since I used recently this article yet again to reinsert some info to Palestinian section, I wanted to be fair and add something not used before to Israeli one. If others would be inclined to remove it, there won't be too much objection from my side. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Allegations...etc
I appreciate, greatly, Sceptic's prompt and reasonable response on the issues that have been raised. I think that if it doesn't show how capable and understanding he appears to be, in the very least it shows that he is willing to conform to Wiki policies, and that's the least we could enterprise on these issues...
That said, I want to make sure that I am understood, and by that I mean that I would like to see every statement attributived properly. And for that purpose I ask him to understand that we can't undermine Wiki's vehicle to present views, by presenting reported statements as facts. Wiki does not contribute in that matter. And so, the following "The report did not represent a cross-section of the army, but rather they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. An Israeli military spokesperson dismissed the testimonies as anonymous hearsay." cannot be posted without proper attribution, even if it's acceptable through the RS medium. Wiki is not judging what the report says(since we assume is from a RS) rather Wiki asks we give credit where credit is due. In other words, we would like to recognize that the JP read the report and it found such findings. It is all we are asking in this matter. The JP found that the report did not represent etc. That is a judgment statement, and must be sourced to the identity that so view the matter in that way(or in this case). Cryptonio (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, attribution in a case like this is vital but I guess it's just an oversight. Phrases like 'The report did not represent a cross-section of the army,' are meaningless anyway because the term cross-section is undefined and JP are not qualified to talk about sampling methods. I also suspect that NGO Monitor (which as usual is where the nonsense starts before it's picked up by JP, NYT etc) wouldn't know what a good sampling methodology was if it came up and hit them over the head with a big book about research methods. Just thought I'd mention that as I haven't had a soapy rant for a while. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Throughout our discussions I tried on numerous occasions to show nonsense in Amnesty and others, however only Monitor receives all the credit. Do I have to double the soapboxing here? And since when, Sean, do you take words out of context? Of course the first half of the sentence is meaningless, but why did you dismiss the second half? Katz says clearly that they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. This is definitely not a crossection, whatever scientific definition you can think of.
- Now to the original question from Cryptonio. The logic that guides you here is clear. However, I want you to take a look at this: Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Gaza, said: ..."The Israeli military is engaging in very aggresive psychological warfare. They have been dropping leaflets warning Palestinians that they have to flee their homes and warning that anyone who lives in area that could be a possible target that their home will be targeted as well.". When asked to attribute the words to Al-Jazeera correspondent, I was overruled by Nableezy - he says that AJ presented it as fact and no attribution to RS is required. So, I think we either adapt a policy of attribution to RS in controversial issues, or we drop it in accordance with wiki policies. As you see, we won't be able to resolve this one without Nableezy yet again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, Nableezy cannot overrule you or anybody else. I said what I thought based on my readings of WP:NOR WP:RS and WP:V. If there is a disagreement we ask other people. nableezy - 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, in this article, attribute everything, including the pro/psy war statement. I apologize if I was in a position to agree with you on that other matter and didn't, but I don't remember when that conversation took place. Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- You was not a part to that conversation, Cryptonio, no claim to you. Are you sure we want to attribute everything? I don't think I'd mine that, but this will require broad consent. Nableezy, Sean, are you ready for this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sceptic, in this article, attribute everything, including the pro/psy war statement. I apologize if I was in a position to agree with you on that other matter and didn't, but I don't remember when that conversation took place. Cryptonio (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"Deadliest attack in 60-year conflict"
Ok, the reason I removed this was:
A) I don't think alarabiya is a wikipedia-certified reliable source. B) This source may only be considered notable by its author and is most certainly not reliable However, the language in the article reads like a blog. The "Massacre In Gaza Black Saturday" is not the subject of the article and is simply a personal heading in the letter/press release. I haven't seen it anywhere else beyond the Arab world.
Also, is it true this was the deadliest day in the conflict? So since 1948, this attack tops em' all? If so, we should explicitly say this is the deadliest one-day death toll in 60 years of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I know the subject matter is clearly Palestinian but many seem to merge it with the Arab-Israeli conflict (though I think Palestinian casualties are included in that conflict, right?) I don't know, I haven't been that active on the article so I figured it was better to post here before warring Sean. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think AlArabiya is unreliable? Factsontheground (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because it's owned by a despotic oil state and I can't find it in the wikipedia-reliable sources discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan shouldn't you try to achieve some sort of consensus here on talk before blanket-deleting information from an article that is under Wiki sanctions? RomaC (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is removing information sourced by unreliable references considered "blanking?" If you think I violated a rule please report me, if not I'd like a response to my question cause I am genuinely interested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- al-arabiyya is a reliable source, it is a major news organization. nableezy - 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed about al-arabiya, that covers 1st half of the sentence. And maybe, Wikifan, it was the deadliest day, because al-arabiya explicitly says "60 years of conflict with the Palestinians" (of course, it started way earlier, but let's leave it). Anyway, 2nd half of the sentence is based on Massacre In Gaza - Black Saturday, that seems no close to RS. 2nd half must go. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ill get some other sources on that, there were a lot saying the name for the first day was "Massacre of Black Saturday", know of a few in Arabic will look for English. nableezy - 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed about al-arabiya, that covers 1st half of the sentence. And maybe, Wikifan, it was the deadliest day, because al-arabiya explicitly says "60 years of conflict with the Palestinians" (of course, it started way earlier, but let's leave it). Anyway, 2nd half of the sentence is based on Massacre In Gaza - Black Saturday, that seems no close to RS. 2nd half must go. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- al-arabiyya is a reliable source, it is a major news organization. nableezy - 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is removing information sourced by unreliable references considered "blanking?" If you think I violated a rule please report me, if not I'd like a response to my question cause I am genuinely interested. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan, I can understand your problem with despotism but I live in an oil state (Canada) and I don't see what's wrong with that. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing despotic about an oil state but the despotic state I was referring to also happened to be an oil state. Canada's gettin close though...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan, I can understand your problem with despotism but I live in an oil state (Canada) and I don't see what's wrong with that. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan, how does Al Arabiya being partly-owned by Saudis discount it as a reliable source? I believe Barack Obama's first-ever interview as US president was granted to Al Arabiya, by the way. RomaC (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Typically, state-controlled media is not reliable, especially media subsidized by a ruthless Islamic theocracy. Is the reference in the wikipedia RS-page? I couldn't find it. Also, Interviewing politicians does not somehow make a source notable - bloggers have interviewed Presidents. You should know this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikifan according to your edit summary deleting the content: "this simply isnt true, sources arent even close to being reliable and i cannot find an independent source to confirm", you couldn't find a source other than Al Arabiya. I wonder, did you even try? Because I found one on the first page of a garden-variety Google search. Also, on your challenge to Al Arabiya, can you please direct us to the list of "wikipedia-certified" reliable sources you refer to above? Thanks! RomaC (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Heather Sharp (January 5 2009). "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?". Jerusalem: BBC News.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
AI_briefingwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=87
- http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
- http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
AnthonyHCordesmanwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/30/precisely-wrong-0
- http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3739125,00.html
- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246296537077&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
- http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU55228
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6621805.ece
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm
- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443696703&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
- Cite error: The named reference
International Law and the Fighting in Gazawas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "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) - ^ "Israel/Gaza: Civilians must not be tagets". Human Rights Watch. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
- ^ "Consent and advise". Haaretz. 2009-02-05. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ "Exploitation of International Law". Monitor. 21 January, 2009.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ "Mounting evidence indicates". ITIC. 24 March, 2009.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) Cite error: The named reference "Mounting evidence indicates" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). - Feldman, Yotam (2009-02-05). "Consent and advise". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-06-05.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Israel's Gaza toll far lower than Palestinian tallywas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - . Fox News. 2009-03-26 http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/world/middleeast/10mideast.html?_r=1
- http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-gaza-scene1
- http://www.btselem.org/Download/200902_Operation_Cast_Lead_Position_paper_Eng.pdf
- http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3720759,00.html
- ^ "Maximum 600 Palestinians died in Gaza". Jerusalem Post. 2009-01-22.
- ^ Katz, Yaakov (2009-04-22). "'Haniyeh hid in hospital during Gaza op'". JPost. Retrieved 2009-04-22.
- ^ "Weighing Crimes and Ethics in the Fog of Urban Warfare". The NY Times. 2009-01-16.
- ^ "Hamas tried to hijack ambulances during Gaza war". SMH. 2009-01-29.
- "Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives". IITC.
- Cite error: The named reference
ap-msnbc-psych-warwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cite error: The named reference
guardian-psychwarwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ ""Hamas victory"". Al Jazeera. 19-01-2009.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ ""The battle for hearts and minds"". IITC.
- ""Hamas Leader Claims Remarkable Victory"". CBS News. 2009-01-22.
- ""Al-Qassam Brigades announce 48 fighters dead"". Ma'an News Agency.
- http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/05/israel.gaza/index.html
- ^ Hamas leader in Syria announce one-week ceasefire in Gaza
- ^ Hamas agrees to 1-week ceasefire
- 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