Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

Hamas use of civilians as human shield

Read the following paragraph:

" Israel maintains that Hamas uses civilians, and a specially childrens, as human shield, as a part of its war doctorine. The IDF released a video taken by an UAV drone during the war documenting Hamas militant launching a rocket from a civilian house's roof and then using children led by adult to escort him to avoid being targetted by the IDF. [1]

Later, the IDF and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs compiled a film accusing Hamas in a systematical use of civilian infrastructure and civilians as human shield. The film includes photoes and videos documenting Hamas uses of human shield, as well as incitement of children and using them for paramilitary activity and even as suicide bombers.[2] "

Here are the videos:

User:Dlv999 removed them with the claim that IDF is not a reliable source. I strongly disagree.

  1. First, governmental sources are legitimate sources. Many data and statistics are provided by such sources (such as population of states).
  2. Second, do you say it is wrong that Israel accused Hamas of using civilians as human shield? The MFA compiled a film, and it is well attributed to it. Do you claim that the entire film is a fake? Some of the videos and photoes there were also broadcasted in news channels (such as the scene of grabbing the child by a militant or Hussam Abdu Bilal's suicide bombing attempt). It is true also for the first film taken from an UAV: do you claim it is a fake? If so - you must prove it! Otherwise one can remove anything he wants by claiming it is a fake or a conspiracy.
  3. Third, these videos are reliable.
  4. Fourth, Israel has the right to claim claims, we shouldn't erase something only because Israel said it. The article should mention Israel's claims (and this paragraph does it, "Israel maintains...", "...compiled a film accusing Hamas...") a specialy when they are backed by videos and photoes. In this case, like many other, the claims are correct.

MathKnight 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the second video appears to be pure propaganda. But apart from that it does not mention operation cast lead or the Gaza war once. It was posted on you tube on the 11th Jan 2009, from what I can tell, the section on human shields does not use any footage or photographs from the Gaza War, nor are there any claims made about Hamas practices during that conflict. I don't think this video has any place in the article.
The first video has more of a case as it is an allegation made by the IDF about practices during the Gaza War. My issue here is that it is far from clear that the video shows what MathKnight claims in his proposed edit.
I don't have any issue including Israeli government claims about Hamas use of human shields, but I think there should be documented reliable sources. How were the claims received and reported in mainstream sources for instance. How much weight should they be given in the article? Also it should be noted that the mainstream human rights organisations (amnesty international, HRW) and the UN fact finding mission investigated these allegations by Israel and all found them to be unsubstantiated, this was widely reported in the media. Dlv999 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't enough time right now to give a long detailed answer so I'll write briefly and hope someone will supplement me. The first video - we both agree it has a place here, you may formulate "a video allegdly showing a human shield use by Hamas militant" or something like that. For me, it is pretty clear that the video proves IDF case.
The second video indeed deals with human shield issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and present a video of a militant grabbing a child and walking with him, which was taken during Cast Lead and was broadcast on Channel 2 News as well.
As for Amnesty, they have lost credibility recently (see Muaazam Beg affair and their hunt after George Bush). They never doubted any claim made by Hamas or the Palestinian "witnesses" and didn't even bother to check the accusations against Hamas. They intentationally ignored the films documenting Hamas use of children as human shields and booby-trapped schools and mosque. Amensty had clearly taken the side of Hamas even before the investigation started.
As for the Goldstone report, Goldstone himself retracted the accusations against the IDF.
MathKnight 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Surley the IDF is a promary source, and not independant or third party? We neeed third parry RS for this. This [1] is a better source. Or this (which also puts the accusation into context [2],Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course the videos are permissible and relevant. As to them being a primary source, you can always attribute them to the IDF and describe them as IDF footage.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cast Lead Video: Hamas Terrorist uses Children as Human Shield, IDF channel at YouTube.
  2. ^ Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields, 2009 - Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs channel at YouTube.

Police

Ankh, could you please explain to me further your justification for your significant deletion of sourced information from the Gaza war page. Specifically please explain why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves as described by multiple RS. My view is that the actual events, as well as the legal interpretation of the events are both important. There is a separate section and sub article devoted entirely to legal aspects of the Gaza war[3], so I see no justification of trying to limit the Effects of the war section to legal arguments, which in any case can only be made in light of the facts. Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are attempting to introduce to the paragraph a description of events during the Gaza war. As such, it is confined to discussing the legal status of Hamas policeman, and overall casualty figures. Note that there is a redirect to the main article "Casualties of the Gaza War" by this article, and information regarding casualties is mentioned throughout the article. It is therefore inappropriate to insert information regarding specific military attacks in a paragraph labelled Casualties. Note that an introduction of description of actual events will need to be balanced with information describing Israeli casualties and Palestinian rocket attacks.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, my introduction of that passage was in response to your own introduction of details of four Police officers that were allegedly policemen and were also Palestinian militants. I find it highly problematic that you would introduce these details of four specific policemen and not about the hundreds of others that were killed. i.e. the scores of Cadets that were killed on their graduation day including traffic cops and band musicians. A significant issue with the overall casualty figures is whether to include the police in the figures. I think it is reasonable to document the number of Police killed and what proportion of the total deaths this equated to. I also think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings as according to RS the legal arguments around whether police are legitimate targets is based on individual circumstances and RS also makes clear that blanket decisions cannot be made on police being legitimate targets. Also could you please clarify the source for your edit about the four police officers. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing Israel's legal argument, relating to the "IDF 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 details of the four Police officers that were allegedly policemen is mentioned in the UN report as part of a legal defence regarding the targeting of police, discussing the dual role of the police. Should you wish to expand on details of Israeli attacks and that they also harmed "traffic cops and band musicians" and details of facilities targeted, you are introducing previously unrelated material to the paragraph and as such, a counter balance is necessary.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, to my mind it is not balanced to include the evidence Israel presented in its defense to the UN fact finding mission, without also presenting the evidence that was presented to the UN fact finding mission that contradicted Israel's position - especially when you consider that the mission found that the wight of evidence showed in targeting police Israel had committed a "violation of international humanitarian law". All the information about the attacks on traffic cops and musicians was evidence given to the UN mission, which the mission referred to in its conclusions. Your recent edit to me seems nonsensical. Almost the whole passage has zero relevance to the section topic - Casualties. Also I think the discussion of the facts of police killings should be before the legal arguments, which are based on the actual events that occurred. Dlv999 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to self-revert and restore information to the article. The information is sourced and pertinent. If you want to balance it, do that. Your reasons for removing it don't make sense in my view. This article is covered by sanctions and WP:1RR. Could you please try to edit as neutrally and constructively as possible. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


  1. The article was discussing police deaths and clearly concludes with the UN and Palestinian position that the Gaza police were a "civilian law-enforcement agency and that Israel's blanket targeting of the Gaza police violation of international humanitarian law". As such, I expanded on Israel's argument as cited in the UN Report.
  2. You decided to extend the remit of this paragraph to specifics of an Israeli strike and the death of civilians.
  3. The "evidence given to the UN mission, which the mission referred to in its conclusions" does not automatically pertain to the legal status of Hamas policeman, and certainly not your selection
  4. "Almost the whole passage has zero relevance to the section topic - Casualties." I am in agreement, as I stated on my reversion, but it is YOU that wished to expand the topics covered in this paragraph to civilians deaths and strike specifics.
  5. It was therefore necessary to balance with equivalent Israeli civilians deaths and strike specifics. It is unbalanced to provide specific examples of strikes causing Palestinian deaths without similarly elaborating upon the brief mention in the passage that "Ten Israeli soldiers were killed, along with three civilians". I too "think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and wonder as indeed you have "why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves".

I would urge you to actually read and understand the nature of the paragraph before rushing to insert new material. I have made a minor change to your amendment because you decided to interpolate strike specifics in the middle of the delineation of the legal positions
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. Yes, and you chose to present a piece of evidence to support the Israeli position without including any of the weight of evidence that contradicted it. This in my view is unbalanced hence my edit which included the opposing evidence.
  2. As I said I was just including the evidence that contradicted the Israeli evidence that you included.
  3. It doesn't "automatically pertain", it pertains because the cited RS says it pertains. Read the RS, according to them police can only legitimately be targeted when they are actively engaged in fighting. In its conclusion on this point the UN mission specifically cite the incident I added to the article.
  4. If you admit your edit is irrelevant , why did you add it?
  5. My edit only refers to casualties, which is the topic of this section
I did not "interpolate strike specifics in the middle of the delineation of the legal positions." I added a brief description of the uncontroversial facts as per RS. The legal positions are made on the basis of the facts thus it makes sense to put this passage before the legal discussion and not after it. As for your other comments, I am fully aware of the nature of the passage, and I don't make knee jerk revisions or edits - in fact unlike some I don't ever revert RS'd additions without gaining a consensus first. Dlv999 (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. How is "Human Rights Watch stressed that blanket decisions must not be made about police being legitimate targets," and "the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency and that Israel's blanket targeting of the Gaza police was therefore a violation of international humanitarian law" not "including any of the weight of evidence that contradicted it"
  2. I stated that the edit was irrelevant to the prior form of this paragraph. I clearly mention but you wished to"expand the topics covered in this paragraph" ,and so therefore it is now relevant.
  3. Like you stated, I too "think it is reasonable to give a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and wonder as indeed you have "why you feel that the section-Effects (of the Gaza War), subsection- Casualties, should be restricted to the "legal discussion" and not the actual events themselves". Can you specify any particular content you object to, that is not "a brief account of the circumstances of these killings" and not referring to "actual events themselves" that you have acknowledged have a place in the article.
  4. If you do not believe your insertion interrupted the flow of the legal arguments I shall revert to how you originally presented it. I just thought this way was preferable
    Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. In my view, the HRW statement is an opinion from a RS on the basis on which the legality decision should be made. It offers no comment on Israel's action during the War. The UNFFM quote is the conclusion of the mission after hearing all of the evidence. In my view it is biased to single out a single piece of evidence to contradict the conclusions of the mission without including the weight of evidence that led them to their conclusions.
  2. Personally I don't think a lot of the passage is relevant to the actual 3 casualties, but I will not remove without prior consensus.
  3. Thank you for your decision, I hope we can move forward with our editing and continue our discussions on the basis of sources, rational discussions and assumptions of good faith. Dlv999 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Please not that casualties means "A person killed or injured in a war or accident, A person or thing badly affected by an event or situation". Why do you claim that there were only 3 casualties, and therefore much of the passage is irrelevant.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if that is the definition you are using perhaps you should write a brief summary of the "casualties" on the Palestinian side, as per your own definition. Dlv999 (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran as a belligerent

I read the cited source for this claim [4] and it seems a bit thin to me. It is basically a propaganda speech by the Ayatollah. The relevant piece of rhetoric is this “We got involved in the anti-Israeli issues, which resulted in victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars,”. I don't think this reaches the level of evidence required to show Iran was an active belligerent. Most likely (if there is any truth to the rhetoric at all) he is referring to funding and supply of arms. But if that is enough to count as a belligerent, then the US should be put on the side of Israel because they have been funding and supplying Israel with weapons for decades. Dlv999 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

it says they were involved, but not how. So it does not say they were a beligerant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran's involvement
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed's are not RS. Dlv999 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also again it does not say Iran was a co-beligerant. Just Iran supplies and trains Hamas, well the USA supplies equipment and training to Irrale.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=56886Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Iran is not a belligerent to be listed in the infobox. Usually only notable forces are listed, not logistic support or tiny support & training forces like the Revolutionary Guard officers.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

reports from human rights organizations>?

Sorry - but it seems like investigations by several human rights organizations merit discussion. I am given to understand that many people, both zealously pro and anti the government of Israel, routinely patrol wiki pages on Israel. It is also my understanding that the assessment of human rights organizations condemns both sides, but especially was strongly critical of what were unabashedly and unequivocally referenced as war crimes - including and maybe especially by the far more powerful IDF.

It's also worth noting the number of people kille by the rockets, versus the IDF incursion.

It's also worth noting which specific actions preceded the invasion.

Wiki is supposed to be as fair and objective as possible, but it does seem to me that Israel's actions here amounted to clear, that is fairly inarguably constituted, war crimes under the Geneva and other conventions.

So the question is, a] where is the reference to this in the article and b] what of instances where the fairest description ultimately makes Israel "look bad." How bad is the progaganda trolling on here such that when it comes to Israel, or Jews, there is essentially a de facto softening of language such that the facts are buried in equivocation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.36.79 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial tactics in the Gaza War subpage nominated for deletion

The Controversial tactics in the Gaza War sub page has been nominated for deletion (View AfD) with a suggestion to merge the information back into the main page. Dlv999 (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Tactics

I am surprised that the targeting of Israeli civilians by Palestinian groups has not been included. Is there a reason why this is the case?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that it is because Israel is supposed to be a 'civilised western democracy' whereas Hamas are an evil bunch of terrorists from whom we expect such actions(?)1812ahill (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to Colonel Lane testimony

  1. Source makes no mention of "catastrophic injuries, possibly leading to multiple amputations" and instead states "so anybody outside that radius is safe. Anybody within that radius is obviously, affected severely".
  2. Source states that "now, again, through, through our studies we found no actual proof that a DIME round or a round called a DIME was used... But I was handed ah, samples which had been, eh, brought back from Gaza, and I was asked to get them analysed which we – we got them analysed in our forensic laboratory in Dublin." It later states,"The samples I brought back to Ireland were assessed by our forensic laboratory, which is a Level 3 – a Level 3 laboratory. And we found tungsten to be the main – the main component, and traces of iron and sulfur. The next paragraph states that he is of the view that "some of the weapon systems that were used in the conflict most definitely had some sort of a DIME component". I have amended to accurately reflect this information, and not the previous synthesis of, "but he is of view that some weapons systems used in the conflict had some sort of DIME component, citing evidence of tungsten..."
    Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged use of human shields by Hamas

Okay so we've just been through a tedious drawn out debate which involved certain editors wanting to remove the information about DIME citing WP:UNDUE. Numerous news reports, Human rights organisation reports, the UN report, mentions in a national parliament, published scientific papers were all provided as evidence for inclusion of the discussion of DIME.

Now, I turn to the section on alleged use of human shields by Hamas, I look at the references:- citation 1:The Israeli government website[5]; citations 2&3: IDF&Israeli government You tube videos[6], [7]; citation 4,5&6: Report by pro-Israel propaganda body (run by ex-IDF Colonel)[8]. And that is it, not a single third party RS to be seen. I think people seriously need to think about applying the standards they expect of others to their own editing. Dlv999 (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

I'm suggesting that unless some third party RS can be found on this, the allegations (which are solely the Israeli government POV), should be reduced to several sentences. given the current sources the length of the section length is UNDUE. Dlv999 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good grief!

The report concluded that there were indications that Palestinian militants had fired rockets from urban areas, and the question remained whether this was done with the specific intent of shielding the combatants from a counter-attack. It found that "there was evidence of the presence of Palestinian armed groups in residential areas". The report notes that due to the densely populated nature of the Gaza strip, once the Israeli forces gained control of the outlying areas in the first few days of the ground invasion, most (if not all) the locations still accessible to the Palestinian militants would have been in urban areas. It said that the launching of attacks close to civilian buildings would have unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza and violated the customary rules of international humanitarian law and the right to life of the civilians thereby endangered.<

In short, encircled Palestinian soldiers were to be found in cities. Absolutely shocking, esp. since it's what all soldiers do under siege. I suppose we shall have to rewrite the defence of West Jerusalem in 1948, for this is precisely how Jewish forces defended their areas. The horrific spin on normal tactical behaviour (presuming that uniquely, Palestinians should go out into fields and shoot their rifles back at missiles, bazookas and tanks, allowing the enemy clear aim) has one purpose, to make soldiers out to be 'militants' who hide behind civilians in a cowardly fashion, and thus are to blame for any collateral damage from Israel's onslaught. Immensely POV.

The point is, that paragraph, like much media hype and spin, manages to make normal military tactics look insidious.

In normal historical prose one would read:

Onced Israel had occupied the outlying terrain, Palestinian soldiers fought in retreat, using the cover provided by urban areas. Rockets were fired from residential sections. Civilians were caught between the two forces, as the battle raged through the towns and cities.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, because if it's too risky to go to an open area to shoot your rockets at civilians, it's completely acceptable to use schoolyards and apartment buildings. No, wait, they would have been "shoot[ing] their rifles back at missiles, bazookas and tanks", not rockets deliberately aimed at, umm, who was it again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Do a stint in any army. None has standing orders to expose yourself to enemy fire. In the battle of Jerusalem, synagogues stored armaments, mortars were fired from houses, snipers fired from residential areas. They were right to do so, since Jumean's artillery hammered them from the hills. Same situation today, with roles reversed.
I was unaware that Jewish residents in 48 were indiscriminately firing rockets into Arab villages which precipitated the Jerusalem war. Some people certainly have a unique historical perspective.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The clumsy prose of most of this kind of writing is full of POV jargon, and a narrative mode that adopts a peculiar language, hirsute with rhetorical themes taken from partisan newspaper accounts, rather than historical works.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The exact text used with regards to this 'encirclement' are:

"Both the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch found that the practice of firing close to or within populated areas became more prevalent as the Israeli armed forces took control of the more open or outlying areas" - p137,

In view of the information communicated to it and the material it was able to review, the Mission believes that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. In those instances in which Palestinian armed groups did indeed fire rockets or mortars from urban areas the question remains whether this was done with the specific intent of shielding the combatants from counter-attack. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence on this question; nor do reports from other observers provide a clear answer. p138

"it suffices to say that, in some of the cases, there was evidence of the presence of Palestinian armed groups in residential areas." - p139

"On the basis of the information it gathered, the Mission finds that there are indications that Palestinian armed groups launched rockets from urban areas. The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces. The Mission also notes, however, that Palestinian armed groups do not appear to have given Gaza residents sufficient warning of their intention to launch rockets from their neighbourhoods to allow them to leave and protect themselves against Israeli strikes at the rocket launching sites. The Mission notes that, in any event, given the densely populated character of the northern half of the Gaza Strip, once Israeli forces gained control of the more open or outlying areas during the first days of the ground invasion, most -- if not all -- locations still accessible to Palestinian armed groups were in urban areas." p147


Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I object to the recent edit, because it has removed language that is categorically supported by the above text. To be specific:
  • once the Israeli forces gained control of the outlying areas in the first few days of the ground invasion
  • they did not see any evidence that this was done with the intent of shielding themselves from counter strikes by the Israeli armed forces.
Bolded text removed from the article, justified by the following text quoted from above:
  • The Mission notes that, in any event, given the densely populated character of the northern half of the Gaza Strip, once Israeli forces gained control of the more open or outlying areas during the first days of the ground invasion, most -- if not all -- locations still accessible to Palestinian armed groups were in urban areas." p147
  • The Mission has not been able to obtain any direct evidence that this was done with the specific intent of shielding the rocket launchers from counterstrokes by the Israeli armed forces. Dlv999 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dense inert metal explosives

Why is this regarded as a controversial tactic? Their use was not proven and is not illegal. Where exactly lies the 'controversy'?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is probably because they cause horrific injuries to people, high numbers of amputations and maiming injuries, and the materials used have been shown to be carcinogenic. I seem to remember seeing a study that showed the materials produced a 100% tumor yield in rats so they are thought to have long term health risks. I think Physicians for Human Rights have written about this weapon based on research work in Gaza Strip. I don't have the source to hand though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Judge for yourself -> it isn't pretty 1812ahill (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Please note that standard munitions " cause horrific injuries to people" and produce "high numbers of amputations and maiming injuries". These unfortunate consequences of war are not sufficient to label it as a "controversial tactic". I do note that they are carcinogenic but am doubtful if this alone should suffice to warrant its "controversial" appellation. Seeing as their use was not proven and is not illegal, could you provide sources which describe them in that manner or expound upon the nature of the controversy.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Skaik S, Abu-Shaban N, Nasser Abu Shaban, Mario Barbieri, Maurizio Barbieri, Giani U, Manduca P: Metals detected by ICP/MS in wound tissue of war injuries without fragments in Gaza. BMC International Health and Human Rights 2010, 10:17.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
While it may be a controversial war tactic in general, why is Israel's use of this legal weaponry singled out as particularly egregious. It did not contravene any laws so I question what I percieve as misplaced (and possibly inaccurate as it has not been established as "controversial") content. I would like clarification why this tactic is generally considered controversial and not simply a list of its hazerdous effects which apply to most weaponry, and why the Gaza War is the correct forum to delineate the general DIM concerns that apply to these devices. There seem an undue amount of density in relation to this issue.AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of RS discussing the "outcry" and "controversy" over use of DIME in Gaza, as well as accusations of Israel turning Gaza into a "test-lab" for experimental weapons. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. DIME explosives were also included in Goldstone's final report and I'm pretty sure they were included in the human rights organisations reports (B'tselem, HRW, amnesty). Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
'why is Israel's use of this legal weaponry singled out as particularly egregious.'
It isn't. We are writing the Gaza war page, in which Israel was involved. Go to the Iraq War, or Falluja, and you'll get the same issues raised apropos the US. Try not to insinuate that mention of these things is somehow 'antisemitic' (encoded in the meme language:'Israel is singled out'. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I am gladdened you are cognisant of the frequent dissemblance of anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel and I salute you for readily recognising this troublsome business in a mere ostensibly benign sentence: 'Israel is singled out'. You are an outstanding example of how we must be constantly vigilant for these insidious attacks. Can you link me to a paragraph where legal military activity is described as controversial and I assume you are aware of this logical fallacy.AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I am cognizant of the fact that any criticism of Israel can be, and almost invariably is, spun as antisemitism, in order to stifle intelligent analysis. 'Antisemitism' is all too often the trump (tromper) card thrown whenever Israel's right to act above the law, or outside the confines of decency and humanity, is queried. Period.
You confuse the legality of weapons, with the legality of using weapons in densely populated areas, where the legal discrimination between civilians and combatants cannot be maintained. What is controversial is, predominantly, this, and Dlv999's links amply document the use of the word you challenge. It is also controversial to use weaponry whose toxic side-effects linger in the environment, or as carcinogenic elements in the bodies of those exposed to them, civilians and combatants. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we are all cognizant of the fact that many people who obsess with Israel often do so for less than "humanitarian" reasons but that they can always count on fellow travelers to brush aside any attempts at serious discussion of antisemitism. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
People who obsess with Israel (a solecism) are of two kinds. You forgot the other variety: pro-Israeli 'Israel right or wrong'ists who, responding to 'community' alerts, run to defend it or waffle on atg the appropriate page of whatever newspaper or website raises an issue regarding it. So, let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, the word controversial isn't relevant. If you don't like it, change it to match the sources, weapons that cause "absolutely gruesome" injuries, an "extremely nasty" type of weapon, or any one of a number of ways to frame the information about DIME weapons. Move it to a different section. Make the section heading a binary number, it doesn't matter. We're just here to build an encyclopedia by applying Wikipedia policy and guidelines to the information gathered from reliable sources. We include information that reliable sources deem noteworthy. Reliable sources talk at length about DIME use during the Gaza War so the information obviously qualifies for inclusion. Whether we tag it under a "controversial" heading isn't important but the information itself apparently is as far as reliable sources are concerned. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources use it however, and a controversy raged. We've done here what was done in The Second Battle of Fallujah or The Gulf War articles, where the dispute about weapon use is very similar. No need to make an exception of this article. No one finds it 'controversial' to use the word 'controversial' when sources describe a controversy.Changing the language seems pointless, and I would certainly oppose any measure to challenge what has been agreed to, on a page that is one of the most overworked, and therefore closely edited, in wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)If you look at the sources provided by Dlv999 (those of them which are RS) you'll see that the accusation of DIME use was made by two Norwegian doctors. If you read the Goldstone report you'll find that they said they could not establish DIME was used and that anyway it's not illegal. In fact, that is what the article now says. Claiming that reliable sources talk "at length" about DIME use is incorrect. A few reliable sources repeated a claim made by a couple of doctors. Considering the amount of coverage this war had in general, there's probably an issue of UNDUE here. There are 3 paragraphs about this issue. It's about half the size of the "Rocket attacks into Israel" section, for example. Would you say that's proportional? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't "a claim made by a couple of doctors" [18]. Why do we need to measure it against rocket attacks against Israel to establish relative proportions ? Militants fire rockets all the time. I wouldn't know whether it's proportional. My concern is preventing the removal of reliably sourced information without a sensible reason that isn't something like, it wasn't controversial, it's all an antisemitic conspiracy by the media, it makes the IDF look bad etc etc. In other words, editors should just follow the sources and not care. If that means the rocket section grows and the DIME section shrinks or vice versa or neither, so be it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you be so kind as to show me where the report you linked to says that more than a couple of doctors made the claim it was DIME?
Are you seriously saying we don't need to report things proportionally to their coverage in RS, or that the amount of of coverage rockets got compared to the DIME accusation is actually 2:1? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Dr Zeyad H Abu Heen, Head Department of Environment and Earth Sciences and Assistant Professor of Geophysics at the Islamic University of Gaza included among the non-conventional weapons used in civilian areas the use of White Phosphorus and the DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosion) Bomb amongst other rarely used or seen weaponry. Hospital directors in all parts of the Gaza Strip, who reported many maimed patients with limb loss, suspected that these were due to DIME bombs which release a massive amount of energy in a small place and have a high impact. The Director of Shifa Hospital, Hussein Aashour, strongly suspected that so-called DIME bombs were utilised, since many of the patients arriving at that stage came with completely destroyed bones."
No, I'm not saying that we don't need to report things proportionally to their coverage in RS, or that the amount of coverage rockets got compared to the DIME accusation is actually 2:1. I'm saying that I don't know anything about relative weight because I don't have a set of data that would allow me to objectively measure the relative weights of every single subject related to the Gaza War that was covered by RS nor the time to look at it. Nor am I interested in that because, as I said, "My concern is preventing the removal of reliably sourced information without a sensible reason". Perhaps I should be more explicit. "My concern is preventing the removal of reliably sourced information from the encyclopedia entirely without a sensible reason". Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to NMMNG's comparison of this issue with the rocket issue. I think it is more appropriate to balance this issue with the other issues in the controversy section (per RS), and then balance the controversy section with the article as a whole. There are significant problems with the controversy section as a whole, in that most of the other subsections were spun off into separate articles and only a summary remained in the main article. The controversy sub-article got deleted before this process was completed, so it is now not possible to simply leave a summary in the main article. This means that the section as a whole (not just the DIME passages) may not be proportionate to other sections (that are just summaries with their own sub article). To Resolve these issues I think we need to look at the controversy section as a whole, define exactly what material it should be covering and perhaps consider a name change, and maybe spin of a sub-article if necessary to make the section balanced compared to the rest of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nashidini - This case is not similar to that of Fallujah which discusses the illegality and understandable controversy regarding the usage of white phosphorous. Sources have not described a controversy contrary to your suggestion in this instance. I have little idea why you perceive the spectre of anti-Semitism exploitation looming in an innocuous edit and detect a devious Zion-Nazi hiding under every rock. I consider your concerns regarding spinning "in order to stifle intelligent analysis" more pertinent to your misconstrual and straw man canards, and am somewhat disgruntled at such suggestions.

Careful. Style and slips bear a signature, and I recognize yours from way back.
Another one of those those unfounded speculations that are better suited for other pages. You appear capable of churning out these fanciful claims at will and I have no idea of what you're babbling about.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That methods, in dense urban areas, and weaponry used were controversial is so easily googlable, for those who can't remember what they read 3 years ago, I think this twitting purposeless, unless the aim is to remove uncomfortable material. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean - I understand what you are stating, that it was written in relation to the Gaza War and is worthy of inclusion regardless. I do approve of your suggestion of splitting the content because
  • It has not been described as a controversial tactic
  • It accords equal (in)validity to this tactic, which was legal, by including it with actual controversies that breached humanitarian law.

My further criticisms are that it devotes undue attention to the subject matter. Were a reliable source to detail the gory effects of a regular bullet used during the conflict, would that warrant inclusion in this article? I see the subject matter more pertinent to a DIME article itself, and see no other examples where legitimate tactics have been so graphically described in relation to an instance of their usage. The paragraph sizing is also incommensurate with the others.AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel has never confirmed or denied its use of DIME - which is part of the issue. (see for instance the Amnesty international report which calls for them to confirm or deny use of DIME [19]). Also it was not just the Norwegian doctors that saw DIME type injuries -see for instance the Independent report above which quotes numerous doctors who were working in Gaza. Goldstone says they received reports from forighn and Palestinain doctors compatible with DIME use, but were not in a position to say for certain one way or another. He also said DIME was not currently illegal under international law, "but do raise specific health concerns". In any case saying DIME is not illegal, is not to say Israel's use of it in densely populated Gaza city was legal. Finally, if you are appealing to the Goldstone report for justification for the removal of the DIME material, you should be aware that for Israeli accusations such as Hamas use of human shields or medical facilities, Goldstone doesn't find any evidence to support Israeli accusations, and yet we still have sections on those issues comparable in length to the DIME section. Dlv999 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The report you linked to above doesn't seem to confirm they talked to more than the two Norwegian doctors who are quoted in the links you provided previously. It's also worthy of mention that of the 40+ pages of the report, less than one page is dedicated to this issue, about half of which is a general description of DIME. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The two Norwegian doctors were among a handful of westerners in Gaza during the conflict, they were also treating the victims, so it is not surprising their testimony has been widely reported in the western media. However the Goldstone report refers to foreign and Palestinian doctors, while the Independent report I have already refered you too quotes a number of foreign doctors who were working in Gaza. There was also an investigation by Italian journalists which analysed tissue samples reported here [20]. The issue of the use of DIME in Gaza has been discussed in the British parliament documented here [21]. And of course there are numerous press reports, here are some more to add to the ones I previously posted [22], [23], [24]. You have an issue that was investigated by the UN and included in its final report, discussed in a national parliament, raised in reports by the mainstream human rights organisations, reported in numerous news media. I don't see how it is UNDUE for us to report this issue in our article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The objections are equivocations. The 'controversies' over the materials and methods are all over mainstream newspapers for the period. It was copntroversial then. Whether DIME was used or not is again irrelevant, since that is a truth claim objection, and we don't do truth here. We follow news coverage. To object about WP:Undue on the grounds that only 2 Norwegian doctors witnessed these devastating effects is RS source criticism, and not appropriate. Scientists from several countries have since published on the matter, notably Skaik S, Abu-Shaban N, Nasser Abu Shaban, Mario Barbieri, Maurizio Barbieri, Giani U, Manduca P: Metals detected by ICP/MS in wound tissue of war injuries without fragments in Gaza. BMC International Health and Human Rights 2010, 10:17. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was just looking at the DIME article and just read a Guardian article which said Israel denied possesing DIME. At least it did in 2006 when it was first accused of using them: "With regard to allegations of the use of Dime weaponry, the IDF denies the possession or use of such weapons," the military said in a statement."[25] --JGGardiner (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, looking through the section in this article, the parts where it discuses health effects of tungsten alloys look to be SYNTH because the articles don't link the issue to DIMEs in particular (there are other uses for tungsten alloys). Unless maybe SYNTH has changed since I was last around. I would advise that everyone here be careful not to conflate related concepts. DIMEs, FLMs and tungsten alloys are not completely interchangeable things. Not all FLMs are DIMEs and not all DIMEs use tungsten alloys (if they exist at all) and tungsten alloys are used in other applications than DIMEs. Actually the article currently suggests that Col. Lane said FLMs are a type of DIME when it is the other way around. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also I'd note that "Colonel Lane" is (or was) a Lt. Col. according to the linked document. Although you might address him in person as "Colonel Lane" it isn't the proper way to write it. Also his first name is Raymond. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reporting IDF propaganda as fact

Recent edits to the article have presented IDF propaganda as fact. I am strongly against this, IDF have been proven to be lying on numerous occasions over this conflict (e.g. see their contradictory statements over white phosphorus - first they denied using it at all, then they admitted using smoke projectiles, but denied exploding shells. Then when the evidence was to great they admitted using smoke projectiles and explosive WP munitions). I am strongly against presenting IDF statements as fact without attribution on this issue as I feel it is a flagrant violation of NPOV given that their statements are strongly disputed by numerous significant bodies, and RS as well as the other party to the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to offer examples of what you think is IDF propaganda or is this just a vague rant? NickCT (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The only propaganda here is the Hamas propaganda. Muliple RS, not only the IDF, confirm the launching of rockets from mosques. Moreover, the caption is directly attributed to the IDF. Noon (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
@Nick Sorry, a photo from the IDF flicker account is currently in the "Controversial tactics allegedly used by Hamas" section. I don't have an issue with using it, but the original caption "IDF forces allegedly discover weapons in a mosque during the Gaza War" has been changed [26] to "Hamas Hides Launcher in Mosque During Cast Lead" on the basis that that is the caption on the IDF flicker account. @Noon, if you have RS making those claims you are welcome to add them to the article, until then it is just IDF propaganda. The current caption is unacceptable per NPOV as it gives undue weight to IDF opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Its not a fact the photo is properly attributed with its name given by the source.Do you have other sources that describe this photo differently?--Shrike (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Arabs"

This article seems a little bit anti-Arab to me. It seems to be identifying criminals primarily with their ethnicity: "Arab rioters smashed headstones on Jewish graves in the local cemetery." Hence this article concludes "Arabs held violent demonstrations, which included rock-throwing, arson, and vandalism of Jewish graves."

All this smacks of stereotyping where all Arabs are lumped as a violent entity. Are there other sources that lump Arabs as such? Can we try and write this in a less biased way?VR talk 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is a pretty poor source, which is pretty much a mouthpiece for the settler movement. It might be easier just to find a report in the mainstream Israeli press, whom I assume reported the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. Although the facts are simple enough that I'd trust just about any source as long as I didn't think they made it up. But if I wasn't lazy I'd go find another source.
But I also wanted to note that "violent" in that sentence is a textbook example of an NPOV problem. Since the forms of violence are specifically listed, the word "violent" is a needless characterization. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem with using Arutz Sheva/INN as a source is covered quite nicely by WP:INUNIVERSE - "The problem with in-universe perspective - An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis." Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I found two mainstream Israeli press reports ([27], [28]) from the time about protests in Israel. Neither of them even mention "Arabs", so I think the focus on Arab protesters based on Aruts Sheva is probably unjustified. Dlv999 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The INN source is from 2008 the Jpost is from 2012 the Haaretz is from 2009.The INN source could be used with attribution for its own opinion.--Shrike (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The Haaretz and Jpost articles were published on January 9 and January 10, 2009 respectively. That is to say during the Gaza invasion (The Jpost link above contains today's date, which is an artifact, see this link [29]). The date issue is a red herring, I'd like to hear your justification for including the opinion of Arutz Sheva if we have bona fida third party RS which establish the facts. Dlv999 (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is not red herring it was mistake nevertheless if you would establish that they talk about same demonstration I would agree with you.But I don't think they will as newspapers don't report something that happened more then week ago.Here I found a real news item for this demonstration dated correctly the same as INN [30] you may used instead INN source I don't mind.--Shrike (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It would seem inexcusable to treat illegal settler sources as reliable. 94.116.66.223 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC) What's the point of claiming to be uncensored if you quote them but don't quote the much more respectable Jerusalem Jews who want nothing to do with settlement building?

Incomplete introductory section

The events labelled here - the "Gaza War" - included the destruction of a great deal of civilian infrastructure, as well as large numbers of civilian casualties. The introductory section of this article fails in my opinion to reflect this. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to say the war started Dec 27, 2008 ignores the fact that Arabs were lobbing missiles into Israel much more heavily in November and December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmer1123 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of Hamas, or others, lobbing missiles into Israel during this period of history, is surly significant. However I cannot see why this is relevant to Wiki including well referenced information about the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of "cast lead"

I think the article lead (lede) should be modified to include clarification of the meaning of "cast lead". The Hebrew name (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) means cast in the sense of forged not in the sense of thrown. How about inserting just before "Israel's stated aim" like this:

(The Hebrew name means cast in the sense of forged.)[1]

I would omit the <ref> but here it is for discussion if people want it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. Massadah Publishing Co. 1965. p. 950. cast, forged ... יצוק {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

BRD

Ilabila, a new editor made a controversial change. It was reverted. This is where it needs to be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing conreversal its support by WP:RS also the DLV should have stated his reason in talk before reverting--Shrike (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing controversial ? Interesting. I just said it's controversial as did DLV so there is a disagreement and a different approach is used by the Reuters source that is already there that you ignored. And no DLV didn't have to say anything on talk when he reverted. He does have to use an edit summary to explain why he reverted and he did - "Highly disputed claim. This has been contradicted by numerous sources since the Haarets report the day after the attack". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There are WP:RS that was brought.If there is different accounts we should bring claims of different WP:RS.Do you object?--Shrike (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
i fully agree with sean here. highly controversial and disputed claims must be confirmed by several reliable sources in order to comply with wp:verifiability.-- altetendekrabbe  12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts about the civilian/combatant ratio, given that the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organizations, the Israeli government, pro Israel NGO's Palestinian sources etc. all conducted investigations and published on the issue long after the Haaretz initial report. One of the main issues under dispute regarding the casualties on the first day is that a significant proportion of the casualties were civilian police (including 90 cadets and their families at a graduation ceremony). The UN, and human rights organizations assert that they are civilians unless actively engaged in fighting, while Israel's declared policy s that they were all targeted as "Hamas operative". This issue is discussed in the casualty section. If you want to bring the initial Haaretz claim then we are going to have to document all the counter claims and explain the discrepancies between the different sources and the various rebuttals that have been offered by involved parties. Personally I don't think it is a good idea to open up that can of worms because the section will very soon get bogged down documenting all the significant opinions (which should probably discussed in the casualty section). Dlv999 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Why can't the police force also be Hamas members, nobody disputes this, so why is this biased towards one POV? I suggest writing "Hamas members" as opposed to "operatives" which could be viewed as a less loaded term.Ankh.Morpork 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing. You should stop editing until a consensus forms. There is no deadline. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I Support AnkhMorpork's edit because it is sourced to a reliable source and that is the criteria. There is absolutely no reason to prevent this edit which is reliably sourced and supported by other editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And you have this from the New York Times which corroborates Haaretz; Palestinian officials said that most of the dead were security officers for Hamas, including two senior commanders The Palestinians themselves acknowledged that most were Hamas security officers! What more do you need? I expect HoyLand to self revert and if not, explain his reasons for not doing so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

And another source from CBC Although most of the dead were Hamas security forces, at least 15 were civilians, according to Palestinian officials. There are multiple sources that can substantiate the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone objecting to the edit, made by three different editors and supported by four, should show cause why three reliable, verifiable sources (NYT, CBC and Haaretz) should be discounted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explicitly confirm that you do not intend to follow BRD and wait for a consensus to form ? I insist that you provide a clear answer to the question. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There is simply no reason for the BRD in the first place, and at either rate, a growing concensus has formed with backup from numerous credible and reliable media outlets.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
seems to me, after reading the above and following what has been happening, that there are 3-4 RS that say exactly what the edit said. controversial? maybe, but certainly well sourced. i have seen many things here in wikiworld that i think are controversial and have been told (even by you, sean) that the RS stands. yes, be sure not to have UNDUE, etc., but it stands. Soosim (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
RS stand, but that means representing all views published by RS. If we are going to include this material from the initial news reports from the day following the strike, we are also going to include the material published after significant investigations were carried out to the effect that many of the victims of the first days attack were civilian police, many of whom were traffic cadets and band musicians at a graduation ceremony with their families, regarded as civilians by the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organisations, etc. If the decision is to go into this issue at this point in the article I will be happy to bring all the sources that represent the variouls published opinions on this issue. Dlv999 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You can certainly bring in the U.N. fact-finding mission, but I'd also expect it to be mentioned that the author of the report, Richard Goldstone, later disapproved of the report, said much of it was pre-determined and biased, and one-sided and taken from interviews with a certain group and trusting their words, and recommended that it be removed. In the same step, it may also be appropriate to link or cite various sources that refuted the report, specifically the part you are arguing about. Otherwise, there's really no point in it.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
What I am observing is a break down in due process in the topic area. This instance is one of many recent cases. The question for me is not about some words in this article. It's about the wider issue of whether I need to switch from trying to being patient, trying to follow BRD, and expecting others to do the same, or focusing my efforts on doing something that might help make the topic area function properly so that editors who do follow due process don't have to waste their time dealing with editors who don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
BRD is not a valid reason for reverting an edit that is properly sourced and confirmed by multiple sources, as pointed out above by Jiujitsuguy and Soosim. Still, a discussion has taken place, and it's pretty clear that there was no reason to revert the improvement that was properly sourced by credible news sources.--Activism1234 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is a valid reason. That is exactly how it works. A bold edit is made, it's reverted and a discussion then follows to find a consensus. When editors won't follow the BRD cycle on issues where there is disagreement, things rapidly break down. It becomes disruptive and often results in edit warring. All sorts of controversial information can be properly sourced and confirmed by multiple sources in this topic area. It would be trivial for an editor to select properly sourced information that is confirmed by multiple sources to tell any story they want in this article or any other in the topic area. Editors regularly disagree about how to handle content, which sources to use etc, and when that happens they are required by policy to try to reach consensus through discussion. They are required to have the patience to achieve that and there is no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As Dlv999 states, "The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts..." JJG significantly improved upon this and supported the content with multiple sources. Contrary to your assertions, edits that seek to rectify a perceived issue do not require your vouchsafing before their submission. I shall remind you that BRD is not a policy or guideline and in fact expressly states: BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Despite this you have self-righteously reverted three times citing a policy which explicitly disapproves your conduct. Your edit summaries make clear that you are seeking to impose this policy on others and your combative editing has to stop. You still have not made a single talk page comment directly discussing the merits of the edit. Since you seem unfamiliar with BRD I shall further quote: "However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or, better yet, considerably less time than that." JJG was operating in accordance with this policy, unlike yourself, and your depictions of his editing otherwise is wholly erroneous. Ankh.Morpork 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
That's charming and helpful. Now, if you could just focus for a moment on the problem rather than me it would be better. Of course I am aware that BRD is a guide but it provides a practical framework for WP:CONSENSUS which is policy. Edits made while a discussion is ongoing that clearly won't have consensus are not helpful. It's disruptive and it's edit warring. Now, to be fair to JJG (and unlike you) he made an effort with his last edit to move things forward but it was already clear from Dlv999's comment at 13:00, 9 June 2012 that this wouldn't resolve the issue. The way to resolve the issue is to be patient, bring sources, discuss things and find a solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You still do not appear to have acknowledged that that this "is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." While it is useful and perhaps advisable aid, you have reverted three times and have sought to impose this policy on others both in the article and in the talk page. This is disruptive and verges on edit-warring especially when you have scarcely commented on the edit in question. You have even decided to create a thread titled BRD dedicated to enforcing this guideline. It is worrying that an experienced editor such as yourself feels it necessary to browbeat editors about their views on BRD, (whom you acknowledge were making an effort to move things forward) when you yourself are acting contrary to this essay, and I request you explain your actions. Ankh.Morpork 19:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A call for responsible editing, or for a rewriting under administrative guidance.

This article is a total mess because editors are patching in googled information on sections without reading for context. Sean hoyland has a point. The process of responsible editing appears, on key articles, to have broken down.

Jiujitsuguy's most recent edit, for example says, with 3 sources (on excessive sourcing, see below) says:-

  • At least 225-230 Palestinians were killed, most of them Hamas security officers

Had he read above this, he would have noticed the following, a mere two lines up.

  • Approximately 140 members of Hamas were killed, including Tawfik Jaber, head of Hamas' police force

So 140 members of Hamas were killed, no wait, 225-300 Palestinians were killed, most of them Hamas security officers. The way this flows, whatever the editors' intentions were, is that 140 reads as most of 225-230, when it is a touch over half (60%), all in the space of three lines. The reader is left only with bepuzzlement, or a nod of the head at the incompetence of wikipedia as a source, and as an encyclopedic project.

The key vice is over-sourcing from immediate reportage. To get an idea of why this is completely garbled by promiscuous, intensive, ill-focused sourcing, suffice it to look at war articles, generally, and for the area.

What have we for Gaza War? which lasted 23 days? a massive jumble of 489 (which must be close to a wiki record) notes, mostly from period newspapers - for a 3 week blitz that has 60 more notes than the article for the 11 year-long war in Afganistan. The only impression one gets is of tendentious illegibility.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what you are suggesting. The edit made by Jiujitsuguy was sourced appropriately with what are undeniably WP:RS. If you don't consider 60% to be "most", that's fine, but it's WP:OR for you to make that judgment call. If the WP:RS call it "most", then so should we. Unless I am misunderstanding you, I assume that your point of view is that Jiujitsuguy's addition should be removed. What policy supports that view? Because to me, it sounds like WP:CENSOR. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Please try to understand what writing clear English, that does not create misunderstandings in the reader's mind, requires. Jiujitsuguy's edit is symptomatic of useless multiple sourcing that contradicts, or gives the appearance of contradicting, what the article says a few lines above. When you edit, you should at least read the whole section, and preferably, if you've read it the whole article.
I see you haven't addressed the main point. Following his selective use of three dated RS which contradict what the text says just above, we now have 489 sources. Perhaps they're all RS. Wikipedia articles on wars far more complex than this have a medium of half that number of RS. Even the Afganistan war which was 191 times longer than the Gaza war in temporal terms has far fewer notes. That is the key problem.
Thirdly, with so much to fix that is obviously crass, but ignored, I suggest editors are not reading the article at all, but looking at things that they might perspectivize in partisan terms. I deduce this from a few random things in the lead:
  • 'three-week armed conflict that took place in the Gaza Strip during the winter of 2008–2009, which started on December 27, 2008.'
That comma there after which means that the winter of 2008-9 began on December 27, which is news to the world of climatologists.
  • 'Palestinian groups continued firing rockets in response to what they characterized as "massacres".'
'continuing' is used there to conflate the rocket-firing before the assault, with the responsive rocketry after the assault began. You can't do that logically, because the sentence would imply that pre-war rockets into Israel were responses to the 'massacres' that took place after the beginning of Operation Cast Lead.
  • 'infantry units were given an 'unprecedented level of access to coordinate with air, naval, artillery, intelligence, and combat engineering units during this second phase.'
That looks like WP:OR, and is dumb. Access to what? 'Access' is hanging in the air. The comma after 'intelligence' shouldn't be there, for it deprives all three adjectives of the noun they modify; 'to coordinate' should come after 'units', 'to coordinate (ground operations) with them', if you accept the otherwise unsourced statement.
  • 'Israel first declared a unilateral ceasefire.'
'First' placed thus syntactically obliges one to continue with Israel as the subject of a further clause. (Israel first declared, and then). What the editor must have intended to write is that Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire (which implies it was the first to stop shooting).
  • 'The legal status of the Gaza strip is disputed, Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza.'
That has, in context, a comma where a full stop, or a colon is required.
  • the UN, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs, who. . .'
Organizations require 'which', not 'who'.
  • 'January 2006 legislative elections brought Hamas to power of Palestinian National Authority.'
that is garbled English, and untrue if it means anything that its constituent words try to imply it may.
This, and much else suggests to me that the unpolemical chore of simple editing care is being ignored, and editors are failing to read the article, as they look at how to get POV leverage into snippets from googling. The result is a mishmash of useless triplicated, quadruplicated sourcing, often contradicted by accounts that were written in the cold hindsight of extensive investigation afterwards.
And don't add silly links, with absurd innuendoes, to irrelevant policy. This has nothing to do with censorship, and everything to do with editorial responsibilities to make an article, clear, cogent, brief, and impeccable documented from the best RS, not just any RS.And as long as this bickering attitude over edits persists, serious editors won't come in to fix this. Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Israelis with anti-tank missles, PLO without tanks?

I am not too much into this subject, but unless there is some use for anti-tank missles other than tanks, that sounds pretty fishy to me. Either the PLO had tanks that were not mentioned, or Israel was not using anti-tank missles. Is it possible that there is another use for anti-tank missles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.55.129 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Antitank missiles can be used for a number of secondary tasks depending on the model of missile. They can be used against all types of vehicles, cars, trucks, etc. they can be used to destroy strongpoints such as a bunker or a fortified house. they are very very useful for taking out snipers. No, really. If a Sniper is sitting a mile off behind a wall inside an apartment it is almost impossible to take him out with rifle fire, bur an ATGM can bring the roof down on him from two or three miles away. the cost of a missile is high compared to a rifle round, but very small compared to an officer or trained soldier.13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC) David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk)

Gaza Holocaust

Why does Gaza Holocaust redirect to this article and what can we do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonkeltron (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should not redirect here. No news source has used this wording. Holocaust is defined as reckless destruction of life or mass slaughter according to dictionary.com, which does not properly describe Operation Cast Lead.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before.
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_19#Gaza_Holocaust
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17#Gaza_Holocaust
Sean.hoyland - talk 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It still does not meet the definition nor is it used by either side of combatants. It appears to be somewhat biased wording placed on as a result of an outside, uninvolved party and as such should, in my personal opinion, not be seen as encyclopedic. However, as well all seem biased, you too from your posts in 2010, I think it is best to have an RfC on the matter from outside parties, which I opened below. Please allow outsiders to comment on this issue as you already made your opinion clear.--108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand what redirects are for and the rules that govern them. Read Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects. Regarding your request "Please allow outsiders to comment on this issue as you already made your opinion clear", no, of course I won't agree to that. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Per that link, I do not believe that the "redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources". Also, you are clearly biased on this, as am I, hence I find my request for outside comment perfectly reasonable. I am willing to compromise and accept a mediated outcome, but it appears you are not. How is that neutral?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Should this article be redirected to from Gaza Holocaust?

Should this article be redirected to from Gaza Holocaust as a result of the decision of RFC which determined that the one side of the argument termed it Gaza Massacre (not Holocaust) and the other Operation Cast Lead?--108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is for this, not RfC. You would need to nominate it again. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. WP:RFD § Gaza Holocaust --108.23.47.101 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Length of this article

This article is WAY WAY too big. I began to cut it down by removing excess references, useless reference names (those with reference names, but only are used once), Removing unneeded parts from urls or references (especially long quotes. Quotes should really only be used when access to the original source is impossible online, i.e. if you got it from a physical book or newspaper), as well as combining duplicate references. I haven't finished yet, but if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to bring them up! Jeancey (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's just ref cleanup and trimming down on some excessive stuff, I wouldn't worry too much. If you start removing some entire content as "not notable" or "important" enough, depending on the content (who knows, it could really not be notable enough) it may face some discussion. I've looked through the edits you just made, and they seem fine to me though, just ref cleanup and no actual effect on the content as far as I could tell. --Jethro B 22:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
That was my goal. The only real possible contentious point could be removing excessive refs, but someone else thinking I'm trying to remove a POV or something. I just hoped I didn't annoy anyone by removing refs. But a line really doesn't need 5 references lol. 2 or 3 is plenty. Jeancey (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


what hamas called it

The lead wrongfully said that Hamas called this event the Battle of al-Furqan and that unnamed others called it the Gaza Massacre. That is directly contradicted by the cited sources, and per the past RFC on the issue I am restoring the original attributions. nableezy - 01:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

White phosphorus shell fired into Israel

No accurate prove except one line in a newspaper report without an official Israeli assurance or neutral other assurance. Then why it's there???? Why every time I remove it someone keep reverse it???? --elbarck (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Gaza War → Operation Cast Lead Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC) – — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's been discussed before, but it's time we discussed it again. The recent conflict in Gaza, even if it wasn't widely dubbed a 'war', makes Wikipedia's decision to title this article as though it was the first, only or most significant military conflict in Gaza look sillier than ever. There were 'Gaza Wars' before this one, and there will be more 'Gaza Wars' in future. It's just far too vague.

It's also out of step with the titles of our other articles on military conflicts involving Israel and Gaza, see: Operation Rainbow (2004), Operation Days of Penitence, Operation Summer Rains (2006), Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter and most recently Operation Pillar of Defense. Logically, then, this article should be titled Operation Cast Lead. And, I believe, that would be the WP:COMMONNAME as well. I realise Google searches are a very crude tool, but "Operation Cast Lead" yields 6 million results, while "Gaza War" +2009 (to rule out the other wars in Gaza) yields only 1 million.

So: I propose this article be moved to Operation Cast Lead. Who agrees? Robofish (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(Given the number of incoming links, I'd be happy for Gaza War to remain as a redirect for the time being. In the long-term though, I think there's a reasonable argument for turning it into a disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC))
A proper google search in "news" gives only 147 hits for "Operation Cast Lead" compared to 905 for "Gaza war" & 2009.TMCk (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. First, this obviously was the biggest "Gaza War" with most deaths and let us think positive thoughts it will remain so. If not, we can deal with it.
Secondly, not all the various Israeli incursions/attacks are named after the propaganda name operations of the dominant military powers and perhaps there should be a broader discussion of how they should be named. I personally would prefer month/season and year, which currently many are named instead of an operation, but obviously this one is 3 odd weeks over two different years which makes it a big clumbsier. CarolMooreDC 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As formal move requester per Robofish. I've supported Gaza War in the past and probably it should remain as redirect and perhaps eventually a disambiguation page. Robofish's rational refers to applicable naming convention and search engine results. --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC) edited for formal request move at 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It should not be called by the name given to it by one country, especially when it is not widely known by that name outside that country. I'd support something like 'Gaza Conflict' + year, (or month and year). Imc (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there has been no evidence that Operation Cast Lead is the most common name used by reliable sources. The past move discussion that resulted in this change brought several sources from a wide array of sources that use Gaza War for the name of this event. A google search does not restrict itself to reliable sources, and as such is not of much use for deciding the name of the event. Until it can be shown that most sources use this name for the event the current name should be retained. Also, per WP:MILMOS#CODENAME, Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations (such as Operation Barbarossa), or for military actions that were never carried out (such as Operation Green). nableezy - 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Long time coming. Although I respect the intention of MILMOS it discounts that is is an unambiguous and common name used by sources in at least this instance. Overall navigation and the common name standards of Wikipedia trump that project's suggestions for smaller scale events. The move also has the benefit of being inline with other articles in the topic area. In response to Imc's valid concern: The proposed move is better than what we have now and a move that is improvement should not be hindered by what should be handled in yet another discussion.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any evidence, any at all, for the unsubstantiated claim that OCL is an unambiguous and common name used by sources? Because the move request that brought this article to this title actually provided evidence from reliable sources, I dont see that being done here. nableezy - 17:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reeason why we don't title it the "Gaza Massacre" or "Battle of al-Furqan".TMCk (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    Adding a timeframe to the title would be a good idea of course.TMCk (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not the common name and not a neutral description of the topic. I would support a change to Gaza war 2008/09 or something similar to differentiate between other incidents to address the concerns raised by the proposer. Dlv999 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Firstly, it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Google has 18,300,000 hits for "Operation Cast Lead" and 271,000 for "Cast Lead Operation"; compared with 5,610,000 for "the Gaza War" and 1,160,000 for "Gaza War" (discounting Wikipedia hits). Secondly, "Gaza War" or "Israel-Gaza War" has been used for other conflicts, and some of those hits refer to those other conflicts. Thirdly, the name "Operation Cast Lead" is consistent with other articles like Operation Rainbow (2004), Operation Days of Penitence, Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter and Operation Pillar of Defense. Naming it after the Israeli codename (the most common name) doesn't mean we're taking the Israeli side; likewize, naming Operation Barbarossa after the German codename (the most common name) doesn't mean we're taking the German side. ~Asarlaí 16:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if Google is saying that there are 5 and a half million pages containing "the Gaza War" but only 1 million containing "Gaza War" I think that is telling us a lot about the reliability of using google hits, but not much about the common name of this topic. Also claims should be verifiable so you should provide links for your searches, none of the searches I tried came up with the numbers you quoted.
"Operation Cast Lead", "Gaza War". ~Asarlaí 17:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out further up in response to the first "Google argument", if you search "news" only, the numbers are quite the opposite in comparison. Backfires so to say.TMCk (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Searching Google News between 27 December 2008 (beginning of Cast Lead) and 13 November 2012 (the day before the beginning of Pillar of Defense) yields 4,680 for "Operation Cast Lead" + 127 for "Cast Lead operation" (or 4,807 altogether), compared with 4,550 for "Gaza War". Note that the hits for "Gaza War" also include terms such as "Gaza's war...", "Gaza war crimes" and "Attack may spark Gaza war". ~Asarlaí 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
+1
Let's be frank, editors on this article and in the topic area have feared that naming an article based on Israel's operational name somehow gives validity to Israel and/or disenfranchises the Palestinians. No reader will actually think any more or less of either side based on the name of the article, though. Google News shows RS and provides a sample for what they commonly cal the conflict. I may support "Gaza Conflict (xyz)" in another discussion but both are better than this.Cptnono (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

protest image

The protests against Israel's attacks far outnumbered, in number and attendance, those in support. The imagery of the section should reflect that. nableezy - 02:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Image documenting Hamas rocket range in 2012

Use of an image documenting Hamas rocket range in 2012 is WP:SYNTHESIS, I see no evidence from the source document that it is relevant to the Gaza war or the situation in 2008. It is very likely the image is not accurate for 2008 seeing as in the intervening years Hamas were supposed to be increasing the range of their rockets. Dlv999 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

During the Gaza War, Hamas had mortars of various calibres, BM-21 Grad, Qassam and Katyusha.[1][2]--IranitGreenberg (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Yagna, Yanir (January 15, 2009). "Hamas launches first phosphorus rocket at Negev; no injuries reported". Haaretz. Retrieved May 5, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Hamas: 87 shells fired at Israeli targets in 24 hours". Bethlehem, PS: Ma'an News. 2008-12-25. Retrieved 2009-10-28.
But In 2008, the Israeli foreign ministry says that the range of the Palestinians Grad rocket is 20km, while in the 2012 image it is presented as 30 miles. The most likely reason for the discrepancy is the well documented improvement in the Palestinian arsenal in the intervening years. It should be fairly obvious that it is problematic to portray the 2012 arsenal as something that was available in 2008 and relevant to the 2008 Gaza war. Dlv999 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Not true. By the end of 2008, Grad rockets had a range of 30 km. Read this paper, written during the Gaza War: However, the Israelis are not alluding themselves about their opponent's capabilities, and are preparing themselves to absorb more and heavier hits in the coming days, as operation "Lead Cast" continues. Emergency Martial Law has already been declared by the Home Defense Command covering almost 30 kilometers range of possible rocket strikes.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
30 kilometers is not the same as the 30 miles in the 2012 image. Dlv999 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
"With a top range of about 40 kilometers (25 miles) the unguided, Iranian-supplied Grad enables Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups to strike at more than a half-million Israelis". Hamas didn't have Iranian Fajr-5 rockets in 2009, but 2012 Grad missiles had the same range then.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
You are still yet to provide a source that supports the circa 2012 30 mile range. Dlv999 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
"Usually rockets land randomly amid Israeli towns within 40 miles of the border with the Gaza Strip, killing innocent civilians and terrorising hundreds of thousands of men, women and children."--IranitGreenberg (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Then get a picture from this conflict. That one isnt related. nableezy - 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Did not we have a map like this in this article for ages? Probably established editors do remember. I guess all is needed is looking into older revisions of this page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Article questionable POV

This article, beside the fact that it is too long and beside the fact that prioritizing and favoring chapters/sections and amount of informations on the basis of pro-Israel bias, has also issues regarding POV and notability of sources:

  • - on one side, almost all of the allegations, reports, quotes, against Palestinian side comes from WP:PRIMARY which is also a single source (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:SPS), mainly IDF, while few secondary and tertiary sources, such as media reports, are also almost entirely based on reporting the same IDF primary source, not to mention that media outlets itself are mostly from Israel;
  • - on the other side, majority of the allegations, reports, quotes, against Israeli side comes from variety of sources corroborated with primary sources, secondary source and tertiary sources, and which are mainly impartial/nonpartisan notable international organizations and agencies, while secondary and tertiary sources reporting on the basis of these primary sources are various notable international media outlets.

This MUST have some significance, right ?!--Santasa99 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same as the above poster, certainly much of the single pro-Israeli sources still remain as of my post: WP:PRIMARY, as well as WP:NPOV for lack of other sources. 81.158.225.255 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I FELT I MUST AMMEND THE ABOVE WITH CAPS, BOLD AND ITALICS DUE TO THIS SUGGESTION FOUND WITHIN THE TEXT:An IDF probe, released on April 22, 2009, stated that a UN vehicle was attacked by Israeli forces because a Palestinian anti-tank squad was being unloaded from the vehicle.SUCH INSINUATIONS ARE SERIOUS TO THE POINT OF PURSUIT OF LITIGATION, AND SIMPLY CANNOT BE REPRESENTED WITHOUT DUE CORROBORATION, THE U.N. REPRESENTING THE HIGHEST GLOBAL BODY CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.225.255 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Most of the article reads as zionist propaganda.Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Apart from tricks such as two large sections under different headings about Hamas' alledged use of human shields, this article is mainly a successful Israeli propaganda story because it hides the fact that the real cause of the conflict is the ongoing occupation.

Even the stupid title is misleading, as it was not a war at all. Essentially the assault was a cowardly series of bombardments and shellings with clusterbombs and white phosphorus from the air, the borders and the sea, on a defenceless people. After a week followed a repetition of Operation Rainbow (2004) and Operation Days of Penitence, incursions which also were not wars. Tanks, drones and helicopter gunships against guns. For many it was an eye-opener with respect of the real intentions of Israel toward the Palestinian people.

I am not going to propose a renaming for the third time, but after all a title like "Gaza war 2008/09" "Gaza assault 2008/2009" is the most neutral and usefull name, although this onslaught for most people is known under the cynical name "Cast Lead". Cynical and non-neutral like all Israeli operation names. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish neutral editors were as bold and as aggressive as those pushing the Israeli POV. I see so much Israeli propaganda in this article, then I come here and see that that is the consensus view, yet we don't act against them. I'll try to be back to boldly edit the terrible intro. Sepsis II (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Although I am hesitant to wade into many biased articles involving the Middle East, I like to think I can add a little to the discussion when it's really warranted. The simple casualty numbers tell the story of this "battle" well enough: between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians dead compared to 13 Israeli dead, 4 of those from friendly fire. Historically, events with these casualty ratios are described as massacres in Wikipedia and given a paragraph or two in the intro describing the massacre. I would refer the reader to the Wikipedia articles on The Little Bighorn (268 U.S. Cavalry dead to maybe a hundred natives), the Waxhaw Massacre (113 dead to 5 dead), the Tripolitsa Massacre (8000 dead to 100 dead), the Moro Crater Massacre (600 dead to 18 dead), or any of the other massacres on the List of events named massacres Page on Wikipedia. Of course, when Israel is involved the introduction to the slaughter has to be four paragraphs describing all the reasons Israel devastated Gaza and the "restraint" they used ("Israeli forces attacked police stations, military targets," etc, "Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against civilian targets" ((Gasp! They weren't very effective, were they?)), the back and forth about the Goldstone Report, etc). Who are the admins overseeing this? MarkB2 Chat 15:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rocket attacks

If RS do not draw a link shuld we imply one? Yes the attacks declined but there may have been reasons for this unrelated to the conflict.????

Lead

Israel's stated goal was to stop rocket fire into Israel: Not found in source Reuters (describes only part of the timeline).

and weapons smuggling into the Gaza strip: Not found in sources.

I propose to replace the sentence by:
"Israel's stated goal was to stop attacks from Gaza on Israel. It argued that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. An argument rejected by the UN Fact Finding Mission, who investigate alleged violations of international law during the Gaza War."<ref name="guardian.co.uk">
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, oppose your proposal. Firstly I'm not sure why you are changing "rocket fire" to attacks." The weapons smuggling was sourced but now the link is dead. A new source must be found and it should be not difficult. Your essay-like proposal for the second sentence is wholly inappropriate for a second sentence of a WP:LEAD let alone for any part of the article. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem at all to keep "rocket fire" instead of the more compact "attacks". The Guardian perfectly cites the Israeli key arguments, so I also propose to add to the source the quote: "The inquiry rejected Israel's argument that the war was a response to Palestinian rocket fire and therefore an act of self-defence. Instead, it found the war was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".". Rejecting the source by calling it essay-like is very cheap arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
To include such "inquiry" in the lead (furthermore with those words, which are not mainstream opinion... the objective was to "humiliate, terrorize"?? are you kidding me or what?) is blatant and obvious POV-pushing. Take a time to read weight, label, lead and NPOV more carefully. This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal blog.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
First, a quote in the ref does not appear in the lead. Further no one says it is a mainstream opinion; it is a quote from a RS. Third, "humiliate, terrorize" are not my words, but only short-sighted minds see them as a joke. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Operation Protective Edge be added to the top with Operation Pillar of Defense in the "For..." section? - Galatz (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation name

Aviados, you seem not to get the point about the name Operation Cast Lead. It is not about the etymology of the word. It is about the cynical use of it, refering to the "lead" casted out over the Gazan population. Making an innocent reference to a celebration makes it still more cynical and hypocritical. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wickey-nl, I'm afraid it is you who does not get the point about the name. *Of course* the name may have several aspects, some of which you may call "cynical", or in any case a word play. However, its basic meaning should undoubtedly be explained (which, much to my surprise, was not the case until now).
I shall quote from the English-language source I have given (which is nothing if not critical):
The war-normalizing name Operation Cast Lead [...] carried several connotations to Jewish culture with the key overall connotation being the holiday of Hanukkah. It is important to note that most of these connotations are lost in the English name, thus a detailed discussion of the Hebrew name may be useful for the non-Hebrew speaker. (Gavriely-Nuri, Dalia (2013). “Operation Cast Lead.” The Normalization of War in Israeli Discourse, 1967-2008. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. pp. 42–43)
The authour – a senior lecturer and a research fellow in the Department of Politics and Communication at Hadassah Academic College and at the Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, respectively, and whose main research area is Peace and War Discourse – goes on to explain it in detail. If you wish to add information to it, based on sources like this study, you are welcome. However, objecting the mere explaining of the operation's name is an absurdity. Aviados (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

This photo of a stack of scrap from an unreliable source could have been made anytime, anywhere. Found in a mosque? It clearly are not weapons. This violates WP:SOURCE. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Do we usually consider military spokesperson units unreliable sources? Are all government spokespersons unreliable, in your opinion?
And what is the basis for the claim that Qassam rockets "are not weapons"? Aviados (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, military spokespersons in general are pathological liars. They are not government spokespersons, although these usually also lie. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This photo shows at best remains of what once were Qassam rockets. Unknown where and when found. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting approach, determining that information provided by official spokespersons is probably a lie. Is it grounded in any guidelines, or is it just your personal point of view?
Qassam rockets are seen in the images. You *suggest* that these aren't but "remains of what once were Qassam rockets". That's an original research. Aviados (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Government statements are notable primary sources that can be included if attributed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
An exposition of old metal, yet not weapons, and a soldier posing for the picture. This image is not added for information, but merely for mood making. So, I remove it again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Two editors have explained why you are wrong and objected your edit. I reverted your edit yet again. Please do not remove the image again without achieving an agreement in the talk page. Aviados (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The hollow phrase of Brewcrewer, I do not regard as an explanation. Instead, your suggestion that Qassam rockets are shown is original research. You failed to adress any of my objections. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's less of an original research than to claim that what is shown is "a stack of scrap" or "an exposition of old metal". But of course, we should avoid original research, on either side; that means we are to stick to the source, according to which what is shown in the image are weapons. Aviados (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The image itself proves it is an unreliable source. The accompanying comment speaks volumes. Yet, I gave enough other arguments to delete this picture. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You gave some arguments, all of which were then refuted.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by saying that "the image itself proves it is an unreliable source". Aviados (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Only silly Israelis and Americans believe that the IDF as a fighting party is a reliable source. Apparently, there are editors among those believers here. The image is clearly for propaganda, both on Flickr and in the article. WP:SOURCE is enough for deletion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

there are images in there from the ISM, which is not neutral, not a reliable source. Why are you not removing those? This kind of one-sided editing is disruptive. at leats 4 editors have reverted you yon this issue - stop edit warring over it. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As a mouth-piece of other editors, you are confusing neutral and reliable. Unlike IDF, ISM is not a party that takes part in the hostilities and is not known for systematic lying. There is no evidence at all that ISM is an unreliable source. Moreover, we are talking about an IDF image. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The IDF is reliable source for thier own images.Please don't remove it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, all of the arguments advocating for this picture to stay are either from banned accounts or Israeli members of this community. As a neutral American informed of this issue in the Middle East, I can support Wickey-nl's claim with evidence pertaining to similar propaganda issued by the IDF upon request. As for now, I feel that the removal of this picture is the right way to go, but only if we can reach an agreement. ToBeOrNotToBe02 (talk)/WP:RX 16:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: IDF image

This request is about the question isued above (the use of an IDF image).
The IDF image, in my view, is placed in the article for propaganda only. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. My theses are:

  1. The image is used for propaganda and does not serve explanation of the article
  2. Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
  3. The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source on the subject, including statements about targets, and casualties among the other party

Wickey-nl (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

History

  • 4 July 2014‎ [31] Wickey-nl's first removal
  • 4 July 2014‎ [32] reverted by User:Shezor Sajur, almost certain a sock, edit accepted by Brewcrewer
  • 6 July 2014‎ [33] Wickey-nl's first revert, to force discussion on talkpage
  • 6 July 2014 [34]‎ reverted by Aviados
  • 7 July 2014‎ [35] Wickey-nl's second revert, to force discussion on talkpage
  • 7 July 2014‎ [36] reverted by Aviados

Until Wickey-nl's third revert on 10 July 2014‎, there was no response on the talkpage but by Brewcrewer, with a reaction that was not to the point, and from Aviados, who ignored Wickey-nl's arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickey-nl (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 July 2014

Wow, this description cannot be less accurate. First, Wickey-nl neglected to mention the fact that the discussion had indeed begun, with both his argument and my response, on 5 July. Second, I couldn't have ignored Wickey-nl's final "arguments", since his kind remark about the silliness of Israelis and Americans does not constitute an argument (but if anything, merely reflects his "neutral" POV). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Please, start your comment with a * and your sign (~~~~)

1 The image is used for propaganda

  • The image, showing weapons found in a mosque, demonstrates Hamas's notorious usage of public, civilan facilities – including, as in this case, mosques – for military purposes, and thus effectively turning the civil population in Gaza into a human shield. This is a matter of fact, known to be true and confirmed by numerous non-Israeli sources (including, interestingly enough, Hamas's own speakers, who apparently do not believe there is anything wrong with this practice). To present the readers with this image, then, is no more of a "propaganda" than to present them with images depicting the actions of the other side (i.e., Israel), namely explosions, damaged buildings etc. (which, to be sure, appear in the article in their numbers). To show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by only one of the two fighting parties, while erasing all trace of the ones inflicted by the other, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the image is used for propaganda/PR. That is the only reason to take the photo and publish the photo. But including propaganda in Wikipedia articles is fine as long the source is clearly identified and what it purportedly shows is attributed to the source of the propaganda. And Aviados, we are not here to show visual evidence of the wrongs inflicted by anyone. It's an encyclopedia with a mandatory WP:NOTADVOCATE policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The image may have been taken by the IDF for PR purposes, but in this article it is being used to illustrate some of the arguments. There's nothing wrong with that so long as the overall article adheres to WP:NPOV - by including arguments and images from the other side. On that note, I might be more sympathetic to the OP's argument here if he also suggested that the propaganda photos originating with the International Solidarity Movement also be removed - but as the OP hypocritically supports retaining those photos while advocating the removal of IDF ones, we can safely dismiss this argument as disingenuous. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously, but as long as the caption clearly states where photo comes from and as long as photos from similar Palestinian sources are not rejected, it's useable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The question is not only if the image is used for propaganda purposes, which is obvious, but more importantly why it is used in a WP article. What does the picture add? Does it say that mosques are legitimate military targets, like homes, press offices, schools and hospitals? And if so, should WP support this. If this is indeed the case, it should be mentioned in the capture; not simply "weapons found in a mosque", which is meaningless. Questioning the presence of pictures that damage Israel's image is legitimate. But, unlike the photo about we are talking now, there are published plenty pictures of the damage, by plenty independent sources, and they were verifiable by everyone. The presence of other images does not legitimate the presence of an improper one. Every one should be judged separately. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The most disturbing use of a non-sense argument is, that propaganda from an unreliable source may be used for balance and NPOV. No source or image from a Palestinian battle group has been used in the whole article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The image gives an example of case where Palestinians have used a mosque as a weapon warehouse; nothing particularly new. You may think this to be "meaningless", but that seems like nothing more than yet another reflection of your clearly non-NPOV attitude here. It is a crucial aspect of this warfare, which should certainly not be disregarded. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

2 Content not verifiable

  • This is not a separate issue, but merely an aspect of no. 3 (see bellow). Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is true of just about every photograph on Wikipedia - , and is a byproduct of copyright laws. verifiable images - from reputable news agencies - are copyrighted and can't normally be used. (and as an aside, even reputable news media have been caught publishing fake photos). We rely on user generated content for most photographic material. Specifically, it applies to all the ISM photos in the article, which the OP has no problem with. Again, an insincere appeal to policy, properly described as WP:WIKILAWYERING Brad Dyer (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As Sean.hoyland pointed out, propaganda may be included in Wikipedia articles under certain conditions. This does not mean that misleading info may be presented just because it is correctly attributed. The content on the discussed photo is dubious and not verified by a RS. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As others have already stated, the image gives no "misleading info", and only someone who applies a double standard would consider it "dubious" while unquestionably accepting the validity of the ones taken by the ISM. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am fine with this photo as long as "according to IDF" is there in the caption. It does illustrate Israel's claim of weapons being hidden in a mosque (without saying anything about whether that claim is true). If someone wants to jump from this allegation to the conclusion that it is ok to bomb mosques, that is their problem. I do however note that there is no equivalence between the photos from ISM and this photo, because nobody disputes the damage as shown in the ISM photos. While here, there is obviously a charged claim that Palestinian militant groups used mosques as weapons storage. As far as I understand it, the ISM photos are used mainly due to them being without copyright restrictions. Kingsindian (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Off topic discussion on use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes
    • FYI, the Palestinian use civilian infrastructure for military purposes in the current warfare as well. There are plenty of sources referring to both now and then (for instance: 1, 2; 3; 4). Aviados (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Not sure what this has to do with the above topic, but if you wish to discuss it, sure. I was indeed aware of the rockets found in the UNRWA school a few days ago, which is being investigated. All the sources you mention (except for the Israeli intelligence source, which I will not treat as independently credible) refer to the 2014 war, and just this single incident. There are no other sources for the 2008 war which you list. So your phrase "both now and then" seems wrong. I am quite willing to believe the allegation that mosques were sometimes used for storage (indeed, it would be surprising if it were not true), but you haven't given me any evidence for it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It was just a casual remark, so I didn't try very hard. Also, quite naturally, I'm more occupied with current news. I don't know how good your German is, but the Die Zeit article refers to another (2014) incident, where Hamas used a German-funded civilian facility. Now, I looked it up, and there are indeed numerous sources – apart from military intelligence researches – discussing this issue. To give a few examples: "Hamas Independent reports give detailed evidence that Hamas used hospitals, school, homes, and mosques to hide weapons and soldiers during the Gaza War [...] Hamas hid IEDs in and around civilian homes and hospitals[.]" (Marie-Helen Maras‏, ‘Hamas,’ The CRC Press Terrorism Reader, 2014 , p. 287); "[Hamas and other Palestinian operatives] fired rockets from residential neighbourhoods and engaged Israeli forces from or near houses, hospitals, mosques, schools and UN compounds." (Richard D. Rosen, ‘The Protection of Civilians During the Israeli-Hamas Conflict: The Goldstone Report,’ in: David W. Lovell & Igor Primoratz (eds.), Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict (2012)); "Hamas uses its civilian infrastructure as meeting places; it hides fugitives in the homes of its dawa activists and supporters, and has buried caches of arms and explosives under its own kindergarten playgrounds." (Matthew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, 2006, p. 97 (see also p. 36); a general claim, followed by an example from 2000). Aviados (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • (Still off topic) I spent a bit of time tracking down the sources. My previous conviction remains as it is. I can't read German, so I have no idea about the Die Zeit article. Source 1: It just says: "Independent sources" without giving any details. It mentions a) The UN report and b) Israeli intelligence. I will leave aside Israeli intelligence. The UN Goldstone report found no instances of mosques being used as caches or for storage or to use as launching pads, though it did not investigate this thoroughly. The only incidents where it investigated, mosques or hospitals, it concluded that there was no evidence for the Israeli claims of using mosques or hospitals as weapons caches or to fire rockets. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf page 117). It says " Israeli Government has produced no visual or other evidence to support its allegation that Palestinian combatants “mingle routinely with civilians in order to cover their movements". It discusses some other sources and conclude that if there was mingling, it was mostly due to the very small area of Gaza, and definitely not done deliberately. Source 2: The source for the second is an article by Steve Erlanger in the NYT. His source is Israeli military and intelligence. Source 3: This seems plausible, the source is a Palestinian security chief. But this is from 2000, it does not pertain to 2008. Kingsindian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I appreciate the challenge. German: not my problem; you can either rely on me, use machine translation or go ask a German speaker (although one may find similar articles in English as well, I presume). You seem too quick to dismiss Israeli intelligence, forgeting they enjoy high global prestige they do have to maintain. This is not less so in regard to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. The above-mentioned article, "The use of mosques in the Gaza Strip for military purposes by Hamas and other terrorist organizations: the case of the Al-Farouq Mosque", is rich in images (among which, I found, is the photo that started this debate (p. 8).
              The Goldstone report did not enjoy the cooperation of the Israeli government, which suspected – quite justifiably, one might add in retrospect – that this UNHRC appointed mission is aimed as another anti-Israeli means, courtesy of this shamelessly biased council, rather than as a sincere attempt at "finding facts". However, had Israel presented its arsenal of evidence before the Goldstone team, it would in all probability have included findings found in the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center comparative report "Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip: The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings". You may, of course, choose to ignore everything in it. In any case, it is worth mentioning, in regard to the image under discussion, showing IEDs seized in a mosque in Al-Atatra, the following: "An operational sketch of Al-Atatra in the northern Gaza Strip was seized during Operation Cast Lead. It showed that the mosques were integrated into the combat system, and that IEDs, anti-tank and emergency squads were placed nearby." (p. 147); "On January 14, 2009, IDF forces found large quantities of weapons in one of the mosques in Al-Atatra. Some of them were hidden in a storeroom built under the imam’s pulpit" (p. 152, accompanied by several photographs from p. 152 ff). To be sure, this section of the report, titled "Hamas’ military use of public and administrative institutions and facilities during Operation Cast Lead", refers to numerous instances where mosques were being used by Hamas for military purposes.
              You may, again, dismiss the report and the photographs, just like you may dismiss this video. In that case, I refer you to Iraq War veteran Colonel Tim Collins. Collins, examining the ruins of one of the mosques destroyed by the IDF in Rafah, stated that "down in the cellar of the mosque, there was clear evidence of secondary explosions. It's my opinion that the only thing that could have caused this was explosives that have been stored here." (Celebrated Iraq war veteran's view of the Gaza conflict, BBC News, 19 January 2010, 6:16–6:58 segment). Aviados (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
              • 1. I am fine with Israeli claims to such things. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, I am fine with the picture as long as "according to IDF" is there. All the other sources you mention are Israeli military or intelligence sources (including the Die Zeit article, as far as I can make out using Google Translate). 2. My point is not to dismiss Israeli sources (they are valid, but they must be treated as in a separate category as a potentially biased source from one party in the conflict). My point was that the other sources you cited just base themselves purely on Israeli intelligence or military sources, with no independent verification. 3. The source you mentioned earlier is the one which cited the UN report. I was just reiterating its conclusions which pertained to our discussion here: namely using mosques or hospitals as weapons storage or human shielding etc. Leaving aside the merits of the report, citing the UN report obviously does not help to support the claim. 4. I watched the Tim Collins report and it does seem to be at least an independent examination of the claim in one particular case (al-Maqadmah mosque), which is fine. However, it is just one man's opinion (he claims there were secondary explosions, but no evidence is shown), which directly contradicts the Goldstone report's investigation of this particular case. Desmond Travers, in an interview where he was asked about this, has stood by his original claims. I have no competence to judge the merit of the conflicting claims and this does not change my priors. 6. As to the pictures, surely you can imagine that from the viewpoint of a skeptical observer, pictures of ammunition or weapons allegedly in a mosque (which seem to be the pictures in the first pdf), is not good evidence. They could easily have been planted there. I am not saying they were, indeed, planted there. Just that this is not good evidence. Kingsindian (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Although Aviados' spinning is irrelevant for the discussion about the contested picture, it is not surprising at all if in the advanced stage of a ground offensive weapons and ammunition are found hidden in houses, hospitals, mosques, schools or whatever. It does not say anything about where they were before the invasion. Consequently, such founds are not of any value for justifying the Israeli massacres and warcrimes. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • It's merely a side discussion, as noted several times. There's no need for spin, since most of the commentators in the discussion have opposed your bias-motivated or non-NPOV suggestion to remove the image.
                    The findings are just what they are; no one said anything about what they might or might not justify. But since you decided to bring it up: using a civilian facility for military, offensive purposes is in itself a very real war crime. So is the massive use of civilians as human shields. Both of these criminal acts inevitably bring about considerable civilian casualties. Aviados (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
                • You have a point. Well, I'd settle for that source based on Palestinian security chief (pertaining to 2000); the 2010 opinion of the British Colonel (2008-09); and the UNRWA reporting that weapons have been found in their school (2014). To establish the claim further would require more work. Aviados (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

3 IDF is not a reliable source

  • To be sure, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit has an agenda here. However, the same can be said about other sources for the images used here, including the Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera, which is highly ideologically-driven and is known to have a clear agenda, ridiculously favoring the Palestine case.
It is Wickey-nl's contention (above) that "military spokespersons in general are pathological liars". Well, we shall respect this point of view, like any other, and since Wickey-nl takes this belief to be a rule of thumb, he may well ignore military spokespersons altogether in his opinion pieces. Here, however, we do rely upon government spokespersons (at least as far as we deal with open societies).
When deemed necessary, we can, and do, precede claims with "according to", as is done in various cases throughout this very article; in fact, that is what Wickey-nl himself suggested. The caption is now "Weapons found in a mosque during Operation Cast Lead, according to the IDF". This should undoubtedly be enough, and there's no justification for removing the image. Aviados (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The false suggestion is made here, that a Flickr account under the name Israel Defense Forces is a source of the IDF Spokesperson. A Flickr account used for uploading propaganda pictures by soldiers is not an official IDF communication channel. Apart from that, is is very naive to suppose that IDF Spokespersons are reliable. No one can expect that IDF will let prevail truth over military and propaganda objectives. Not the nature of military; you cannot even blaim them for that. Just repeating that IDF is a reliable source does not make it true, even if 1000 editors would do. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The account is in fact an official channel of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. As was already stated, you may choose for youself what you wish to rely upon. But here, as Sean.hoyland and Brad Dyer pointed out, we do rely on it, like we rely on organizations such as the ISM, as long as the source is identified and the claims are attributed. Aviados (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Preliminarily I would note the strange format of this RFC conceived by user: Wickey-n1.[37] I support the inclusion of this pic based on a notable primary source as long as it is properly attributed. I'm not really sure why this is an issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You are a master in pointless comments. Why do you you insert that strange link here? --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comment is violation of WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. This RFC is against policy per WP:RFC it should be "be neutral and brief" it doesn't follow those requirements--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment.The inclusion of IDF pictures are necessary per WP:NPOV if remove them we should remove an ISM pictures too. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sderot cinema

I don't see that this is notable on its own, but I think it could be included in Gaza War (2008). Tchaliburton (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It has received plenty of international coverage and the term was coined during the 2014 attacks. // Liftarn (talk)
While Sderot cinema (as a new stub) is a small article, merging its references into the 2008/09 Gaza massacre would further expand the latter one substantially. I would encourage, though, adding a small paragraph with link to the article about this perversion in Gaza War#Reactions in Israel. No pictures of such (ob)scenes? I also note that such happenings are being repeated in the current massacre Operation Protective Edge. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(Regardless of the discussion itself) Pertaining to your poor choice of words: Clearly you're having a hard time maintaining NPOV. You are, nevertheless, expected to keep some minimal appearance of it and avoid using charged, offensive words such as "obscene" as well as plainly false ones like "massacre" in regard to the current warefare in Gaza. This kind of wording may suit your blog or Facebook posts, but it's inappropriate to use it in Wikipedia talk pages. Aviados (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Mezan centre figures

Zaid almasri (talk) included figures from Al Mezan Centre for Human rights into the section "Civilians vs Combatants". The subject is a complex one and there are varying interpretations of what counts as civilians or combatant. This is discussed in detail in the main article "Casualties of the Gaza War" already. The discussion on this page is supposed to be no more than a summary. Including the Al Mezan Centre figures by themselves and no others in this summary will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV, as Shrike (talk) already did. In addition it is verbatim posting of the BBC article which might be violating copyright (I am not sure about whether just a short passage quoted really violates copyright, but it is arguable).

I had put the Al Mezan figures in context of the figures compiled by other human rights orgs in the preceding section, which is where I think they should be. But Wickey-nl (talk) has reverted this with unclear justification. Perhaps someone can tell me what is happenning.

I think there is a decent case for the inclusion of those figures somewhere in the article, since they claim to have checked each individual case. Naturally, I think the place where I put them is best. But edit as it currently stands is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The move of the figures is not the point (they should move). You deleted part of the discussion about the ratio, including the source. Of course the figures are irrelevant if there are more recent ones. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken about me deleting the source. The source is already present in the previous paragraph. See the last sentence of the first paragraph (ending with "...Israel's strict blockade of the borders before, during, and after the conflict") where the source is cited. The whole paragraph of the Al Mezan centre comes from that source. The paragraph is the issue at stake here, and it still remains in the current edit, which is unacceptable to me. Kingsindian (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The huge amount of sources makes it difficult to keep track of. Apart from the figures, what is not unacceptable to you? I think it is preferrable to keep figures of the ratio in the separate section. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have already mentioned what is unacceptable in the first comment. The section "Combatants and civilians" should not have just one data point (the Al Mezan centre) about what is combatant and what is civilian. The matter is complicated and there is already a separate article "Casualties of the Gaza war" about just this very topic. In this article there should just be a reference to that article, and a short summary. Including just the Al Mezan figures in this section will clearly be seen as violating NPOV. To repeat, my suggestion is what I did before: the whole paragraph should be removed, and the figures from Al Mezan included in the previous section, along with B'Tselem and others. Kingsindian (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

<----The main section just gives the naked figures, not the ratio's. I will copyedit and move back the figures, except the ratio. Other ratio's can be added later. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the numbers are in one section and the ratio in another section. The Al Mezan number is expressed as a ratio (85%) because the source says so. They did not give the exact number. I have moved the ratio to the previous section. The second problem is again, the whole paragraph starting with "B'Tselem investigates" in very unsatisfactory. It does not give the methodology of classifying civilian and combatant deaths. B'Tselem says it followed ICRC guidelines. Al Mezan says it classified it in a different way. PCHR does it in a different way. Israel disagrees with all of them and gives its own reasons. This is not a trivial matter and cannot be addressed in such a casual way. This is why there is a whole article devoted to these claims. If we include all those arguments into this section it will make it very long and this article is already too long, in my view. I have rewrote the paragraph in a summary way. Kingsindian (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem when you try to write about things you do not understand. Al the organisations that follow international law have exactly the same method, ICRC, B'Tselem, Al Mezan and PCHR. Assassinated persons are not combatants, but extrajudicially killed persons. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Merging with International_Law_and_the_Gaza_War

What happened to the merge request for section Gaza_War_(2008–09)#Controversies_regarding_tactics? Seems to me dealing with the same topic, and 95% is duplication. And it is much better to organize the section around violations of international humanitarian law, than Wikipedia:LABEL#Contentious_labels like "controversial" Kingsindian (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename '2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict'

Since we now have the '2014 Israel–Gaza conflict', which reinforces that 'conflict' is the first thing to come to mind when contemplating these conflicts, and it was agreed, see Archive 32, that 'Gaza conflict' was more commonly used on Google than 'Gaza war' at the time of the conflict, I believe we should rename. By the way, Archive 47, which ostensibly archives earlier discussion on the name change from my suggestion to 'Gaza War', doesn't exist (anymore?).Haberstr (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

'Conflict' does not reflect the article topic precise enough. A conflict can also mean diplomatic, or juridical, or about an opinion. 'War' says better what is (namely, violent). -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
We should respect common usage because that is how users will search for articles on the Gaza-Israel conflict(s). Few on Google refer to the conflict as a war, and perhaps for good reason: it doesn't seem like much of a war.Haberstr (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
More general, all these in List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip need a stable naming pattern. And, of course, no reason to leave out Israel from the title. So it better be Israel–Gaza war (2008–2009) I guess; initiator of this war (period) mentioned first. I don't see why 'war' should be capitalised btw. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
And the Israeli-designators 'Operation ...' should not be the encyclopedic title. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be POV names. Why not stick to "Israel–Gaza" basically in the first place? -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I should add that using the 2014 article as a precedent is pretty unfortunate, because the title is probably going to get changed to something like Gaza War (2014). See move review here. Kingsindian (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Your 'probably' is not enough. I oppose such a change. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rename to 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Fact is, I wanted to link to an article on this and was genuinely surprised to find Wikipedia calling it a "war". Major media sources are using "conflict" See: New York Times [38], BBC [39]. Wikipedia is out of step with the sources on this.ShulMaven (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to move it, to 2008-2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and could not. Is there a special procedure? Or do we have to wait ... even ... longer?Haberstr (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep the title. Google trends shows that "Gaza war 2008" is more searched term than "2008 Israel Gaza conflict". Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo mistakenly deleted has been returned to Commons

This might be put in the article:

Palestinian girl killed during the Gaza War (2008–09). "War On Gaza Day 14" (in Arabic). Al-Jazeera. Jan. 9, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Here are some more photos that might be put in the article:

Palestinian woman wounded in Gaza during the Gaza War (2008–09). "War On Gaza Day 17" (in Arabic). Al-Jazeera. Jan. 12, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Israeli woman injured during the Gaza War (2008–09).

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Provocative and bad judgment to post gruesome photos to a talk page without a warning or disclaimer. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and please dont modify other peoples posts. Also note the year of the comment you are replying to. nableezy - 03:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the proposal to place these photos into the article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It was in 2014. nableezy - 17:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Igorp's tags

Please do not blot the text with useless tags as in this edit. It's elementary that a secondary source's statements cannot be challenged for their content. LeVine made those remarks, and it is neither your nor my business to get back at him and demand he explain himself. You don't do that on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that these tags are useless. Moreover, your next edit ("Fixed to everyone's satisfaction?" @Nishidani) proves the opposite :)
Otherwise pro-Hamas Khawaja's propaganda will be remained in the article.
Now regarding to a "Tel Aviv-European University study", etc. mentioned by LeVine. IMHO, this his article in Al Jazeera[1] cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about his own opinion.
Do I understand right that your 2nd new source[2] is an alternative for an anonimous "Tel Aviv-European University study"?
That's the pity, but you (as usual with your selective RS' quoting / usage (:) have forgotten to quote from this source that it based only on not so correct B'tselem's data where Anat Biletzki - one of its coauthors worked. So I added this info. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
  2. ^ Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki, 'Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?,' Huffington Post 6 February 2009

False quote in the article used as RS

The following is the quote from Michele K. Esposit's article published in the Journal of Palestine Studies[1]

Publicly, Israel accused (11/4) Hamas of plotting to dig under the border fence to capture soldiers and abduct them to Gaza, but separately Israeli defense officials acknowledged (see Washington Times 11/20) that Israel wanted to “send Hamas a message.”

and is used in our article as

"Israel stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers, however an Israeli defense official was quoted in the Washington Times acknowledging that Israel wanted to "send Hamas a message."[1]

But the real quote from Washington Times is

Israeli forces moved about 300 yards into Gaza to destroy a border tunnel dug by militants. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said at the time that militants had planned to abduct Israeli soldiers through the tunnel, similar to the 2006 capture of Cpl. Shalit.

However, defense officials acknowledged that Israel also (--Igorp_lj (talk)) was trying to send a message that it would not allow Hamas militants to operate close to the border.[2]

  1. ^ a b Esposit, Michele K. (Spring 2009). "Prelude to Operation Cast Lead Israel's Unilateral Disengagement to the Eve of War". Journal of Palestine Studies. 38 (3): 139–168. doi:10.1525/jps.2009.xxxviii.3.139. Retrieved 2013-03-18.
  2. ^ "Hamas, Israel trying to rewrite truce". Washington Times. November 20, 2008. Retrieved 4 March 2015.

So we have to check where this false RS is used else and to exchange it by original article(s). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Khawaja & LeVine made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles

See IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(copy from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_185#IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS)

See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :):

The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.[1]

  • as well as their text : Khawaja[1]:

The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...

Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day[1]

The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report[3]:

ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarity

Our Secondary source LeVine, makes a thumbnail judgement, mentioning a source.

The source he refers to has these elements:-

  • (a)'A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4: . .Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire
  • (b)'On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action.
  • (c) In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets.
  • (d)the IDF operated to prevent attacks within the Gaza Strip (Israeli Air Force attacks, firing at terrorist squads within the Gaza Strip near the border), the terrorist organizations responded with barrages of rocket and mortar shell fire to retaliate for their losses and continued daily sporadic fire, in response to which Israel closed the border crossings, exerting pressure on Hamas and the Gaza Strip residents. . .With the escalation in rocket and mortar shell attacks which began on November 4, Israel began closing the crossings for longer periods. That led to shortages of basic goods in the Gaza Strip and to disruptions in the supply of various types of fuel (although electrical power was not cut off, since the plant in Ashqelon, which supplies 65% of the Gaza Strip’s electricity, provided an uninterrupted flow of power).

I've said that the Meir Amit centre stuff is written by buffoons who think their readers cannot parse a sentence. Their report says Israel broke the ceasefire that Hamas observed (unprovoked); it says that when Hamas et al, fired back, Israel in turn waged further attacks and shut down the border crossings, and created shortages.In LeVine's words, 'the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified'. The report, shorn of its wholly whooly inflations of language, and spin, says exactly what an independent reader, or scholar like LeVine is entitled to synthesize it as saying. Got that? Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you've decided to discuss the subject here, not in prev. topic, but ...
So now one may find above what really LeVine wrote in his article versus ITIC's Report referenced by him and why his reference is false when he wrote :
  • "The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged ... by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks."
The following is what LeVine has only quoted from Report, omitting, e.g., "in some instance" and adding his own "without provocation" in contrary to Report's content, to make his pro-Hamas conclusion, as if based on the Report :
  • "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".
  • "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation... (--Igorp_lj (talk))
So what he's omitted from Report:
  • i) The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (--Igorp_lj (talk)) (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.
  • Unlike Nishidani (see his (b)), LeVine hasn't even notifified about prevented tunnel kidnapping[4][5][6], retaining only "after Israel killed six Hamas members..":
  • "19. The second period of the arrangement began with Hamas’s preparations to abduct an Israeli or Israelis through a tunnel dug under the border security fence. In our assessment, those who planned it had to take into consideration that such an attack would do great harm to the arrangement, but nevertheless Hamas was eager to have another Israeli hostage to use as a bargaining chip. 6[4] Following information, the IDF went into action close to the border, prevented the attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives. Hamas responded with a massive barrage of rocket and mortar shell fire..."
  • 43. During the lull, Hamas spokesmen repeatedly stressed the importance of abducting more Israeli soldiers as a way of thawing the Gilad Shalit stalemate. Terrorist operatives belonging to Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations coordinated their efforts to abduct Israeli soldiers during the lull, despite the fact that a success would sabotage the arrangement. Two examples were the attempt to abduct IDF soldiers through Israel’s border with Egypt and smuggle them into the Gaza Strip, 9[4] and the attempt to abduct a soldier through a tunnel dug under the border security fence, which was prevented by the IDF action in the Gaza Strip on November 4. 10[5]
  • vi) The military buildup of Hamas and the other terrorist organizations during the lull
  • vii) The tunnel industry during the lull [6]
  • xii) Appendix: Data relating to lull arrangement violations carried out by the Palestinians
My conclusion: this LeVine's article doesn't correspond to any kind of RS or academic secondary source, it contradicts to referenced ITIC's source and distorts its content.
In fact, it's no more than an usual Al Jazeera's pro-Hamas article, and should be removed from others articles where Nishidani used it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
All high class secondary sources do not include all of the information in the primary sources they consult, while making their own judgement. To, as you constantly appear to do, try to find a discrepancy between the RS (LeVine) and one source (an extremely bad source for its language spin) of the many he would have read) to disinvalidate his reliability is WP:OR. The Meir Amit centre spins things, and the original spread sheet is a farce (there is no evidence in turn for the Centre's claim that the killing of the Hamas operatives was linked to foreknowledge of an imminent attempt to abduct an Israeli soldier. Other sources do not phrase it that way: i.e., here (Israel claimed the tunnel's purpose was to kidnap soldiers, Hamas said it had a defensive function. Two claims. Israel did not provide evidence that would validate the Meir Amit spin that Israel broke the ceasefire because of an alert that a soldier was about to be kidnapped. Chomsky covers all of the Hebrew press on this and states: https://books.google.it/books?id=xuQstngyHdEC&pg=PT175 Hopes and Prospects Penguin 2010 p.175.

'The pretext for the raid was that Israel had detected a tunnel in Gaza that might have been intended for use to capture another Israeli soldier; a "ticking tunnel" in official communiques. The pretext was transparently absurd, as a number of Israeli commentators noted. If such a tunnel existed, and reached the border, Israel could easily have barred it right there. But as usual, the ludicrous Israeli pretext was deemed credible,. and the timing was overlooked' (day of the US Presidential elections when everyone had eyes elsewhere chosen to abreak the ceasefire).

See also Avi Shlaim,Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations, Verso, 2009 p.313 who calls the same ceasefire breaking reason a 'flimsy' pretext. Idem Benjamin S Lambeth, Air Operations in Israel's War Against Hezbollah: Learning from Lebanon and and Getting It Right in Gaza, Rand Corporation,2011 p.232
This is the last I have to say. These perplexed queries about the obvious are, when insistant, vexatious, and I am under no obligation to reply to them, esp. when they are patently based on misprisions of both policy and sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The most curious is that neither LeVine, nor others who references ITIC's articles have no such strict words like yours.
So all your angry speeches is only your own opinion, with which you will have to stay.
In addition, I have to remind you about a normal NPOV scheme to represent the various opinions:
  • Israel believes so ...
  • Hamas & haters and / or critics of Israel - so ...
  • The rest - so ...
Returning to the LeVine's article itself: if you insist that it's RS, I'll add to the article that it contradicts to its source's content as well as other things if needed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

References

References

  1. ^ a b c Moign Khawaja, Mark LeVine. (January 19, 2009). "Who will save Israel from itself?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2015-03-07. Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report" on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day
  2. ^ a b Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
  3. ^ "The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). December 2008. Retrieved 2015-03-07.
  4. ^ a b c 6/9 It was not the first time Hamas in the Gaza Strip had tried to abduct Israelis during the lull arrangement. For further information see our October 26 Bulletin entitled “The Israeli security forces detained a terrorist from Rafah who infiltrated into Israel through Egypt.” In addition, a Hamas group exposed in Jerusalem in November 2008 also planned to abduct Border Policemen.
  5. ^ a b 10 For further information see our November 5, 2008 Bulletin entitled “Escalation in the Gaza Strip: the IDF operated inside the Gaza Strip near the security fence to prevent the abduction of soldiers.”
  6. ^ a b (apart from his general words in the article about some peaceful tunnels to transport zoo animals)

Massacre

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.“WarKosign” 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

War?

There are several problems with the current title. Firstly "war" implies a conflict between sovereign states. That is not the situation here. Secondly this is more of a "police" operation, from the Israeli perspective. Thirdly international law regards Gaza as Israeli-occupied, therefore this would be a civil war not a war.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Latuff cartoon

I'm removing this inappropriate unencyclopedic cartoon (not to mention offensive). Find neutral images made by third parties which contribute to illustrate this section, not a piece of propaganda by a controversial activist.--LoveFerguson (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy bias in the article which rely on erroneous sources and misquotation of sources

"November 4 incident ...On November 4, 2008, Israel launched a military incursion into a residential area of Dayr al-Balah in central Gaza. Israel stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers, however an Israeli defense official was quoted in the Washington Times acknowledging that Israel wanted to "send Hamas a message."[93] The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.[94][96]"

tracing the sources shows that these very sources admit that a. Israel did in fact found the tunnel, under one of two houses which were searched. Israel didn't "stated its aim was to destroy what it said was a tunnel". The tunnel was there. b. The Israeli Official indeed claimed Israel wanted to send Hamas a message - which was, that digging terror tunnels into Israel was unacceptable (Washington Times).

So these are two misqoutes in the article. You can't just take a source and cherry pick a stanza, take stuff out of context. This is tantamount to a lie.

But there are other, more serious Blunt lies in the article currently - for example,

"2008 six-month ceasefire Implementation ...According to a joint Tel Aviv-European University study, based on B'tselem's data, 79% of all breaks in a lull of violence since the Second Intifada were due to Israeli actions, while Hamas and other factions were responsible for 8% of such violations.[94][95]"

Note that B'tselem's "data" is a prime source of allegations against Israel. So, what's wrong with that data? Well, that's it's a blunt lie. B'tselem is a political group, not a reliable source - their "data" isn't collected, it's manipulated. For example, when B'tselem's "data" claims something like 79% of all breaks in a lull of violence since the Second Intifada were due to Israeli actions, while Hamas and other factions were responsible for 8% of such violations - and a source given - following the source will reveal that in fact, they counted cases of IDF soldiers preventing abduction and IDF soldiers preventing IED positioning as "Israeli Violations of the ceasefire" while in fact these should have been counted as Hamas violations. So simply follow their sources and see it yourself.

And please, don't relate to Mark LeVine as a legitimate source as well - most of his "work" is based on B'tselem's "data". Simply Google about Mark Levine. He describes himself as an "advocate of compassion", not as an unbiased historian - but he is also heavily involved with Muslim groups working at his uni and calling for a "student's intifada". Now how is that "compassion", is above me.

Now you decide if you think that a blunt lie has a place posing as a "fact" in Wikipedia, based on B'tselem's "data". Cause if you do allow this to happen, Wikipedia has finally lost all its right to claim objectivity at anything.

 Not done You have not specifiwed your COI with relation to this article. If you do not have a COI, you should make the edits yourself. I am marking this request as answered for now. —  crh 23  (Talk) 21:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 42 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2016

The final sentence of the second paragraph "The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law." ...should be deleted entirely. It does not need to be replaced with anything. Although the statement my indeed be factually correct, there is nothing in it that directly relates to the subject. It assumes that the firing of rockets by 'Palestinian groups' was indiscriminate. The case is not made for this assertion, certainly not in the opening two paragraphs.

The statement invokes considerations of the international community in a misleading manner. Again, although the statement may be factually correct, it incorrectly implies that the international community was legally more opposed to the actions of the Palestinians than the Israelis, during the assault on Gaza, which of course, is not true.Bbfoxy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbfoxy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbfoxy: I disagree. I think that that sentence is helpful in clarifying that the Israelis were trying to stop illegal Palestinian activity, rather that simply annoying activity. Pppery 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Toggling as needing further input/discussion/consensus. — Andy W. (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre name

We have gone over this many times but I believe time has officially told us the answer: Gaza Massacre is not a commonly used title cor this event. If anything, 2014 has more of a claim.

"massacre" was an emotive description that finally had sources using it as a title months after given credence here.

"Gaza Massacre" doesn't even redirect here anymore![40] Enough is enough.

I do still support a line similar to "It was described as a massacre." as I always have. Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually it does still re-direst here, just not only to here. It is also still called a massacre by the victims.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't redirect here. It redirects to a disambiguation page.

We also only care what the victims supposedly say. Follow the sources and we have an easy answer. This conflict was a massacre but not titled a Massacre. Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We had an RFC over this, with sources specifically refuting your unsourced views. You want a change open an RFC. nableezy - 07:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that is what I meant, it redirects to other pages as well (a disambig page), I do not see a problem with this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Just pointing out that no-one seriously challenges commentators rights to use the 'M' word with regard to Boston (1770 - 6 deaths), South Africa's Sharpeville massacre (64 deaths), Charleston (June 2015 - 9 deaths), Orlando nighclub shooting (June 2016 - 49 deaths), etc. - see List of events named massacres . Compared to the five major conflicts since 2005 those quoted look like scuffles at a school picnic. Massacre therefore remains fully appropriate. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to resurrect this discussion. I cannot find sources consistently describing "Gaza Massacre" as referring to this particular conflict. To suggest that this is "widely used" in the Arab world is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY requiring high-level sources. I see this moniker sourced to three books, two of which are from a defunct publisher, and they are all three together inconsistent in clarifying whether this is a "widely used" term in the "Arab" or "Muslim" world. I checked the RFC and other limited the term "Gaza Massacre" was to a few second-tier outlets where the link was dead. I don't see this as continuing to hold weight as an alternative title in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
We had an RFC on this. Sorry that the result didnt turn out the way you wished it had years later. nableezy - 15:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gaza War (2008–09). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

restrictions on medical supplies

@Icewhiz:, medical supplies are often called out specifically outside of "goods". In fact the source cited does so. What is the justification for removing it? And why exactly are you not specifying what NGOs, those being human rights groups, that are discussed in the other line you reverted? nableezy - 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I summarized both sentences to be more concise and to the point. Cerainly we could discuss food and medicine somewhere (and probably do), just as we could several other classes of goods - there is no need for the parenthical here. The human rights qualifier beofre NGOs is both somewhat pufferish and inaccurate (as some NGOs that are not human rights NGOs have also made their opinion known).Icewhiz (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere else in the article does it discuss the responsibility of Israel to allow medical supplies and their lack in doing so as part of the blockade. I am fine with removing parentheses, but the material should be returned. nableezy - 03:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Amnesty International has highlighted the restrictions on food for many years. The Gisha list includes food items e.g. fresh meat and live animals [41]. Huffington Post specifically highlights 'food and medicine' - see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/things-palestinians-cant-do_us_586554d4e4b0eb58648895bc Secondly, 'Human Rights' is not subjective as applied to NGOs - Wiki has an article - List of human rights organisations, a list which includes the NGOs that mainly publish on this topic, such as Amnesty International, and. May I request that יניב הורון and Icewhiz comply with the WP:5P4 and discuss (Talk) and provide sourcing for delete-edits. I therefore fully agree with Nableezy to revert the deletions. May I respectfully request Icewhiz not to revert items that that editor has not discussed In line with customary polite Talk protocol I will wait for either editor to provide their sources before reverting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I have commented above, prior to your comment, Erictheenquirer. My motivation was mainly conciseness and avoiding puffery. In the context of the 2009 Gaza war there is no particular reason to discuss the rather mild (and varying) food item restrictions, and there is no particular reason to be over-verbose in an inaccurate pufferish description of the NGOs. I will also note that some of the background material is sourced to pre-war NGO reports - which is a bit SYNTHy - and might warrant removal (though I suspect this is present in better sources) - one would expect us to follow the background material present in serious academic, military history, coverage of the background of this conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I cannot accept your explanation as warranting un-sourced reverts. Your notions of 'unnecessary' and 'puffery' are by definition subjective and hence not NPOV. "No particular reason" and "Mild" (!!!) food restrictions are once again totally subjective and unsubstantiated. I do not believe that you are a better expert on the matter of "mildness" than HRW, OCHAO, Al Mezan or B'Tselem. Next, many commentators have pointed to the crippling blockade on Gaza (in full violation by Israel of various ceasefire agreements) as the single most important factor fomenting the tensions which have led to four wars with horrific casualty figures. Therefore anything contributing to the hardship and tension is supremely relevant. Thirdly, the restrictions cover the period 2007 to Present, so any commentary within this time range is valid. Your counter-position is therefore without substance. I fully support your call for "serious academic, military history, coverage of the background of this conflict", especially in Talk and when you revert edits. Many thanks in anticipation thereof Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on you to provide such sources. I will note that we are discussing a short blurb in parenthesis - and that our article still covers the blockade/restrictions on goods. The blockade is quite relevant as background, and while I would prefer a better source, it definitely should stay. The parenthetical comment added little, and it isn't clear if this particular aspect needs highlighting in regards to Hamas's motivations for war.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Which of the deletions you made were inadequately referenced? Additionally I note the POV use in your justification, such as "little", "relevant", "better", "little", "isn't clear", "needs", etc. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I too would like to know what source you have a problem with. The source for medical supplies is an Amnesty International report on this specific conflict. What about WP:ONUS is not met? nableezy - 23:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

With no response to these challenges together with no WP:RS that (crucial) medical supplies were not withheld, I believe that consensus via weight of evidence has been achieved. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no, that's not the way it works. It is not up to editors to provide you with sources that state that 'medical supplies were not withheld" - it is up to you to provide source that say they were withheld.Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Already done. nableezy - 16:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe this has been done. Specifically, of the 2 sources that Eric linked to above, one directly contradicts the claim, listing medicine and medical supplies in the "permitted items" column, and the other links to an article that says that Gaza citizens need to go to Israel for certain kinds of cancer treatments . This is not sufficient for a claim that (crucial) medical supplies were withheld. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
We would need to see, to avoid SYNTH, sources that say so in the context of the 2008-9 and to avoid UNDUE - a significant amount of sources mentioning this particular type of good restriction in the context of the war.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)4
@Icewhiz: - your logic is flawed. Referring to the build-up to the 2008 OCL, in what is after all the "Background" section, there is nothing at all SYNTH or UNDUE about including commentary defining sources of tension in these 'build-up' years. On the contrary, they contribute to the load on the camel's back and to the triggering of the 'last-straw'. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Invoking WP:SILENCE - text on medical supplies to be reinstated based on 'no further contest/rebuttal' Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

My logic is not flawed - you have not presented sources, tie to the 2008-9 Gaza War, that place emphasis on food and medical supplies vs. other goods. Hence, there is little reason to mention these types of goods.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This debate is now circular. Icewhiz (talk · contribs) states (without any detail) that there are no supporting sources. He is refuted. And now he returns to state the same, offering motivations such as "concise" and "puffery". This is not consensus seeking; it is obfuscation. Could someone with experience assist me in initiating an RFC please. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To be precise - I didn't say there were not sources on medical supplies - I said you didn't present a source tying blockade of medical supplies to the 2008-9 Gaza War - see WP:SYNTH. As for launching a RfC - please read WP:RFCST - it is pretty straightforward (new talk section - with the rfc tag on top - do take care to pose the question in a neutral manner).Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_68&oldid=1164841022"