Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Civilian Reactions

Several pieces of contentious text have been inserted in the article.

The first states that "300 Israeli Websites were defaced,[315][316] all of which were interpreted to be in response to the conflict." You can follow the chain of sources back and they lead from one website to another till they end up at a blog! This blog give no details of which websites were hacked and is titled "Radical Muslim Hackers Declare CyberWar on Israel". I've never heard of the blogger before and there is really no reason to give credence to an obscure blogger when s/he doesnt provide a list of the 300 sites alleged to be hacked. Please look into this. I think this sentence needs to be removed.

Second, despite the discussion above, someone has persisted in inserting images of a protest in Tel-Aviv. Once again, these images are not backed by a single reliable source. Did these protests happen before the attacks or after? Why are these protests notable? Which mainstream media sources reported on these protests? None of these questions are answered. In fact, the images themselves seem to come from a personal flickr website. This is definitely original research. In addition, the caption of the second image reads: "Tel-Aviv University students protest unlawful holding of Gilad Shalit by hamas as a hostage to their demands.Gilad Shalit has been a hostage for more than 900 days.Shalit's denied rights to Red Cross (ICRC) visitation, which is a violation of international law." with no sources for these claims.

This needs to be removed also. I would welcome the inclusion of a diversity of images but they need to be well sourced and notable. Jacob2718 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we shall have to keep tabs on who's doing what in these quick one or two-off edits. I've noted several that are wholly unexplained. I return to the page and see consensual material elided, or tags removed. No explanation. The technique appears to be to exploit the large volumne of edits to just blindside everyone who works in here. It would help to note the handles of those who consistently play this game.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. when there are more than 20 countries listed with anti-israeli protests and fewer than five cities that the sources state had "small group of pro-israel" supporters opposing them, it gives undue weight to have any photos of tel aviv protestors. Untwirl (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

yo, great folks of wikipedia

either balance out the pic at the bottom with a "Other Side" pic, or remove it entirely thank you very much 78.40.176.241 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a picture of Qassam rockets up top, and one of Shalit below. Nothing of inside Gaza. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if we were to add 1-2 pics of Gaza, it still would not be enough to accurately represent the assault. It should be 100 Gaza pics for every 1 Israeli photo. Even Yahoo posts more Gaza-related pics because that is where at least 80 percent of the damage is at. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
More than 98 percent of the total killings are of Gazans. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, unsigned. I believe the reason for the picture imbalance is the lack of non-copyrighted images showing the assault from a Gazan perspective. If you know of any, please say so. --Chikamatsu (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If I do find any, will you add the pics? BTW, my posts were not unsigned. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Considering most of the military action is taking place within Gaza, and that's where most of the casualties are, there should probably be at least one (or more) images of what's going on there. Having no images from within Gaza, while a pretty large image of a captured Israeli soldier is included is definitely POV. Besides, the soldier's capture is not directly related to the current conflict. I doubt it would be hard to find a non-copyrighted image of the military assault within the Gaza strip and of its consequences. There's a multitude of public images and videos being posted on blogs and around the internet. Maybe even a still from a video on YouTube would do. Couldn't one of these images be used? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think their use would entail any copyright infringement. What do others think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
No. You can't just assume someone is releasing rights to their pictures and video. Ask the authors first, presuming they actually own the content they're uploading. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
He did NOT say to upload the video, he is asking if a screen shot is okay. I do remember reading a policy about screen shots being free to use. Thought I am not sure. Also he said public images. so yeah --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm personally not certain as to which images or stills are allowed to be used on Wikipedia, as I've only been contributing text up to this point. If my assumption was incorrect, then of course such content will not be added. That is exactly why I was inquiring into the matter. This being said, I'm still sure that there's plenty of non-copyrighted images that can be legitimately incorporated into this piece. Lastly, I do remember there being something within Wikipedia policies about the use of stills from videos, though I may be mistaken. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's "POV". Every edit is based on "POV". It is impossible to talk about an issue with the article without alleging it's "POV", as there is no other explanation for the fact that the article is not -- and never will be -- perfect. And, no one will listen to you unless you say "POV". -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, please assume good faith. In my above comment, I used the term "POV" in reference to something that I believe violates the NPOV policy of this encyclopedia. And I stand by my assessment, because I do honestly think that having a barely relevant image of a captured Israeli soldier and no images whatsoever of what's going on within Gaza is demonstrative of a bias. If you have an argument against this point, please feel free to state it. This is why all this is being discussed on the Talk Page - to figure out what's the best way to improve the article in question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe source claim on killing of UN driver

There's a lot of crap being shovelled into the article recently. For example:

During the 8 January three-hour truce period, a UN driver was killed during an exchange of fire. The UN originally maintained that he died from Israeli fire,[1] though this was later put into doubt.[2]

The source cited for this claim is this article. Please note what the source says:

According to the foreign media, who based their information on UN sources, IDF tank shells blasted the truck. According to the Magen David Adom medic who claimed to have taken the Palestinians to an Israeli hospital, the truck actually came under Hamas sniper fire.

The medic, who asked not to be named, said he got his information from soldiers in the field, but by press time - some eight hours after the incident - the IDF Spokesman's Office was still unable to provide a response or to establish contact with the relevant sources in the field.

Adding to the confusion, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said it had evacuated the victims, but the MDA medic said soldiers told him they had gone in, at great personal risk, to evacuate the wounded Palestinians

What is certain is that there is one dead Palestinian, and two others being treated at Ashkelon's Barzilai Medical Center for gunshot wounds.

Not sufficient evidence I'm afraid that the story being reported by every other media organization, the UN, Palestinian medics whose names are on record, etc., is "in doubt". The phrasing of the sentence also implies the UN has changed its position, which it has not. Let's wait and see how the story develops before treating this with equal weight to mainstream narrative so far. K? Tiamuttalk 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider also this article from Reuters (archive) and this article from the Jerusalem Post (archive). Reuters says:
Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for UNRWA, said the agency had not accused Israel of deliberately targeting its personnel.
Gunness said the U.N. had based its account on reports from truck drivers at the scene, who saw an Israeli tank nearby and "were in no doubt they had been fired upon."
He urged Israel to release any photographs of the scene to "find out what happened."
An Israeli military source said Israel suspected Hamas was behind that shooting.
The UN based its report on truck drivers from the scene (probably two or three at most), who knew that Israel could have fired upon them, and that they were fired upon. Pardon me for saying, but that's hardly rock-solid.
I do agree with you, though, that the current wording makes it appear that the UN has placed its statement in doubt. That's my fault, but I couldn't find a better way to word it. Any suggestions? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot archived some threads too soon

MiszaBot edit summary: "(Archiving 44 thread(s) (older than 3h) to Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 10, Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 11.)"

I removed the incorrect hidden note from the top section of the talk page:

<!-- Note: regardless of "algo" setting, the bot only visits once per day -->

A thread I started less than 24 hours ago was archived. I returned it to the current talk page. If you see other recent threads archived you may want to return some of them if you feel you did not have a chance to finish the discussion.

I changed the algo setting from 3h (3 hours) to 24h (24 hours). Whoever set it up originally did not get consensus for the time period as is required. What should be the time period of inactivity before a section is archived here? 24 hours? 36 hours? 48 hours? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I say 24 hrs, yes it may get a bit long but some of us do have to go into the real world every now and again. Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers wounded. Need second translation from Hebrew

Note: Section returned. Archived too soon by incorrect MiszaBot setting. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is copied from my talk page in reference to my request to Flayer for more info on his sources for the total number of Israeli wounded in the infobox:

Accidently, I found one, but in Hebrew: [1]. Flayer (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It says: 10 soldiers killed, 7 soldiers severely wounded, 10 soldier moderately and 76 soldiers lightly wounded. Flayer (talk) During the night 2 more soldiers lightly wounded [2]. Flayer (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2 links are the ones currently in the infobox to verify (WP:V) the total number of Israeli soldiers wounded. Can someone else besides Flayer verify that the sources say what he says they say?

I think the numbers are probably fairly accurate since we also have this:

OCHA oPt (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory).

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Both links became unavailable. Flayer (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The links in this thread are working for me at the moment. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminder on Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Note: Section returned. Archived too soon by incorrect MiszaBot setting. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick look at history convinces me a few editors may have engaged in this, which could lead to being blocked for a period of time, so a reminder: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Real number of israeli casualties + Militants

Note: Section returned. Archived too soon by incorrect MiszaBot setting. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see israel is not allowing reporters in, my understanding is there are many more dead soldiers, at least 11, I'd be careful with these edits. Be careful with militants dead, says here 150, that should be marked questionable as it is not certain, not verified thru independent means and Hamas did not confirm but denied that number, 150 is totally out of line, be careful with these numbers!

It's all we have. We're trusting IDF sources for the number of militant dead, and Hamas sources for the number of civilian dead. Obviously, IDF has an interest in listing a high number of militant dead and Hamas especially has a political nessecity to bloat the civilian tally, but it's all we have. That's why it's noted in the infobox that these numbers cannot be varified. WanderSage (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

photos and charts - undue weight

there are more than 20 countries listed with anti-israeli protests and fewer than five cities that the sources state had "small group of pro-israel" supporters opposing them, it gives undue weight to have any photos of tel aviv protestors.

i read the policy and it seems clear to that point.

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

also the photo of a rocket in israel and the chart of rockets fired into israel aren't balanced by a photo of an israeli strike or a chart of israeli incursions into gaza.


does anyone else think this needs to be fixed? Untwirl (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source for such a chart then I think it would be a welcome addition. The chart on rockets fired into Israel however is extremely pertinen given Israel's reasons for going to war and the general importance of the ceasefire and its breakdown. The more important aspects on the other side are the blockade and the Nov 4 incursion which are covered, but do not lend themselves to graphical representation. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

its just that i have seen it reported that hamas rockets were often in retaliation for israeli incursions during the truce and before, and for npov we should include both. so perhaps either both charts or neither, and then have a timeline on a separate linked article? Untwirl (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC) i'm sure this source would be challenged here (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79964&sectionid=3510304) but if these events are true they would probably be reported in other sources as well. Untwirl (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Untwirl. It should not be fixed. The demonstration in Israel is not pro-Israeli demonstration. It is demonstration against hamas and against w:Qassam rocket. BTW have you looked at the map lately? There are 48 Muslim countries from which there are 24 Arab countries and territories (May I please ask you to remind me how many of them are Democracy) and only one Jewish state. Does it mean that it cannot be "presented"? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Using your interpretation of undue weight, you would not have written about Jewish protests against the Germans in WWII. Do I need to remind you that that Jews constitute less than 1% (< one percent) of the world's Muslim population? The Arab world alone is composed of 22 countries, total population of 300 million. There are more Arabs online than there are Jews in the whole world. [3] The Jewish State is 50% of this conflict. It should have 50% of the representation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are given me a vocation, Tundrabuggy, either that, eheu, of correcting you or suffering a cerebral ictus from conceptual shock. I'm afraid when you write 'Do I need to remind you that that Jews constitute less than 1% (< one percent) of the world's Muslim population?', you are saying that all Jewish people are secret Muslims, or that 'constitute' means something new. Perhaps a note to the O.E.D. to update their entry on 'constitute'? Either that, or we could discuss some of the more abstruse points on Taqiyya, and how it operates with the conversion of 1% of the Muslim population to Judaism! By the way, the rest of your reasoning is faulty. 55 Islamic nations have offered to recognize Israel in return for its withdrawal to the internationally recognized 1967 borders, and normalize diplomatic and economic relations. They are not at war with Israel. Israel has never formally replied to that offer, made in 2002, and repeated in 2007. The most vocally bellicose state, Iran, is Islamic, but not Arab. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Untwirl. The photos selected are highly selective in that they give no image of the war, except for Qassam rockets against Israel. This is obvious. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is obvious: Stop Qassam rockets and the war will end at the very same moment and this article will go to history, never to be edited again.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

no one is questioning that "The Jewish State is 50% of this conflict. It should have 50% of the representation." Israeli statements and actions are to be given equal weight in this article, of course.

the purpose of this section is to discuss undue weight given to the photos of pro-israeli protestors considering they are "Views that are held by a tiny minority and should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." according to wiki policy. do you dispute that across the world protests against israel's actions far outnumber protests " against hamas and against w:Qassam rocket."? if that is your stance then you should provide sources which say that. as far as i can see the world reaction has been decidedly against israel's actions, and therefor the tiny minority that protest for israel should not be included, and especially not have 2 photos. i am not fighting for the removal of the sentence that states there were pro-israel protests, even though i might believe it is against wiki policy, but the overabundance of photos goes too far.

and to your statement that "The Jewish State is 50% of this conflict. It should have 50% of the representation." i agree completely. therefore, to provide 50% coverage (and not 100%) of their reasons and effects of war on them, at least one chart and one photo showing the palestinian reasons and effects of war on them need to be posted, otherwise the photo of a rocket in israel and the chart of rockets fired into israel need to be removed. Untwirl (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rockets Chart, "its just that i have seen it reported that hamas rockets were often in retaliation for israeli incursions during the truce and before." During the period Jun 18 - Nov 4, Hamas vehemently denied being involved in any of the rockets. The misperception which you are demonstrating here is addressed in the article that clearly states Hamas's non-involvment in rocket attacks (which were minimal, only 2 rockets were launche in October) from the signign of the ceasefire until the incursion of Israeli military. If you'd liek to find a source talking about the rocket attacks before or after this period of the ceasefire I welcome their addition. Thrylos000 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

if the argument that hamas denied involvement in those rocket attacks is meant to refute my suggestion that israeli incursion be added, i think you have done the opposite. if you are accepting that assertion, then the chart of 2008 rocket attacks shouldn't be included at all, if they don't reflect actions by hamas to instigate this operation. if they do reflect that, then actions by israel to instigate those attacks are just as important for equal weight. Untwirl (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all refuting that and would welcome the addition, I simply don't have the data available to me. If you could have it I would argue for their inclusion. The chart is not included to argue Hamas instigated the attack, it is included so that readers can evaluate claims on both sides regarding rocket fire, especially during the truce, seeing as Israel has placed that at the center of their justifications for going to war. The chart clearly shows that rocket fire ceased nearly completely during the ceasefire period until the Israeli violation of the truce on Nov 4, and that is an important factual statement, supported by data from the IFMA itself. In my opinion it is not that favorable to the Israeli case at least as I read the situation. As I said in my previous post, Israel's main perceived transgressions during this period (Jun 18-Nov 4)were the continuing, crippling blockade and then the attack on Nov 4. These events are documented in the article. To my knowledge Israel was not carrying out attacks in Gaza during that period though I'm not that familiar with this specific issue. At least two rocket attacks are addressed individually in the article. One is the attack by Islamic Jihad , which the article states was carried out in retaliation to Israeli attacks in the West Bank. The other is the attack by al-Aqsa (Fatah) that Hamas claimed was an attempt to destabilize the truce and embarass Hamas. I would encourage you to find other sources that you think merit inclusion. Thrylos000 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas casualties

Currently the infobox says that Hamas has lost 290 militants. I've only been able to find two sources for this: JPost (quoting the IDF) and CAMERA. Given the number of media sources reporting on the conflict (most newspapers and news sites are), I think there should be more than 2 sources to definitively state that the Hamas casualties are 290.VR talk 06:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think any source on this issue would be ridiculous. Each and every body reporting on this conflict has their own interests and Hamas, for example, have been shown to use even "unarmed" children to test the vigil of Israeli forces as well as explosive layden (under the burka) women or just unarmed ones to try and trick troups into traps. It's immensly sad that human rights groups can't direct a finger towards Hamas at all for fear of being blocked out from helping the needy, but that is the situation and we can only use sources as "reportedly", "claimed", and "said" (etc.), if we want to stay factual and not give undue credibility to guerilla forces. On that same account, the Israeli army has a tendancy to call everyone "militant" or "terrorist" even if they are uninvolved, so my note applies to their reports as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can find an updated number, please let me know. Ha'Aretz and other agencies are also reporting 290 and sourcing the IDF. It would be wonderful to find an independent source for both civilian and militant casualties, instead of relying on Hamas and the IDF as we are currently, but we'll have to wait until the dust settles for that, I fear. WanderSage (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Even so called 'independent' sources would be basing their numbers on the words of Gaza 'eye-witnesses' and just a few years ago we've seen the inner workings of how [ill concieved] validity is given to [false] rumors in PA/Hamas controlled territories. I think our best option is to simply report what each side claimed and leave it at that. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone commented further up that they were relying on Palestinians for the civilian casualty count and Israelis for military casualty count. Of course both civilian dead and military dead are matters of propaganda and psychological warfare in the middle of a conflict, as per Jaak. It is invariably done by both sides. Since there are no "independent" observers in Gaza, it is absolutely best to wait until the dust and "fog of war" clears. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine if we base the number of militants dead off of the IDF, so long as we explicitly say these are IDF numbers. NONE of the numbers from within Gaza can be independently verified, so that should be made crystal clear. But you cant then say we are not going to list what the Palestinians say the number of civilian dead are. Nableezy (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion

The move discussion has been closed. The result was no action.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 07:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Expatriate community

The article states:

"Besides Palestinian civilians, the large expatriate community living in Gaza has also been a victim to the attacks, many of them trapped and unable to leave due to the bombardment as well as the blockade on Gaza's borders. Before the attacks, thousands of foreigners were living in Gaza, and while many of them were allowed to leave during the attacks, hundreds still remain inside the territory, including nationals from several Western nations such as Canada, France, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United States."

Who are they, how many are there, and why are they there?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are they just vicitims of "the attacks" or victims of the conflict itself? Needs a rewrite so not to place blame on one side over the other. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Check the sources. RomaC (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reaction:

West Bank: PA/Fatah loses, Hamas gains

Ben Lynfield, writing from Ramallah, reports that West Bank Palestinians who did not sympathize with Hamas are defying the Palestinian Authority, protesting the Israeli aggression, and turning vehemently against Israel.


Palestinian Authority security forces are keeping a tight lid on protests, preventing confrontations with Israeli troops and arresting anyone raising Hamas banners at rallies. But displays of identification with the beleaguered Gazans are everywhere. Nine-year-old green-kerchiefed girl Scouts, their foreheads marked with the word Gaza in red ink, were among those who marched through the main al-Manara square in a protest. They held up pictures of bandaged toddlers, and dozens of demonstrators chanted, "With blood and spirit, we will redeem you, O Gaza".
-- Ben Lynfield (2009-01-09). "The West Bank: We're all Hamas now - supporters of Fatah unite behind enemy". The Independent (UK). Retrieved 2009-01-10.

NonZionist (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The point of diplomatic moves underway is to restore Fatah to Gaza, and have them fight as a mop-up force against Hamas, with combined international and Israeli backing, which in turn will mean the PNA, as a Quisling, will lose what little credibility it retains on the West Bank, a rise of Hamas there, and a repetition on the West Bank, which some in the IDF and Israeli political circles want, of what occurred in Gaza. But that is not our brief, except to document it if this predictable outcome of present proposals becomes a concrete reality.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
But now that we have enlarged the space given to the U.N. reaction, I'm hoping that we can give more space to the reaction of other parties -- the West Bank Palestinians (above) and the Red Cross (below), for example. NonZionist (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Cross Reaction

The Red Cross is calling Israeli behavior "unacceptable" and is providing information about Israeli war-crimes. Pierre Wettlach describes one "shocking incident" -- four starving children next to their dead mothers. Wettlach charges that the IDF fails to assist the wounded, blocks ambulances, and inhibits rescue operations. Israel's claim that it does not intentionally target civilians suffered a blow to credibility when Israel attacked a UN school housing refugees and then tried unsuccessfully to blame Hamas.


Sources:

NonZionist (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Hamas

Since this is so relevant to the article and the current conflict, could someone more knowledgeable on this subject take a look at the History of Hamas article. There's been some concern on its discussion page that the article is being used as a soapbox between the two sides of the conflict. Are there any tags that could be added? Thank you. 71.31.154.140 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please discuss the Lead/Lede/Intro at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

Needs to be re-written. Nothing wrong with the content, but the grammer is quite poor to the opint of being unsuitable for wikipedia. I would re-write it myself, but admittedly, by english ain't that great either ;) and the article desrves something a little more polished. Just my 2 cents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This comment is undated and therefore stuck so I'm just making a note so the bot will archive it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note From Commentor

I am trying not to address in this comment the question of whether certain arguments are correct or incorrect. There are many paces where i believe statement are wrong but i am not addressing those. I am addressing the lack of balance in the article and explaining what other information should be included and how certain changes should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This comment is undated and therefore stuck so I'm just making a note so the bot will archive it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator

Could some administrator have a look what the newbie Agadaurbanit is doing? Rapid reverts, or insertions of material that consensus suggested was to be removed, no discussion, and the reverts are of things people have discussed, sometimes at length. Also removal of citation needed tags, as discussed on the talk page. This is, so far, a clear case of ninja-mongering or whatever. A severe warning seems apposite. Otherwise he and a few others are pressuring hoers in the field to get into revert battles.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There a lot of crap being shovelled into the article. Take a look at this diff closely to see some of the things that have been changed. [4] I've partially fixed the UNRWA school attack section and a couple of other things, but some editors are replacing well-sourced, balanced material with less adequately sourced or even outdated materials and refuted theories), also inserting POV phraseology everywhere. They don't discuss here either. AgadaUrbanit is one and the other seems to be Tkalisky. Anyway, hopefully when they discover that their edits are being challenged, they will come here to discuss instead of revert-warring. Tiamuttalk 00:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is going on right now, this user is just going through things and adding unsourced commentary and removing well-sourced statements. Can some admin please take a look at it? Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
And he just reverted the UNRWA school section again, can somebody please restore the properly sourced and cited content? Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
He's a new editor. I'm sure he just doesn't know how things work around here. Let's try the peaceful solution first. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually he's not a new editor, in the sense he's been posting on the Hebrew Wiki since 2006. See אגדה אורבנית . The rules there are no different. I appreciate assuming good faith, but the pattern is one of refusing to discuss, and repeating the same edits, deleting or restoring material for an Israeli POV. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm indeed jewish and live in Israel and don't hide it in any way, but please assume good faith. I'm trying to be neutral and balanced with all my heart. I'm not really sure how you concluded that I'm " been posting on the Hebrew Wiki since 2006". This article is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I'm not an expert on Wikipedia abbreviation, etiquette and procedure. Please correct me if I'm wrong and show me the way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you have a page on he;wiki going back to 2004, not 2006.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
All good, and welcome. But before making major changes to the article, and removing things that have been discussed, please come to the talk page. Nableezy (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you misunderstood me referencing hebrew language page for Urban Legend as my page from 2004? Anyway thank you for your help 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

UNRWA school section is being vandalized

This material about the IDF admitting that there were no militants in the school keeps getting removed:

The Israel Defense Forces initially claimed that mortars had been fired at Israeli forces from inside the school, and that Israeli soldiers had been responding to them.[3][4]. With regard to the 2009 incident, according to Ynet, "The Israeli army claimed that terrorists were firing mortar shells from the school just moments before the strike. The IDF stated that a number of Hamas gunmen were inside the school,[5] and claimed to have found their bodies following the attack.[6] Hamas called the claims "baseless".[7] Residents of the neighborhood said that two Hamas fighters were in the area at the time of the attack, but that the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood.[8] The UN states that Israel privately briefed diplomats the following day that militant fire had come from outside the school compound, not from inside it. The official Israeli position remained that militant fire did come from the school compound[9], until the 9th. of January, when, according to UN sources, the army conceded unintentional wrongdoing in briefings to foreign diplomats. The IDF footage showing militants firing from the school was dated to 2007. The shelling they responded to did not originate from the school.[10]

Can AgadaUrbanit stop doing that? And stop inserting old, outdated theories first circulated by the IDF as though they were facts? And would someone mind restoring this? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

done, if there is an issue with the language take it up here before removing well-sourced information. Nableezy (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just done again by the same user, can somebody restore? Nableezy (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone should look at his contributions to see how often, on specific edits, he has violated or come close to violating, the 3RR rule. He's done this to several patches, including the Gary Grant tripe.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for undiscussed changes. Please let me clarify. There was a dispute between UNRWA and Israel if mortars were fired from "within" or from "immediate vicinity". Currently there is a consensus that Hamas mortar squad was near by and killed during the strike. There is no dispute that there is history of Hamas using UNRWA schools for firing mortars, UNRWA acknowledges it but denies any responsibility. I only wonder if Hamas which govern Gaza knew GPS coordinates of UNRWA school and fact that there were civilians inside before they started firing. Please consider removing last paragraph, it just tries to dispute Israel's credibility and does not add any new facts. Please be balanced. 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

The UN has said there were no militant fire from within the school compound, that is what the article says the said. If you can find a source for Israel claiming that there were militants firing in the vicinity of the school (and i am sure there are those sources, i just dont feel like looking for them), feel free to add that, but that paragraph is well sourced and verifiable, so I would say it needs to stay. Nableezy (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool. New re-worked version look more balanced thank you. I'd like to suggest restoring reference to year 2007 IDF drone footage which was released days before this tragedy. Somehow it got lost during re-work. I'm sure people around the world who does not know the conflict context think that Israel claim of Hamas using UNRWA schools for firing mortars as unthinkable. This footage is acknowledged by UNRWA, while UNRWA denies any responsibility. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The language isnt all that good, but I think there is a place for that. Hows this:
Footage that IDF had initially released of militants launching rockets from a UNRWA school was from 2007, not from this incident. (with the source)
I think that would present the information and reflect the source. Nableezy (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please return original wording. You are trying to dispute claim that was never there. There was *never* any claim that it is footage from the same incident. It is clearly dated and released couple of days *before* this incident on official IDF Youtube channel. It is important fact that UNRWA does not dispute the fact that UNRWA schools was used by mortar squad in the past while denying any responsibility. Could you see my point? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any other sources claiming that "9 January the IDF conceded that the attack was unintentional and no fire originated from the school." except for UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness? Chris Gunness asked opponents: "Please don’t put words in my mouth." for instance here [5]. Can not it be asked the same from Chris Gunness? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to meld UN claim "9 January the IDF conceded" and he "U.N. wanted an inquiry into both the assault and the Israeli allegations" . It looks like contradiction to me in UN actions. please suggest new wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Regards the wording, this phrasing accurately refelects the sources, also 'Couple of days' shouldnt be used. One of the big points of contention with the video was the date, the release was regarded by the media as justification, and when it was widely reported that it was from 1+ yr ago there were quite a few articles about that. Nobody is saying that it has not been used before to launch rockets, we are saying that there is video of rockets fired from the school from 2007. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(What happened to the ref to the Norwegian doctors who contradicted the Israeli television network's 'investigation?') Trachys (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored it. User:Tkalisky deleted it with an edit summary saying that we need a English source. That's just not true. It's contents can be verified using translation programs available online and User:Huldra will happily translate for anyone who cannot understand.
I should not he has also deleted a lot of other information. His edit bear some scrutiny, since it seem he is unfamiliar with Wiki policies and guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:NPOV. Tiamuttalk 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos from arabic wikipedia

So as I was searching for photos related to the slaughtering of Gazans, I couldn't find any resources for copyright free photos for current events until I realized, Arabic Wiki!!! I thought they may have had tons but it turns out they have few. Anyway, please add http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-2.jpg and http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-1.jpg but please check if the status okay. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • This one is from the Palestine Network News today. The rationale used is "fair use" with five points supporting its inclusion, stressing the lack of free photos and the importance of this historical event, being the biggest military operation since the 1967 war. The other picture is from Al-Jazeera. I think there is a case to be made for including some copyrighted pictures here, due to the lack of pictures available and the the inability of people to go to Gaza to get them for themselves - but again, I'm not familiar enough with fair use policies, to make that case. Tiamuttalk 13:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added one of those pics; let's see what people think.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Do u know why they are wearing all military suits? this is a war, not slaughtering sheeps as muslims do...
And maybe, u can add a pic of members of Fateh (Slaughtered by Hamas) the article is locked for me...--Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Israelis have been attacking government offices and obviously you'll have police protecting them and being killed by falling bombs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The israeli military has targeted police compounds specifically, not just generic buildings that they have been protecting. They also, notably, killed a newly graduating class of police during their graduation ceremony earlier in the conflict. Thrylos000 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand... the absence of non-copyrighted pictures doesn't justify the use of copyrighted pictures. It's forbidden by WP policy (not to mention by law and the universal moral code against stealing). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

US shipping 3,000 tons of ammunitions to Israel

Looks like the horror is set to continue. Tiamuttalk 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Also note that the article says a ship was hired in December to send a larger cargo of arms: 989 standard 20-foot containers from Sunny Point, North Carolina to Ashdod. "The tender document said the vessel had to be capable of "carrying 5.8 million pounds (2.6 million kg) of net explosive weight", which specialist brokers said was a very large quantity. The ship was requested early last month to load on December 15. In September, the U.S. Congress approved the sale of 1,000 bunker-buster missiles to Israel. The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world."

Perhaps we should start a section on military equipment being used? And where it is coming from? Tiamuttalk 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is outside of the scope of this article, just as Iranian or other sources of funding for Hamas is outside of it. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut can you look at my post above about the photos, and see if you can do anything about it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I don't know how to deal with the copyright for things other than original works (as is pictures I took) or old images that no longer have copyright. Does anyone else know how to handle these?
Also, about the military aid issue, here's another article. IDF Making A Killing With US Weapons. I think in an article on a military offensive, it's useful to discuss the weaponry being used. Also, there's a slight difference between US arms to Israel, for which there is ample documentation and the issue is being raised in the US congress of the Foreign Affairs Act by Kucinich - and the Hamas getting weaponry from ??? Most of the rockets they have fired so far are homemade. The others, it's not clear where they are coming from. In any case, if someone has reliable sources discussing it, I don't see why we shouldn't. Tiamuttalk 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone does look at my post and act on it because the article appears like the Israeli version of the article. Seriously, look at the photos at the Israeli article, I don't understand why they don't rename their article to Hamas slaughter of Israelis or Holocaust 2, it seems that they think the Israelis are the victims of the assault on Gaza.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't have any images of the suffering in Gaza, or any pictures of the dead Palestinian policemen, but as for the current images you brought up, could you translate what's in the information box, because then I could upload them to the commons. Also, we gotta make sure no one pulled a fast one on Arabic wikipedia and uploaded images that are not free. If they are, I'll try real hard to find some man. They're very important for balance. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, such a shame. Maybe someone can dig up some old pictures of dead babies and put them in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Your antipathy is disgusting. FYI there is plenty of new pictures of Israeli's slaughter of babies, something that you can always rely on Israelis to do.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? Check this out, you will find dead babies: [6]
  • French TV claims photos from 2005 showed damage from Israel's Gaza operation
The footage aired on Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon showed dozens of dead bodies, including Hamas gunmen and citizens, which the channel said were killed by an IAF bombing raid on January 1st. It later came to light that the channel had instead aired footage of the devastation caused after a truck full of explosives blew up in the Jabaliya Refugee Camp.
It apparently took bloggers to point up the lie. Gee, if you can't trust France 2 to tell the truth, who can you trust? Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
?...Your indifference or rather your refusal to acknowledge the 230 slaughtered Gazan children speaks loudly. Your attempt to distract doesn't help your argument. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
68.123.141.153, it is your refusal to accept anything that opposes your biases that is impressive. The world is not black or white, Israelis=bad or Palestinians=good. If you still think that, I doubt your place in this article is constructive. Israel killed innocent civilians. Palestinians/news agencies sometimes forge news reports. Can't you accept both facts? Rabend (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is thoroughly biased against Israel, with the explicit accusation of a massacre in the first 2 lines. The rest of the article attempts to justify the accusation. That is what I am trying to make people see here. Every attempt at neutrality in the lead has been systematically reverted.Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it. Some people here are apparently incapable of objectivity. Rabend (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I would if i could translate but my Arabic is limited. I wish some fluent Arabic speaker can help. I am sure there are some here. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes Tiamut, please do this as I sort of advocated here (wow, the archive bot really is strange in it's rapid archiving...seems to be travelling at near light speed causing time dilation effects). It's either out of scope or in scope but that scope should be the same for both sides I guess. I think a brief section might be in order. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I gave a very brief paraphrase translation in the section on the pictures above. They are using a fair use rationale and I've identified the sources for them: Al Jazeera and Palestine Network News. I don't know how to get fair use rationales accepted, but User:Eleland has done it before, if I recall correctly. It may be worth asking him for help uploading them. Tiamuttalk 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Greece allowing this? I wouldn't be surprised if the Anarchists et al hit the streets upon learning of the Greek gov't plan to allow the US to use it as shipment point. Very silly of the gov't. Greece's population on the whole is very sympathetic with the palestinians and has a general distaste for the US that is probably at an all time high right now. Strange move by an already weakened and barely legitimate gov't there. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard the term Byzantine complexity, as in Greek Cypriot Christians ferring the PLO back to Lebanon after the 1982 Invasion, and the alleged Turkish (Muslims) - Israeli Allaince? This has been going on for thousands of years in this region of the world--Tomtom9041 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly relevant to my comments but thanks for some interesting historical context of Middle East/Mediterranean relations. The fact of the matter stands that a right wing pro-US gov't is in power in Greece right now that has the ire of much of the population there. They are barely viewed as legitimate. Few Greeks support the US or Israel in their military actions and I expect them to responde negatively to this news if it is given proper coverage in the media there. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In connexion with US assistance there are also "US officers deployed along Egypt-Rafah border". US Engineering Corps assisting the IDF in finding tunnels. I don't know if it's been mentioned before.--91.105.235.173 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Pentagon denies arms shipment to Israel linked to Gaza fighting[7]


If we're gonna mention US aid, we should also mention Iran's peaceful intention of sending 70,000 suicide bombers to Israel. Rabend (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the details of transport are included, by email, posted boxes, air cargo that slips through the radio screen, on foot into Gaza? where no one on foot can get out? by camel, like the Magi. In short, the report's the usual windbaggery. Iran can do nothing, so it huffs and puffs, to make an impression that words are as good as deeds.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it to Nishidani to find the invoices: From the UK Telegraph :"At the very least Israel will not curb its Gaza offensive until it is sure that it has destroyed the supply lines Iran has used to fund and equip Hamas". [8]--From Bloomberg news: "During the truce with Hamas there was wholesale smuggling of Grad rockets from Iran"[9]--from Timesonline: "During the six-month truce, Hamas imported Russian-designed Grad long-range rockets from Iran through its cross-border tunnels and stepped up its home production of Qassam rockets, made in backstreet machine shops." [10] Apparently there is more than "the ususal windbaggery" here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
This should go in the article. Rabend (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Iran will go through with that awesome plan, since 70000 suicide bombers mean 70000x72 = 5040000 virgins, and I'm not sure they can come up with that much human resources. Rabend (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit lost. This started out as being about whether to include information about who is supplying weapons to the IDF. What was the eventual consensus ? My related issue is here. I'm not talking necessarily about specific incidents just broad simple statements e.g. if it says somewhere that Iran is supplying X then it should presumably say somewhere that the US admin are supplying Y. Maybe it does. I haven't checked yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarify Israeli death toll

Can someone place a note stating that three of the Israelis were killed by their own people? --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If u can provide a source — CHANDLER#10 — 09:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There were 4 Israeli soldiers killed in a "friendly fire" incident. It happens at wars. If you want to write it, write it this way.
If you're going to write that "Israeli soldiers were killed by their own people", it makes it sound equivalent to what Hamas does - executing its own people, or Fatah personnel. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope these help : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4128089/Israeli-soldiers-killed-by-friendly-fire-in-Gaza.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/05/israel.gaza/index.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7812885.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.163.88 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

'Of the Israeli casualties (*13), three were killed by 'friendly fire.' Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors, take an objective look at the article

I know it's hard for you to take an objective "from the outside" look, but give it a try. This article looks like it's been written by the Palestinian Ministry of Public Relations. There is an overwhelming bias against Israel. Of course, it's all written subtly, but for the naive reader, it's pretty much made it clear who's right and who's wrong in this complex conflict.
By relying on "info" tidbits solely from the internet, which are inherently already filtered, and not on actual facts, we're acting as forensics, judge, jury and executioner for the naive reader. Even if the source is supposedly the neutral UN, we don't really know that. We don't really know who that "UN person" actually talked to. There is footage of a famous European anti-Israeli activist and Hamas people dressed as doctors, pretending to perform CPR on a small child. Of course, these "doctors" will later confirm to the press that "this boy" was "killed" by an Israeli shell, and this will end up here as fact. Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to. It's a different culture altogether.
This is supposed to be a place of facts, particularly when such a volatile issue is involved. Not a place of more and more and more and more alleged incidents based on "according to..", which cognitively already paint the questionable pictures in the mind of the naive reader, leaving the dubious sources forgotten. Some of the incidents happened, some didn't. The actual death toll may be 2, and it may be 200. Hamas was firing from a civilian house, or it wasn't. WE DON'T KNOW. If we don't have actual facts, or statements agreed upon by both sides, we just don't write it. Yes, perhaps WP will have less volume this way, but it will have a higher truth-to-noise ratio.
I've been editing in this article for a few days now, and I watched it turn into a maelstrom of questionable newsflashes and aggressive decisions about notability to support certain views, populated primarily by editors (possibly unknowingly) representing one side of the conflict, some of whom vehemently and aggressively object to most views opposed to theirs, and resulting, unfortunately, in a subjective WP article. Is this what we would like WP to be?
Please take a minute to digest.
Rabend (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I see a lot of merit in what you are saying as a general challenge to the approach many editors are taking but bear in mind that the neutrality of this article is under review and without citing specific instances nothing much will happen. However, statements like "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to." sort of undermines your argument for me because that notion is founded on highly questionable assumptions about western (or asian, arab etc) media, their agenda, their ability and their reliability. You only have to consider interesting theories like the propaganda model and others, look at mediawatch sites, read reports by organisations that attempt to access these things using deterministic methods and these matters become very unclear indeed, at least to me. For example, a user the other day used phrases like 'it's common knowledge', 'the reliable news sources I watch are only talking about Hamas's violations of international law' (and bear in mind these are sources that Wiki regards as reliable too) and so forth to attempt to justify something that simply did not concur with majority views of the reliable sources. Having lived in both the US and the Middle East it's pretty clear to me at least where he was going wrong in his approach to research. Nevertheless, we have our guidelines and need to stick to them. As I said, without citing specific instances nothing much will happen. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Gaza and especially Hamas (like Al-Qaeda or any extremist group) are FAR FAR from the western standards. It's a completely different world, and judging it and comparing it by western standards is simply counter-productive (and very productive for Hamas), and they are using it. For example, look at the video section of the Palestinian Media Watch website. This isn't a propaganda web-site or anything - it's simply recording video broadcasts and categorizes them. Or see what things do they teach in schools as facts (Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and etc.). According to western standards, it's hard for the public to believe that people like Hamas will make up "Facts" such as mass murder, or use children as shields, or kill their own people to show the world how cruel is the Zionist army, or even just to stage injuries and deaths for the camera. But for their needs and according to their world-view, it can happen. Of course they'll never admit it, because they want the west to support them by condemning Israel. It's all in their best interests. There is nothing more touching than seeing dead people, right? Especially when they are the same family, and especially when you have someone to blame... And since it's been systematically done for years and years, today's public opinion is already captured by the terror groups. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Noemad, I'd appreciate it if you and others wouldn't WP:SOAP. When Palestinians are being slaughtered by the hundreds by the Israeli government and American weaponry, and people remind me of the greatness of "Western values" and how they are not shared by Hamas, I start to want to vomit, quite frankly. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Merely using the phrase "slaughtered by the hundreds by the Israeli government" reflects how biased your views are, probably as a function of what the media chooses to show. Excuse me for noting this, but can you seriously declare good faith on your part? Rabend (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As noted below, the views espoused by some the editors calling for "neutrality" here, themselves evidence bias. Excuse me for being horrified by seeing people with their organs hanging outside of their bodies, and children with heads blown off, for over two weeks now. If you can point me to a single article edit wherein I've allowed my emotions to interfere with the NPOV portrayal of what the sources say, I'd be very interested to see it. When I feel my temper rising, I hold off on article edits. We all have biases. I'd prefer we not air them in too much detail here and speculate as to one another's intentions, but instead focus on developing the article, making specific recommendations about how to proceed.Tiamuttalk 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend, I'm sorry but the words Tiamut used are entirely consistent with objective reality as far as the evidence indicates. Palestinians are being killed in large numbers by the Israeli government. This is a fact. It's not bias. Using the word slaughtered or killed or whatever makes not one bit of difference to objective reality. Let's not play with words here. There's too much of that going on. The killing of those men, women and children is the direct result of actions by the Israeli government. Tiamut did not distinguish between different categories of Palestinians. Yes, this is one aspect of something bigger, more complex with many actors, the words taste bad and many people don't like them but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't change the fact that Tiamut's statement is consistent with objective reality. Some things are simply inexcusable and this massacre, there I said it, is one of them. That is my opinion. So what ? If it doesn't affect a persons behavior with respect to their edits it's irrelevant. Let's focus on specific instances of apparent problems with the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If these words are consistent with objective reality, then obviously so is the 7-year-long Palestinian slaughter of Israeli civilians, yet I'm not pushing that murderous agenda. I was seriously questioning Tiamut's ability to objectively contribute to this article if his views are so defined by the narrative of only one side. But if he's sure he is capable of keeping away his bias while working on this article, then ok. 22:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
'the 7-year-long Palestinian slaughter of Israeli civilians?' Tiamut is always very precise in her language. She spoke of the Israeli government. You attribute carnage done by militant and secretive organizations (2002-2004 suicide bombings) to the whole Palestinian population. Reflect on whose sense of language is closer to the realities behind these respective barbaric acts. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the killing, slaughter or whatever of Israeli civilians is also consistent with objective reality. However, killing 1 person is not the same as killing 100 people and research will show you that that view is hardwired into the human brain (as well as the legal system of course). Representing objective reality (or at least a verifiable model of it) isn't a 'murderous agenda', it's what we're supposed to do here in Wikipedia to the best of our abilities by working together, setting differences aside and trying to follow guidelines. WP:UNDUE is also important here. Tiamut doesn't need me to defend her words but it seems to me that Wikipedia does. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Killing 1 person should not be different from killing 100. Have you ever actually experienced terrorism? It's the act and intent that matter, and intent is certainly implied when using the heinous word "slaughter". You don't slaughter by accident. If we go by intent, Hamas did the best it could in targeting civilian centers, often shooting rockets right around the time that children are brought to kindergartens and schools (incidentally, as it did today). They are not very successful, death toll-wise, since they are not very sophisticated with their firearms, and since Israelis have been living in shelters for quite some time now. Intent-wise, if Israel really wanted to slaughter the Palestinian population for some reason, it wouldn't send in troops to target only militants using door-to-door urban warfare, which puts soldiers at insane risk since Hamas boobytrapped just about every single house there. They would send an F-16 squadron with old-school bombs and be done with it in 3 minutes. I'm not trying to SOAP here. Just put things in perspective. Rabend (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure intent is relevant in practice. You can look at it the other way around. If the intent were not to kill civilians (as per international law) then there has clearly been a failure somewhere and the IDF would stop. They haven't stopped. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that the civilian deaths (either as a body count or as a percentage of the total number of Palestinians killed including militants) has not yet exceeded a threshold I assume the IDF have set. That is pretty chilling isn't it ? When some cattle are found to have mad cow disease the whole herd is slaughtered. There isn't any intent to kill healthy cows but they get slaughted anyway. We could have a nice chat about the various places in the world where I've seen both the kind of terrorism you mean and what I would regard as state terrorism, both current and historical but let's not do that. I have been to a Palestinian refugee camp as well so maybe I'm biased. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Earlier on, this article was much better. It wasn't perfect, being so new and so heavily edited, but it was reasonably fair to both sides. Now it is extremely one sided. It almost never even mentions the daily rocket fire. Four out of the five "Notable incidents" are supposed misdeeds by Israel. The "Timeline" section has been condensed to nothing. A huge section is devoted to "Humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, with no mention of the suffering on the Israeli side (whole cities paralyzed by rocket fire). Under "Alleged violations of international law - By Palestinian militants" Hamas's intentional targeting of civilian areas is painted as "maybe not legal, but that's their only way to resist" and so on. The actual criticism of Hamas is only really presented as "Israel claims". Half of that section is dedicated to people saying that Israel is lying, or that it's not, but Hamas's actions don't legitimize Israel's. Interestingly, no mention is made of the fact that Israel withdrew its settlers and forces from the Gaza Strip back in 2005, leaving the reader ignorant of that fact. That way, when he reads some quote by a Palestinian claiming the rockets are against "the occupation", he has no idea of how true or false the claim is.
Regarding aid and the blockade - no mention of the fact that whenever Israel did open the border crossing, Palestinians would send suicide bombers, fire mortar shells and RPGs at them, despite the fact that those crossing were operated for their own benefit. It's easier to just talk about the blockade, without bothering to mention those facts.
The background section starts with the cease-fire, despite the fact that Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel for 8 years now. The Planning section says planning started a year before the cease-fire, but the reader has no idea why. Why would Israel plan it so early? Was it just craving to kill Palestinians? Because he wasn't told of the rocket fire before, he cannot understand any of the reasoning.
I'm not saying everyone working here is actively trying to bias the article towards their side, but really - take a long, hard look at this article, and think if it actually fairly represents both sides, or whether it makes an effort to paint Israel as a blood-thirsty goon, trying the kill Palestinians for absolutely no reason.
Seriously, this is becoming a propaganda article.
okedem (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Okedem and Nomaed, thank you for sharing. I really felt like an inconsequential minority with my opinion, and thought that maybe I just turned paranoid. What you're talking about is exactly what I meant. The context, which is horribly distorted here, and the basic cultural differences that allow pure terrorists to easily and mercilessly manipulate the western press repeatedly, and thus manipulate WP, and thus manipulate the opinions of the naive reader.
Sean.hoyland, you're right, maybe not much will happen. But the direction that things have taken here suggests that maybe less is better. I'd rather have WP be more concise than full of info that is subject to manipulation and we have no real way of verifying, and is out of context, as the editors above commented. Rabend (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Also 2 further points
I bet there's also a high correlation with the target crowd of this new game... Rabend (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Rabend: "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to." Part of the problem, Rabend, is that these "full-disclosure standards" exist only in theory. In practice, Israel consistently blocks media access. Here in the U.S., the corporate media -- what wikipedia depends on for WP:RS -- tilt their coverage strongly in favor of Israel, because they do not want to offend sponsors and readers. The pro-Israel supporters here try in every possible way to get criticism of Israel suppressed. They even attack the U.N. and the Red Cross. Their bunker mentality causes them to distrust and discredit everything that is not 100% adoring of Israel. They are beginning to sound like the notorious "Baghdad Bob": Believing their own propaganda and seeing nothing else, they become divorced from reality. The rest of us are beginning to desert their sinking ship. Our first loyalty is to the human race, not to a foreign power or ideology. International law condemns aggression and attempts to shield the victims of aggression and occupation. NPOV does not require us to pretend that there is moral symmetry between the aggressor and the victim. Israelis and Palestinians alike are victims of an ideology of colonialism, war, and ethnic supremacy. As the wall of censorship collapses under the weight of the Gaza corpses, more and more of us are becoming free to state this truth. NonZionist (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with some of the viewpoints put forward by the editor above. However, as Sean said above, I think it is essential to put forward concrete and specific examples of insertions that they feel are biased. There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page and I hope we continue this discussion in a fraternal spirit so that we can come up with something that is neutral and well sourced. Second, I understand that several editors have a vague feeling of discomfort with the 'tone' of the article. One possibility is that the article is not neutral. However, editors should also examine their own preconceptions. For example, Rabend states that "Gaza and Hamas are a far, far cry from the western, full-disclosure standards you are used to" which Boris seconds. Now, this makes me wonder if these editors want a neutral article at all. It seems that the demand is that we should start with a preconception -- that Hamas and its activities are less legitimate than the IDF -- and proceed from there. I think this is a POV and cannot be accepted. In any case, it is completely understandable that individual editors have strong views on a topic. However, I feel they should still judge whether or not a source is neutral and reliable. Quotations from Palestinian Media Watch have appeared on this page, with Boris stating that "this is not a propaganda website". In fact a quick look at their website reveals this summary of the conflict: "TO UNDERSTAND the causes of the Gaza conflict, it is essential to understand the Hamas ideology. Hamas presents itself as an Islamic supremacist movement... However, whereas many religions and cultures believe that their own traditions represent messages of truth, Hamas believes that this supremacy of Islam obligates them to commit genocide, literally to exterminate millions of people who have different beliefs, including the Jews." I think it is obvious that this is a very biased source with an agenda. I feel that to improve this article we need to avoid relying on sources like this and imposing our preconceptions. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Fisk,'I'm tired of hearing,' The Independent 10/1/2009 Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's a common theme on I-P pages - that articles here must be biased if they rely at all from information from the Arabic or Asian media; and/or from The Guardian, The Independent (Nishidani, what are you thinking with the above link?!), CNN or even Haaretz; and/or from whichever academic, political writer or organisation is the latest to be singled out as "not reliable", "not notable", "not an expert" or whatever. Sometimes the person making this claim merely asserts it, sometimes they provide "evidence" of that bias in the form of links to material from CAMERA, Palestinian Media Watch, HonestReporting, NGO Monitor, JCPA, Alan Dershowitz etc. Surely the irony of relying on any of the latter as objective sources to prove alleged "bias" or partiality cannot have escaped most people?
As for this page, creating a decent WP article out of a massive, ongoing news event in such a contentious topic area is always going to be a nightmare, but equally I think people are too quick to conclude that the content must be biased in some way simply because it doesn't match up with their world-view, and also seem to assume that everyone on the "other side" is biased while they of course are not. However proper neutrality doesn't equate to "agrees with what I think". The title of the section here provides some good advice for everyone here, but some of the comments or conclusions that have followed seem a little off-beam to me. For example if this page is going to be balanced, it would never equate what is currently being inflicted on Gaza with the occasional rocket attacks on Israel - that would be a totally false balance, even if it is something some editors wish to move towards. As for the idea that the media as a whole (and hence ultimately this article) are somehow being duped by the Hamas propaganda machine while the IDF/Israeli government view never gets a look in, well that's just preposterous. --Nickhh (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess the problem lies with your claim that "if this page is going to be balanced, it would never equate what is currently being inflicted on Gaza with the occasional rocket attacks on Israel". Gazas have chosen to wage war on Israel, deliberately targeting the civilian population (and often firing on the very border crossing supplying them with food and medicine). In fact, all Gazans had to do to avoid this war, was to stop trying to murder civilians. I guess it too hard for them.
This is a war, with two sides, and motivations for their action. That sentence shows deep bias, the likes of which cause this article to look like it does. It is not your place to determine which side suffers more, or what is or isn't equal. Gazans fire rockets at Israel, every day, for years. Even though few Israelis die, thanks to warning systems and shelters (and not for the Palestinians' lack of trying), whole towns are paralyzed and people live under constant fear. Meanwhile, Israel leaves the strip, but then partially blockades it due to Hamas's rise to power (as this organization vows to destroy Israel, mind you). During this time, Israel also tries to kill Hamas members, occasionally hurting civilians. After a very long period of time under rocket fire, and after the breakdown of the cease-fire, Israel decides the rocket fire must stop, and goes to war. You may not think it is justified, but it is not your place to judge. okedem (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to mention that several of Hamas rockets fell on kindergartens and schools within Israeli towns in the past week. Several rockets were fired from Lebanon across the Israeli border damaging a nursing house for elders. These events ended in minor casualties because the Israeli civil defense authorities closed all schools and kindergartens in southern communities as a safety measure, and trained the citizens as to what to do when a rocket falls near them. Pointing the finger at Israel by counting the number of bodies on each side is very wrong. Had Israeli government been less responsible and left its citizens unprotected, the number of casualties among Israeli civilians would have been high. The fact that Hamas government in Gaza declares a war, but regards civil defense as redundant, is nothing to be proud of on the Palestinian side. DrorK (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, the people of Gaza receive no instructions regarding safety from Hamas. They say they watch the Israeli civil defense instructions on TV, and try to do the same. Indeed, if Israel wants to be considered the good guy, it should probably keep the schools open, and lock up all shelters. Then the bar graphs will seem more favorable. okedem (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Okedem, on a point of language. 'Gaza(n)s' don't fire rockets into Israel. Hamas, the administrative power, and some fringe groups, fire rockets into Israel, as Israel fires rockets into the Gaza Strip. Hamas has at best 20,000 men, and rules 1,500,000 Gazans. Israelis don't fire rockets into the Strip, the IDF does, which is a branch of Israel's government. etc. 'Palestinians' aren't, again, 'trying to destroy Israel'. Hamas and Israel are at each other's throats, esp. now war has broken out. No one in the real world, let alone the IDF, believes that Hamas, that it has, as a tinpot army with backward weaponry, every move of which is traced by intense satellite and aerial monitoring, the ability to 'destroy'the fourth most powerful or efficient military machine in the world. Gaza has been under military occupation for almost four decades, and under blockade for some two years, and, apart from the truce, has suffered infinitely more casualties from IDF fire than Israelis. Of course, Israelis are right to sense profound fear and anguish. Of course Gazans are right to ask why the 1/5 kill ratio that stood for decades, is now 1 to several hundred, and they are still being blamed, and collectively punished, while on starvation rations, and under continual sonic booms all night for years, for disturbing Israel's otherwise thriving society.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Okedem: "Gazas have chosen to wage war on Israel". Do you really believe this?! Take a closer look, please. You will find that Hamas started calling for a ceasefire way back in January 2008, and in mid-December 2008 called for an extension of the ceasefire.

"What is being hidden from the embittered public is that the launching of the Qassams could be stopped tomorrow morning."
-- Uri Avnery, "Worse Than a Crime", 26 Jan 2008

Okedem, do you really not see the context for the firing of the homemade rockets? Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into a huge "concentration camp" (as the Vatican spokesman and many others put it). It bombs the camp, shells the camp, raids the camp, and kills Palestinians indiscriminately -- men, women, and children. How can you expect people not to respond to this staggering injustice? Be glad that the Palestinian "response" is as ineffectual as it is: Instead of condemning Palestinians, you should praise them for their amazing restraint.
If you are not aware of what Israel has been doing in the Gaza Strip, you need to inform yourself. See, for example, John Pilger, "Silent About Gaza", 18 Jan 2007. NonZionist (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If this is how you see things, I am confident that you don't live anywhere around the Middle East, you have no actual knowledge of what's going on or who the parties really are, and that all you do know about the conflict is filtered through intense Palestinian propaganda. Your mere username speaks volumes, and drives me to do just the opposite lest I waste my time in vein efforts. Rabend (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how military aggression -- mega-terror -- improves things in the Middle East. Just the opposite: It seems to make things far worse. U.S. aggression in Iraq transformed a secular regime into a Shiite one, and Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip may effect a similar transformation in Egypt -- see Michael Slackman (2009-01-10). "Ordinary Arabs fume over Israeli invasion". International Herald Tribune / New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-10.
Second, please tell us more about this "intense Palestinian propaganda". Here in the U.S., the Israeli propaganda effort is suffocating and all-encompassing. Palestinians can't even BEGIN to compete. They don't have the resources, the spokesmen, the access, the pressure groups, the money. the influence. Please be serious. NonZionist (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm serious. The propaganda doesn't necessarily come from lobbyists. It comes from within Gaza, thru Hamas's cynical use of Palestinian civilians, or other lies, to make it look like a genocide. Much like Hezbollah did. Rabend (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually compared to recent historical articles, Intifada etc., composed a good time after the event, this is not doing too badly. I'm surprised given the intensity of edits and of editorial interest, that it appears to have shaped up fairly well. Of course it will undergo thorough review. A good many notes are repetitive, or from minor sources along side mainstream sources, and can be weeded out. Some are to audio links which usually drop dead after a while, etc. I can see the point being made by our Israeli colleagues. The problem is not with a lack of balance in editors, but in the nature of the conflict, which has two imbalances. (a) Most reportage is from outside of Gaza, and there is an official embargo on journalists entering Gaza, so we have to deal with mainstream reports written in Israeli, Europe and the US mainly (a pro-Israeli bias however does exist there: I live in Italy, and the government channels run daily comments by Claudio Pagliara, who gives the correct balance, 2 minutes for Gaza, 2 minutes for Sderot, Ashkelon, while talking of the suffering caused by Hamas), as Fisk points out. (b)On the other hand, the nature of the war means that Israel's action are going to receive the most coverage, since Hamas can only fire off 30 odd rockets blindly, which mainly hit the 'Negev', while 24/7 helicopter gunships, satellite and drone reconnaissance planes, IAF jets etc.patrol the strip, and fire and bomb sites that technicians identify on their monitors as harbouring Hamas militants. I.e. by the very nature of the battle, Hamas's main purpose is to survive, and hide until a ceasefire, whereas Israel's is to root them out by intensive bombing. There appears to be very little actual fighting of the traditional kind, gunfights that last hours. That is why reports will focus on precision tactical bombing on an urban area, which is incessant. They have no reports of Hamas units in action, and won't have any, by the looks of it. The damage being done, by the nature of the competing strategies, will be mostly done by Israel, perhaps indeed that is Hamas's gameplan, expecting T.E.Lawrence to come in, as he did at Damascus, survey the stench and carnage and yell 'Outrageous!' to the world. If so, they have miscalculated. Whatever, I repeat, it is not because we editors have striven to give a Palestinian POV to the text, the effect of concentrating on Israel ensues from the fact that Israel's IDF is virtually the only visible actor in the battle of Gaza, given its immense control of the field of fire, and overwhelming technological and firepower superiority. The bias is in the reality. I don't mean to WP:SOAP, but provide some light on the reason why what is not very POV, looks POV from the Israeli side. Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would add that the two reponses which followed what I had said merely proved the point that people need to take a step back out of their own perspectives, focusing as they did on the impact of rockets on Israeli towns. No one really disputes that this is not a good thing, and nor does anyone dispute that the aim (as stated) of the IDF assault is in part to stop these attacks. However when it comes to describing basic events in the conflict, as I said, accuracy and balance will inevitably lead to more space being given to the massive damage being inflicted upon Gaza at this moment, even if one believes that the IDF assault is justified or whatever, or even if you believe that a school containing civilians seeking shelter is "fair game". --Nickhh (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting how people seem to be forgetting that Hamas is Israel's enemy here and that Hamas is insisting on continuing to fight. It is not as if Hamas is an innocent party, never attacking innocents. In fact that is about all they have attacked. I guess we have forgotten (or wish to) that Hamas has been responsible for killing Israeli (and other) civilians in hotels, dance halls, restaurants, buses, school buses, etc etc? Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I for one have not forgotten most of that, nor do I see much evidence that anyone else has either. Nor, finally, do I see what any of that has to do with the specific subject matter of this article, or to the question of whether this article is biased and unbalanced or not in terms of its content. --Nickhh (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not seeing how this relates to the article is overlooking the context in which the conflict is taking place. These numerous, incessant acts of terrorism by Hamas terrorists targeting specifically civilians in Israel are precisely the reason Israel had to close the borders with the Gaza strip, making it impossible for the suicide bombers to reach population centers. You can't just ignore a major cause of the conflict. Rabend (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two contexts, not one. According to this report, which refers to inside diplomatic negotiations, Israel promised to break the economic blockage as part of the truce, while admitting it had no intention of maintaining the terms of that truce. The suicide attacks within Israel attributable to Hamas do not refer to the recent period, but to the 2002-2004 period, when civilians in the Palestinian areas were also constantly killed by the IDF. Israel made a truce with Hamas when these suicide bombings had long ended. That is the context.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what kind of reality you're talking about when you refer to "two contexts". There is one history, and that one includes Hamas carrying out numerous terrorist attacks. The reasons why there weren't any successful ones by it in recent years are the constant activity of Israeli security forces and increased obstacles between Gaza and Israel, stopping daily attempts from Gaza and the West Bank. And I mean daily. That's why Hamas had to take the approach of airborne terror, which the Israeli security forces have a harder time stopping, and which is much more effective in inflicting terror. Rabend (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Would you please read the evidence on the page so far. If you wish to show that Hamas unilaterally broke the truce, that a 98% drop in rockets did not ensue after the truce agreement was agreed to, and that Hamas did not threaten to arrest whoever broke the terms of the truce, nor repeat to Israel its williness to renew the truce if Israel would abide by its original undertaking to stop the siege and open the borders to commerce, then you may have a point. There is no evidence in the sources for what you assert. Unless you can document your charges, these remain mere opinions.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of forgetting, read Ernest Renan's seminal essay. Nations are forged by remembrance and forgetting. You are forgetting everything Palestinians remember, and remembering everything Palestinians would prefer to forget. We're obliged to remember, as edit in, what both sides forget. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(To Rabend et al) I understand exactly how it relates to this conflict and how it is part of the context, but that's a different and much broader point. And of course the "context" to this conflict includes 101 other things as well, some recent and some not so recent, which don't necessarily reflect quite such a simple narrative. I would like to think that i) my not being Jewish, Arab or Muslim (or Christian); ii) my not living anywhere near the conflict zone (and not really knowing anyone who does); and iii) my not being involved in political advocacy for either side here, allows me to be a little more detached and to see things with some objectivity. --Nickhh (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Nickhh, I agree and disagree. I agree that your detachment can certainly help make this article more objective. However, actually experiencing the history (short and long) of the conflict also helps in painting a more complete picture. In this case this is particularly important, since the context, which is not really mentioned here appropriately, is crucial to understanding where both sides come from. Don't you agree? Rabend (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy: "I guess we have forgotten (or wish to) that Hamas has been responsible for killing Israeli (and other) civilians." No, we haven't. But memory is very selective: I guess you have forgotten that war is mega-terror, and that Israel, in making war, kills 10 to 100 TIMES as many "civilians".

"Israeli soldiers killed twice as many Palestinians last week alone -- both of them children -- as the number of Israelis killed by Hamas all last year."
-- "Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians", Guardian(UK), 30 Jan 2006

"92 Palestinian children were killed (fortunately, not a single Israeli child was killed by Palestinians, despite the Qassams). One-fifth of the Palestinians killed were children and teens - a disproportionate, almost unprecedented number."
-- Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007

Of course, you do not see this side of the story: The "bunker mentality" instantly suppresses it and shields you from it. What remains is a context VACUUM, where Palestinians act for no appearent reason, out of "Sheer Spite" perhaps, or because they are "Inherently Suicidal" and have a "Death Culture". All of these bogus "explanations" are like Ptolemaic epicycles. There is a much simpler explanation: Israel, the dominant military, economic, and political power in the region, is the sun, around which everything revolves.
Finally, memory is always a few steps behind reality: Israel is attacking a Hamas that no longer exists. The attack revives cycles of violence, and thus brings terrorist organizations back to life. Israeli policy could not be more self-defeating. Israel's number one enemy is Israel itself. NonZionist (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist, I find your continual soapboxing disruptive. Why would we take seriously your attempt to find common ground when your very name reflects bias? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this article has an anti-Israeli bias. Some people seem to think that stating facts, like putting the casualty figures from each side in the article, is biased. Its not anti Israeli to state that more Palestinians than Israelis have died. Its not anti Israeli to give more weight to war plane attacks that are killing 50 Palestinians a day than to rocket attacks that 'lightly wound' 5 Israelis a day. And its not anti Israeli to mention that 43 people, mostly innocents, were killed in an attack on a school. These are facts, not opinions.

In fact I've even noticed that most mention of incidents such as the shooting of the UN aid workers has been removed. There are more pictures of Qassam rockets than of Israeli attacks. There is more mention in terms of the causes of Qassam attacks than of the Israeli blockade and air strikes. If anything I'd suggest there is a (slight) pro-Israel bias.

But, given that people are suggesting it's biased both ways, I'd suggest the article is pretty fair. And given the circumstances, I'd say that's quite impressive.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, while I respect your opinion, I am at a loss to comprehend statements like "I have no idea what kind of reality you're talking about when you refer to "two contexts". There is one history, and that one includes Hamas carrying out numerous terrorist attacks." While we may have differing personal views on this conflict, I think the least we can do is realize that there are several possible viewpoints on this conflict, not one. The point of writing a neutral article is to appreciate and accurately report on these viewpoints with sources and evidence. One cannot start from a perspective that there is "one history" and expect to do be objective. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob2718, I also respect your opinion, but mine is that there is one objective history, and our article should reflect it to the best extent that is feasible. I don't believe that viewpoints should really enter the article. Unless we don't mean the same thing by this word, in which case I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. I think that lessening the impact of an important part of history/context in this case is something that should not be done. Rabend (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia can decide on "historical truth". It is doubtful whether any such thing exists in any case. Moreover, the issue of historical truth goes beyond Wikipedia's mandate. Wikipedia documents what is prominent and verifiable. I think so far the article has done a fair job of that. If I understand correctly you would like to frame this article within a specific historical meta-narrative. That is impossible on Wikipedia, almost by construction. best, Jacob2718 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • the Advantage as said above of the English wiki is that it's viewed by a large and diverse audience, not so much with her sister, the arabic wikipedia, this lead to many opinions on the En one, against nothing on the Ar one. --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
While I agree there is such a thing as 'objective history' that history is not necessarily what the Israeli govt says. I see no reason to believe what the Israelis say about the situation and not believe what the Palestinians are saying. It is ALL propaganda, which is why we should explicitly give the source of any claims, on BOTH sides. Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
NonZionist made a very thoughtful and assertive response. I would like for it to be read by all parties involved, both in this page and in the conflict itself.

I will only add, that if this article is not clearly pro-Israel it will be looked at as being anti-Israel(that is the standard). Editors with common sense and a shed of dignity shown by NonZionist above, should keep this in mind when looking at this article. Cryptonio (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to read all of your comments. Basicly, I also agree with the initial assertion that the article has turned to be drastically unbalanced against Israel. That said, I don't see nothing to be excited or mad about at this time. We, like the rest of the world, are in a fog of war due to IDF media restrictions (even though I think these restrictions should be lifted, many people seem to ignore the very strong arguments made by the IDF in favor of the restrictions: in the 2006 Lebanon was there were no restrictions what so ever. Journalists openly reported IDF advancements, and IDF columns were consequently trageted by Hizballa. This is a direct lesson from that war. Also, I have yet to read any comment criticizing Egypt for not letting reporters in). The current quality of the article is a direct result of the fact that ALL reports coming out of Gaza are made by, or based-on, Palestinian sources. The article couldn't have turned to be nothing else. I suspect that once cease-fire is in place things will become much clearer, and that the article will see some significant editing at that time. I think we should all keep out stamina for times when WE WILL ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING. Take care, all of you.--Omrim (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out two things. First, the fact that both sides claim that this article (or any article) is biased against them does not in itself provide any evidence that the article is unbiased; one or both sides could be right. Second, the best we can do is reflect our reliable sources as accurately as possible. Those sources as a collective may exhibit systemic bias, but there's nothing we can do about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few of us have never quite got over the way the Iraq war was, as it is now thoroughly documented, authorized by a massive government public relations claim that convinced most of the world, and papers like the NYTs, that Saddam Hussein had anthrax, WMDs, al-Qaeda links etc.etc., and was an existential threat to the world. Result, we handed over the only Sunni secular regime to Iran, swapping a vicious, if decaying dictatorship, which accepted all UN terms, for a fragmented swamp of statelets, given to chronic civil war in the future, and geopolitically, now subordinated to a neighbouring Shiite mullahocracy on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. So if we are very very wary of what the press reports from authorities of nations in war, whatever the source, we have very good grounds for it. Israel did this in the invasion of Lebanon, remember. No government is exempt from the manipulation of 'facts' to obtain public or international consensus for its own obscure geostrategical designs (Begin's war in Lebanon began on a pretext, when a truce had been upheld with the PLO for several months). With the net, one can at least trawl for the best sources, and wiki obliges us to use them.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously governments, even democratic ones, spin certain facts/lie, and not just during wartime. One of the jobs of reliable sources is to deal with that, which is part of what makes them reliable sources. "Papers like the New York Times" are, according to Wikipedia policy, one of the best reliable sources, second only by peer reviewed studies, which are, of course, in short supply in real time. By the way, the Shiite mullahocracy you mention is alleged to have a hand in this conflict, a allegation which - last time I checked - does not appear in the article, though it's getting hard to keep track. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the gist of okedem's statement above. This article used to be reasonably neutral but is now biased against Israel on a macro as well as micro level, to the extent that it is looking less and less like an encyclopedia article on a conflict and more like - I don't know - a meticulously sourced blog written by "IhateZionists". My favorite example is that Israeli attempts to warn Gaza civilians of attacks are included in the "Israel public relations campaign" section. This has been the case for how many days now, and nobody sees enough of a problem with this to fix it. (I can't make edits until autoconfirmed, so nobody accuse me of whining.)Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Taking a moment to agree with okedem and jalapenos. As somebody who doesn't have enough stake in the conflict to want to take the time to edit the article/feud with a couple of "non-Zionists" who seem to be almost exclusively editing the article, I concur that the article has an anti-Israel bias and is slowly creeping towards the point of being near-useless as an encyclopedic piece. Kaylorcc (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

People who are ardently support Israel's actions and find no room for the perspective of the Palestinians will find this article biased, but if you actually look at it the worst you can say is that it accurately reflects the sources. 50-50 balance in words in favor and against one party do not make the article unbiased, or we would have to give equal time to holocaust deniers as we give to actual historians. Because an article allows for an opposing viewpoint other than the state of Israel's, while also allowing for the Israeli argument, is not biased, one that completely dismisses one of the the sides would be biased. Nableezy (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
THe article should reflect the common sense fact that you have the fourth largest and best armed military in the world attacking - 500 - 1500?? - guys with crappy little rockets that do relatively little damage/killing compared to Israel's massive bombardment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Kaylorcc: "a couple of 'non-Zionists'". Are you referring to me? I've done very little editing here: It is better that the actual editing be done by others with a broader perspective. I contribute mainly here in talk, by trying to balance the extreme pressure applied by those who make the Israeli regime their God, Lord and Master. "Non-" means "free of", as in "non-biased", "non-ideologue" and "non-fascist". I wish to be free of ideologies of war and ethnic supremacy, ideologies that go against American founding principles. Is that so bad? NonZionist (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Asymmetric warfare. In asymmetric warfare, there are bound to be inequalities. It is also hard to balance coverage in these cases. We talk about the humanitarian crisis amongst the Palestinians, but about a crisis amongst Israelis. Is this biased? Of course not. Palestinians have suffered far more than Israelis in this conflict. Another example: in the "International law" section. We have sources defending Israel from allegations that it has violated international law, yet we have none that defend Hamas. Is this biased? Of course not. The attacks by Hamas, considered terrorist by many, are clearly wrong, while Israeli attacks are less so.VR talk 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
One thing on this, the attacks by Hamas are considered terrorist by many, but also considered legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation by many others. I dont think in a situation this complicated anything is clear. Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The position of Israel's supporters in this discussion is that Israel's killing of hundreds of civilians in this conflict is largely blameless, because civilians were not targeted, whereas Hamas' killing of a handful of civilians is somehow vastly more evil, because civilians were targeted. This is a poisonous philosophical argument, as I don't believe the dead civilians care much either way, and especially in light of the fact that it is impossible to divine any group's true motives, especially at a time of war. Let us stick to the documented facts from respected sources, and leave the moral arguments to the historians. cojoco (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read everyone's comments here and I have to say that you are smart people with interesting things to say. However, my conclusion is that, like the jury swop in the Al Capone tax evasion trial it would perhaps be better if we all stop editing this article and hand it over to the people who only edit the Brazilian football articles. You know it makes sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to take issue with Nableezy's gross misrepresentation of the bias alleged by me and others here. Nableezy begins: "People who are ardently support Israel's actions and find no room for the perspective of the Palestinians will find this article biased...", as if this allegation is made by people who think that only the Israeli perspective should be shown. Three people have pointed out that only a few days ago this article was reasonably neutral, though from its beginning it has had quite a few active editors focused on presenting the Palestinian angle. I, for one, think there are plenty of I/P articles on WP that are reasonably neutral, precisely because they show the angle of both sides in an encyclopedic framework. It is this article, at this point in time, that I have a problem with. I agree with VR's statement that balance does not mean 50-50 coverage, especially in an article on assymetric warfare. I agree, for example, that the crisis in Gaza is considerably more severe than the crisis in Israel, and I would expect it to be given more weight (though maybe not to the extent of quoting almost an entire UN document on the subject word for word). My problem in this case is that the crisis in Israel isn't mentioned at all. I and others have cited many other specific examples of bias (and I could go on and on, if I got into the micro level). Nobody is obliged to respond to this allegation, but please don't dumb down the discussion with mischaracterization of other's positions. And, Sean, your suggestion may be a good idea in principle, but we all know it's not going to happen. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Google News has 18 links for "crisis in Israel", and 5,549 for "crisis in Gaza", so Gaza does appear to be where the world's attention is. The article List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2009 is cited early in the article, and does provide statistics about the attacks on Israel. However, I agree, there isn't much info about how the conflict affects Israelis, other than the number of casualties: how much time do Israelis spend in bomb shelters, how many Israelis are affected, and how does it affect their daily lives? How do these numbers compare with the residents of Gaza? cojoco (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for leveling any allegations of bias. I was not trying to allege any bias, and while i stick by 'people who . . .' will then find that this article is biased, that is not say that everyone who finds bias with it is in that group. But the comment was overly general, and I apologize for misrepresenting you or anybody else. Nableezy (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I see a lot of desultory comments being seeded over the talk page recently that this began even handedly as 'neutral' and then degenerated into an anti-Israeli screed. That looks like a tactical set of insinuations to challenge it. The page has been intensely edited from the beginning, accusations of bias have been with us from the beginning. Throughout, overall, it has managed to achieve a certain balance. The impression is one that comes, as others have said, from the fact that we have only reports of Israeli actions, which are massive, differentiated in nature, continuous in hourly impact, in what is an asymmetrical war where no newspaper representatives are allowed in to report what is going on on the ground (where no one can move without being shot at). Apart from 30 odd rudimentary rockets being shot off, unfocused, into the 'Negev' mainly, there is nothing else. The bias is in the nature of the war, occasional rockets against massive firepower from an overwhelmingly dominant army of invasion, as others have noted. That does not entail judgements of right and wrong: it simply reflects the nature of an asymmetrical war, and the asymmetric reportage ensuing on the IDF's refusal to comply with the Israeli Supreme Court ruling, which effectively means everyone is reporting from abroad, from Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"That looks like a tactical set of insinuations to challenge it". If I understand you correctly, you're saying that nobody really means it when they say that the article used to be reasonably neutral, they're only saying it to lend credence to their claim that the article is currently biased. Sigh. I won't march out WP:AGF, I'll only mention that I wrote on Thursday that the article was reasonably neutral at that time and I praised the Wikipedia process for it. Why would I have said it then if I didn't mean it?
"The bias is in the nature of the war". Nobody is denying that this article deals with a conflict where one side enjoys a clear conventional military superiority over the other side. But look at articles on other, more "boring" conflicts of that nature, which the editors do not particularly care about one way or the other, and you'll see significant differences, many of which have been cited in this discussion.
"Where no newspaper representatives are allowed in". I can't see how the lack of reporters in Gaza could possibly justify the Israeli perspective receiving too little weight. If anything, a dearth of reporters in Gaza and a glut in Israel could justify the Israeli perspective receiving too much weight, i.e. the reporters would report on what they see, and we, following WP policy, might reflect their bias.
Finally (and this is not a particularly original observation), bias in this article results not only from editors assigning disproportional weight to certain facts, but also from actual ignorance of facts. For example, you imply that Gazan actions against Israel are not "continuous in hourly impact", when, in fact, they are: schools and businesses are closed, and many are practically living in bomb shelters, not to mention continuous psychological impact, etc; I am not implying that this impact is as pervasive as the impact on Gazans, merely that it exists and is significant. Let me be clear: I believe that there are editors here (and in all contentious WP articles) with selective blindness towards both "sides". Presumably, some on each side are self-critical and trying to balance themselves, and some are not. I happen to think that in this particular article, at this particular time, the "anti-Israel" editors have a greater effect on the article than the "pro-Israel" editors. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that from day one people have been arguing about pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian bias while editing this page, that from day one, depending on what snapshot you choose to take of the flow of edits on the page, which is never stable, you can argue one side or the other. I suggest that rather than repeating this charge, we stick to specific editing issues, debating POV and achieving consensus. Vague generalizations on the page cannot be answered, especially since, from one hour to another, upwards of 20 edits may change both sides' impressions of overall bias.
My comments here are one thing. My edits another. I am not editing in my opinions. Gaza is a closed scrap of land whose total population, 1,500,000, is under physical attack and has suffered 4,500 casualties. By comparison with it Israel is a relatively large state by comparison, whose 7 million people, most spread beyond the range of Hamas's dinky rocketry, have suffered, let us say, 200 casualties, mostly light wounds. If you have some knowledge of actuarial practice make the relevant calculations on the rationality of feeling one is in mortal danger of being killed for both populations, as opposed to how one feels watching intensive and panicky television broadcasts from the safety of one's home 24/7 on the war down south. I am not an anti-Israeli editor. I am an editor who works on articles dealing with Palestinians, of whom there are two regulars, making sure that articles predominantly edited by Israelis do not misrepresent the Palestinian side. I never edit articles on Israel. To be pro-Tibetan, by analogy, does not mean one is 'anti-Chinese', particularly for someone with my background.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA

"UNRWA shelters are marked and their GPS locations are provided to the IDF..." [11]AND the UN "knows" this how?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is called speculation or assumption. You know ASSuMing = Making an Ass out of You and Me. Don't we expect better out of the UN?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The United Nations 'know' that they have provided GPS co-ordinates because they are the organisation that have given them to the IDF. What do you think the 'UN' in 'UNRWA' stands for? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Duh, what the fuck are you talking about? This is clearly mentioned in a formal and official UN paper. Damn, People want to even begin arguing in that? --Darwish07 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

UN = Useless Nations?--209.213.220.227 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe really the truth hurts you. --Darwish07 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you forgotten, it is well established that the UN, ICRC, HRW, AI, ICJ, CIJ, and the truth have a well known anti-israeli bias? Nableezy (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
And the media too, forgot that one. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You forgot the Amnesty International, and Save the Children Alliance. They are all anti-Israel bastards. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
By AI I meant amnesty, but you right I forgot save the children. Nableezy (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Following this logic to it's concluson, that means that every other civilization on earth that doesn't consider blowing yourself up and specifically targeting Israel civilians to be a legitimate form of poltiical resistance or electing a poltical party into office that does must have an "anti-Palestinian" or "Zionist" bias.

WanderSage (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No shit, that is why we were joking about the logic, because clearly non of those organization have an anti-israel bias. Nableezy (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But I would say that every government that refuses to recognize a democratically elected government has anti-democracy bias. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss before you remove casualty figures from the Lead

Despite extensive discussions that support the inclusion of casualty figures, from both sides, in the lead someone persists in removing them. I would like to refer these editors to the discussions here and here. Several editors felt that the human cost of the war is its single most important consequence and this should be mentioned upfront.

I do not intend to start another discussion here; merely to point out that it is inappropriate to remove this paragraph (which is well sourced and reflects an established talk page consensus) without either an edit summary or a note on the talk page. Moreover, I wish to bring this to broader attention: others who are following this article, please watch out for further ninja edits of this kind. thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition: This was removed by User:WanderSage, here. The corresponding edit summary reads, "Once again, superflorous information in the lead article. The final article is for the UN ceasefire. Please see discussion if you wish to reinstate"

I was unable to find a corresponding message on either the Lead Talk page or here. The UN ceasefire is not relevant to the casualty figures and this information is definitely not superfluous. I respect the fact that individual editors have differing viewpoints on this issue, but the reversal of a talk page consensus requires discussion. Posting this here to bring this to everyone's attention. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the casualty figues were irrelevant to the UN ceasefire, which was the focus of the paragraph the figures were tacked onto. If you wish to reinstate these numbers, please create a new paragraph and rephrase them in a way that doesn't have POV connotations. WanderSage (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would hope all involved editors would oppose and revert the arbitrary removal of properly-sourced content that has talk page consensus for inclusion. RomaC (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Background: Israel rejected mid-Dec Hamas ceasefire offer

Gareth Porter reports that Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire in mid-December and Israel rejected the offer. Porter cites "a U.S.-based source who has been briefed on the proposal.".

The proposal to renew the cease-fire was presented by a high-level Hamas delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch attacks in Gaza. Gareth Porter (2009-01-10). "Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-10.

This casts even more doubt on the Israeli claim that its Gaza slaughter is a response to homemade rocket attacks, and lends support to those who contend that the current aggression against Gaza is simply the next phase in a 100-year-long campaign of genocide. NonZionist (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Antiwar.com probably would be challenged as not adequate to wiki rules for reliable sources. They carry it from Inter Press Service, and the Huffington Post would probably be better. Worth checking to see where Porter's piece was first released. As to 100 years of genocide, I thin you should check the language. One hundred years of making all of Palestine a homeland of the Jewish people means you have a massive problem with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the original inhabitants were Arabs or fellahin Palestinians, and the project always entertained the hope or policy of transfer by dispossession, or emigration via despair. Not genocide. Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk of 'genocide' is hyperbole. This is all about Israeli politics. Kadima want a good military victory to erase memories of the less than glorious Lebanon War from the minds of Israeli voters before the election on 10 February 2009. There are now reports[11] of differences in the Israeli cabinet as to whether this stops as a security operation or continues to full re-occupation of the Gaza Strip and the overthrow of the Hamas regime. Watch this space. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the criticism. I will strike "genocide". However, I agree that elimination of the native population has been the aim from the start. Zionists advertised Palestine as "A land without people for a people without land". When Jews arrived and found that Palestine was in fact populated, the "solution" was first, to deny reality -- e.g., Golda Meir's statement that Palestinians do not exist -- while using military force to bring reality into accord with ideology. NonZionist (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate the review. One more point. Zionists were a very complex mix of people and ideologies. Quite a lot of them who, through choice or necessity, came to Israel, did not embrace Herzl's vision, and were quite happy to live side by side with Arabs. Some of the most poignant critiques of that Zionism you, like I, deplore, comes from deeply patriotic Zionists, from people as different otherwise as chalk and cheese, Nahum Goldmann and Uri Avnery, for example. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely true! This, in my opinion, is the worst sin the opponents of Israel make: They condemn all Zionists, or, far worse, all Jews, indiscriminately.
Unfortunately, the Zionists who rejected Herzl lost out to the Beginites. Many prominent American Jews, in a 1948 letter to the NYT, characterized the Begin Zionists as "fascist" -- see also wikisource: 04 Dec 1948 letter Unfortunately, the Israeli peace movement cannot compete with the dominant Zionist strain, because the latter has a $3,000,000,000-per-year advantage, courtesy of Uncle Sam and AIPAC. NonZionist (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


"Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original Hamas-Israel cease-fire arrangement, according to a "U.S.-based source" who has been "briefed" on the proposal". Care to provide a known and clear source for the information? Who is that "briefed U.S. source" - Joe the Plumber?

Porter identifies the source as Dr. Robert Pastor:
The readiness of Hamas to return to the cease-fire conditionally in mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and senior adviser to the Carter Center, who met with Khaled Meshal, chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor told IPS that Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the cease-fire that had been in effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza."
-- Gareth Porter (2009-01-10). "Israel Rejected Hamas Cease-Fire Offer in December". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-10.
NonZionist (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I know, having read the article, that Pastor is the source. I wished to know where Porter, the author of the piece, first published his article. The more mainstream the source for his article, the stronger the probability of it being accepted in these pages.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for the suggestion. Here is another source: IPS: Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December.
  • I have always found antiwar.com to be a reliable source. However, it does not give uncondtional support to the Israeli government, and since we do not want to offend pro-Israel subscribers, we are required to pretend that antiwar.com is not reliable. I do understand the politics.
  • I believe, however, we need to push back the envelope, if we are to maintain what little freedom we have left, so I hope I can continue to cite antiwar.com as a preliminary source, while looking for connfirmation elsewhere. As the "mainstream" media are seen to be in Israel's pocket, more and more people will turn to the upstream media and the internet. I believe that wikipedia will eventually have to reach an accomodation with these independent news sources! NonZionist (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Porter's article, sourced to the Huffington Post. This is quite an important document for the background, and should eventually be harvested for the light it throws on it. Hamas, it is argued, actually accepted to renew the truce in mid-December. See Diskin's remark. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

'The interest of Hamas in a ceasefire agreement that would actually open the border crossings was acknowledged at a Dec. 21 Israeli cabinet meeting -- five days before the beginning of the Israeli military offensive -- by Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel's internal security agency, Shin Bet. "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce," Diskin was quoted by Y-net News agency as saying. Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza -- its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy -- even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.'

Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Diskin quote is so important that it belongs in the Background:Extensions section, in my opinion. What do others think? NonZionist (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, NonZionist. You and I both know that Israel has the technology to kill every Palestinian man woman and child in the West Bank and Gaza, ten times over. If Zionism ever had any genocidal intent, there wouldn't be any Palestinians, as I've never heard of a people with a population growth rate 2 to 3 times higher then the people who are commiting genocide against them. Using genocide to describe the Palestinian-Israel conflict not only diminishes your credibility as an editor and exposes a distinct misunderstanding of the conflict, but cheapens the word and insults every Rawndan, Jew, Bosnian, Armenian etc. who have faced systematic slaughter with the aim of eradicating their ethnicity from the face of the earth. WanderSage (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually Tiamut, I am a bit annoyed by your comments, not because they are pro-Palestinian but rather since they are well sourced, coherent and convincing. As a pro-Israeli commentator it compels to re-visit what I believe to be true in this conflict. Obviously you excel in research, method and logic. This time however, I must say I find your examples weak. The fact that others also use genocidal terminology doesn't add nothing to NonZionist's credibility. Rather, it diminishes theirs as well. Ascribing the State of Israel, as a whole, with hidden genocidal motives - i.e. that while claiming to try not to harm civilians Israel actually secretly plans to wipe the Palestinians from the face of the earth - falls very short, in my opinion, from trying to re-validate the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.--Omrim (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Omrim. I've gathered from your comments on this page that you are Israeli, that you have sensibilities I appreciate, and that you've shown remarkable open-mindedness during what must be emotionally charged times. I should say I'm Christian and from India. In my opinion, the State of Israel does have a vested interest in making life as miserable as possible for the Palestinians, with a view to forcing them off Palestine. Israel was after all, founded on land stolen from the Palestinians. The very house you live in, Omrim, is probably built on land taken from some Palestinian family, who've likely been forced to live as refugees for more than 60 years - why, they might very well be suffering in Gaza right now! "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", that's all bullshit of course. But these are simple truths. I can't help wonder how you reconcile with these facts --vvarkey (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Omrim, though Tiamut does well to draw our attention, without comment, on the use of these terms in some sources. Non-Zionist struck out the word 'genocide' when I protested, so further comments are inappropriate. Baruch Kimmerling coined a word for what is happening, Politicide (Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War against the Palestinians, Verso, London 2003). In the introd. he defines it thus:-

'By politicide I mean a process that has, as its ultimate goal, the dissolution of the Palestinian people's existence as a legitimate social, political, and economic entity. This process may also but not necessarily include their partial or complete ethnic cleansing from the territory known as the Land of Israel. '

This process has a very long, explicit, and strongly documented history, and is what is occurring in Gaza and the West Bank. Always distinguish. Some sources, even prominent (among them Kach, and Kahanists still active in places like Kiryat Arba, or Arnon Soffer, who advised Sharon on what Israel must do in Gaza), have spoken of what is effectively genocide. They are minority voices, and in the pure calculus of power, genocide is unnecessary, since effectively the tightening stranglehold is effectively achieving politicide, which just means Palestinians will survive, but without an identity, without a land, much as the Jews did after Bar Kochba. In fact, I'm rereading Josephus, Tacitus and other sources on Titus, Vespasian, and Hadrian campaigns in Palestine. This is all so eerily familiar. Israel is doing to Palestinians, what the Romans did to the indigenous Jewish population of Palestine, who refused to accept the establishment of a foreign power, its culture and its peoples on their land. WP:SOAP, of course.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Vvarkey, you can't really use the "they were here first" argument, since several ancient reports (bibles and such) as well as archeological findings show that Jews have lived in this area for thousands of years. I'm not gonna start hating the descendants of the Babylonians for conquering and exiling my ancestors. During the 20th century many lands there were legally purchased by Jews. Further, the UN decided to create the Jewish state in that area in 1947, alongside an Arab state. I think all these arguments support the right of Jews to live in that area, alongside Arabs. As for making life miserable for Gazans as a policy, I doubt that this would make them leave. Several Arab countries already rejected Palestinian migration into their territory, so I don't think they'll accept them now. Thus, this proposition sounds a bit bizarre. If you ask the vast majority of Israelis, they will tell you that they have no special interest in that strip of land, nor do they mind Palestinians living there, as long as the latter don't terrorize them. Rabend (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ban: Israeli Forces Fired on U.N. Aid Convoy 'Truce'". 13WMAZ. January 8, 2009. Retrieved 2008-01-08.
  2. ^ "Uncertainty shrouds UN driver's death". Haber. January 9, 2009. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009.
  3. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html
  4. ^ [12]
  5. ^ Hanan Greenberg (6 January 2009). "IDF: Mortars fired from bombed school". ynet. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
  6. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053138.html
  7. ^ "Strike at Gaza school kills 30". BBC News. 2009-01-06. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
  8. ^ "Grief and Rage at Striken Gaza School". NY Times. January 7, 2009.
  9. ^ "UPDATE 1-UN official says no militants inside Gaza school". Reuters UK. January 7, 2009. Archived from the original on January 8, 2009.
  10. ^ Barak Ravid and Akiva Eldar,’ UN: IDF officers admitted there was no gunfire from Gaza school which was shelled,’ Haaretz 9/1/2009
  11. ^ http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_13&oldid=1136754047"