Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Charts for numbers of dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png

I will hopefully update this chart daily, or more frequently. The chart may be useful somewhere in the article. I will let others decide about sizing and placement. Click the chart to see the largest size.

I list my current data sources on the image page. Please leave later data sources on the image talk page:

I hope to create a chart for the number of wounded too. I need a mainstream news source for the number of Israeli wounded. I may create a chart for both the dead and the wounded, too.

Feel free to create other charts and upload them with new names. I use this online charting site:

The category is:

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Add it in the casualties section.VR talk 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Superb. I wholly commend the inclusion.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a chart is really necessary when there are only 2 data points. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the chart is excellent. It neatly sums up the most important issue in this conflict.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If only two data points is the primary objection, respective casualties could be added giving four. We could also use a linear timeline graph to show casualities by day.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the point? We have the numbers. This graphs adds nothing, and is nothing but a way to imply to the reader - "look, the Palestinians have so many more dead, they must be the poor, righteous side here." Why don't we add a graphs of all of Hamas's rockets attacks every day? About percentage of civilian targets hit by both sides (Oh, Hamas would look just great in that. Despite having multiple army bases within range of its rockets, it always chooses to fire at the civilian population, instead of, say, Airforce bases). Oh, we can have such fun with these graphs! okedem (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Okedem, you need to go read WP:AGF. Discussion gets nowhere when we assume bad faith. We add a percentage of civilians killed on both sides, except the Palestinian numbers aren't really clear (its about 150-200 out of 537). Also there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not.VR talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
VR, I know when to AGF, though your concern is certainly appropriate.
"there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not." - What kind of strange claim is that? We know for certain that Hamas can hit targets at least as far as 40 km away, since their rockets hit Beersheba, which is 40 km away. We also know that there are many army bases within that range. For instance, the Air-force alone has two bases closer than that, Hatzor and Hatzerim, maybe even a third one, Tel-Nof (see map on IAF website). okedem (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
okedem, the number of rocket attacks are not informative at all. Those thousands of rockets have only killed 20 people over the past 8 years. I am not saying there are harmless or are fired with harmless intentions, but just quoting the number of rockets would only be misleading. It would be as useless as having a graph comparing the "2" nuclear bombs used by the US vs "17563" bullets used by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor. --80.41.10.68 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Okedem. Graphs are supposed to be used to represent data that are difficult to process without visual aid. Comparing 5 to 507 doesn't qualify. It would detract from the serious nature of the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another map of rocket range: [1]. And then you could graph this: No. of wounded in attacks from Gaza more than doubled in '08 --"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend. Jerusalem Post [2]] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The point is, most I/P articles have this kind of chart, as it sums up a swathe of data in an instant. It has yet to include a graph of the wounded, but I've no doubt Timeshifter will look to that. I see an official figure of 537 dead so far, so it needs to be adjusted. If you want to add a graph for Hamas rocket launches over the period, add one. But it is already available at List of Qassam rocket attacks. Do you object to that page's use of a graph? Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the latest numbers? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a chart of rocket attacks by day. If you provide me the numbers I will make it when I get a chance. Or someone else can. I am pretty busy. I think I heard on NPR that there have been thousands of rocket attacks in the last year. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case, you should also graph the number of Palestinians being killed by the Israeli raids and bombing runs, since the rocket attacks were retaliation for these attacks by Israel. The chart should cover at least the last six months, since Israel has been planning this assault for at least that long. We would see that the number of rocket attacks declined greatly when Israel finally accepted Hamas's call for a truce. Here are samples: Comparison: Children killed ... Numerous comparisons: casualties, demolitions, tax dollars, etc.. ... Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day, so that we can see just who is driving the cycle of action and reaction. NonZionist (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Suggestion: why don't we add a line graph charting the number of casualties day to day of the conflict? We could also start the conflict from December 19, when Hamas intensified rocket attacks, as opposed to December 27.VR talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The 537 is the Palestinian reckoning, widely reported, so I suppose we shall have to wait for a more independent source. As to graphs, we need a timeline. Not from an arbitrary date. What is desperately needed here is a timeline of attacks over the period of the truce or lull. Hamas argues, exactly as Israel, that its attacks are timed responsively to aggression from the other side, and we are obliged to be neutral here. Many sources place major emphasis on the November killing of 6 militants by the IDF as a key factor in the rocket surge. etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All that chart says is that the IDF has been more successful in its military actions. Namely, that it is winning the ground war. Also, I don't think a graph is needed to illustrate that. Hamas is taking disproportionate casualties... but that is not a moral victory but a strategic defeat. Consider wikipedia's article on the Easter Rising. Even though the long-term results of the battle was the success of Irish republicanism, it was still a defeat on the ground for the Republicans/Rebels. What the long term results of this battle/war/conflict is yet to be seen... as are the short term effects V. Joe (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The graph says nothing. It supplies data, and the reader interprets it according to his inclinations. You've taken it one way, Okedem another. The graph however says none of these things.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a more recent number and updated the chart. The latest data source is linked on the image page. I also clarified the period covered in the chart title.--Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the chart may be premature; we don't have consensus yet. Please tell me: what advantage does this graphic have over the information summarized in the summary table? I just don't see the benefit of this graphic, and I think it serves more to degrade the article than improve it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking at the chart below? It is a lot easier to get the basic overview from this chart than to wade through the old out-of-date info in the casualties section of the article. It is even easier to get the main numbers from this chart than to pull them out of the summary table in the infobox. The readers can read further there and in the casualties section to learn more. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I am indeed looking at the chart below. The solution to the first problem you mention is to streamline the casualties section. But I must dispute the claim that it is easier to read the graphic than the infobox. The graphic doesn't make sense to my eyes, but maybe that's just because one does not often see such graphics. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is one in Second Intifada in the Casualties section there. Others seem to appreciate this chart here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What can I say? It seems like I'm the minority. Let's move on to the next subject of controversy... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chart for both dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

I found some more numbers for Israeli wounded, and this allowed me to make this chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is looking better than the terrible two-bar chart, but it also needs to show what day/time the statistics ended at. Leaving the original chart on the article hoping that the correctly dated chart comes along soon. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I added the end date to the title of the chart. You may have to purge the page or cache to see it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps -Timeshifter, in an effort to be NPOV, will include these numbers in his chart:

  • The organization, which provides rapid response first aid in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza border area, also reported a sharp rise in the number of injuries by Kassam rockets, Grads and mortar fire compared to the past two years.
  • These attacks on Jewish settlements within firing range of Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, wounded 947 in 2008. A total of 464 were wounded in 2007 and 227 in 2006.
  • A total of 1,683 Kassam rockets fell in Israel near Gaza and another 108 shot from Gaza fell back into Palestinian areas.
  • In Israel, eight people were killed in 2008 by rocket attacks, 19 were killed in shootings, one person was stabbed to death, one was killed in a suicide bombing, one in a bulldozer attack, and an additional eight soldiers were killed in battle. Jerusalem Post[3] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support or oppose chart inclusion

Comment. I am trying to figure out what needs to be improved (if anything) concerning this chart to the right. So please say whether you support or oppose its inclusion in the right side of the casualties section of the article. See Second Intifada#Casualties and its subsection Second Intifada#Combatant versus noncombatant deaths for an example of another casualties chart in a related article. Also, please make suggestions for improvement of this chart. Feel free to comment with your support or oppose opinion. Or just make a "Comment". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. It is a quick way for readers to see the main points about casualties; the numbers of dead and wounded on all sides. It also lists the sources on the bottom of the chart (which are changed as the chart is updated from various sources). It is instant updating for returning readers. I am wondering if I should add a breakdown for civilians/combatants/unknown as at Second Intifada#Casualties? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting section regarding casualty reporting. The details I mention need to be included somewhere. Where are you suggesting posting the chart and are you suggesting removing the infobox? If you want to replace the infobox and other wikipedians agree with the change you might provide a detailed subscript to the chart along the format I suggested. - Thrylos000 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the infobox. I want to put the chart here: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. As the talk section you mentioned noted it would be difficult to decide on a number of civilians killed. That is not good to put in the chart in my opinion. That requires a subsection of the article. Please see this Jan 5 2009 BBC article also: "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I support its placement in the casualties section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment would you be able to draw a chart documenting casualties on a daily basis? Do you need help in gathering such sources (because I may be able to help you).VR talk 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will be updating daily, or more often. Please see commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png about sources, and #At least a quarter are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard sources are easily accessible and I mention them in my extended criticism of casualty accounting in the section At least a quarter are civilians. I ask that everyone refer to that discussion first before considering the proposal to include a chart as it is highly relevant and I do not think I need to repost in this section. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Support. Very helpful for those skimming the article. I would leave it as it is and not overcomplicate it, especially while more detailed information such as breakdown of civilians vs combatant casualties is still unreliable.--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The graph is a very clear and fair represintation of the facts, as long as it is kept to date. This would be a great addition. MathewDill (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with MathewDill, but it is a bit brief. To make it more relevant, more information should be added (but not too much). Things such as comparison between different sources or causes of death. Maxipuchi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as the data for the chart remains fairly recent and well sourced throughout its use, I see no problem with it. It certainly makes it easier for the casual viewer. SwedishPsycho (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If it weren't such a dead-serious subject the 1:100 relation in kills were really enough to be funny. Not to mention 1:10 in wounded. I realised this before, so I won't use it as an argument. To either side. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The chart would be somewhat relevant (if people look at this like score-keeping) if they were both only firing missiles at each other. Now that Israeli troops are operating in Gaza, but not vice versa, the civilian deaths will obviously be significantly higher on the Palestinian side then the Israeli side. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the casualties are going to be unbalanced during a one-sided incursion. Per your argument we shouldn't have casualty numbers in the article at all. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this score-keeping is silly. They're both fighting two different types of wars. The chart is a way of dumbing down the whole issue for people who choose sides based on who is winning the dead-civilian count. That being said, we obviously can't stop people from adding the civilian count to the article, but we can focus the article on more important and relevant aspects of conflict. If we're gonna add graphs and charts to the article we should focus on other aspects. A better idea for a chart that comes to mind, is a chart of the number of missiles fired by both Hamas and Israel prior to December 23. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A timeline chart of violent actions by both sides during the preceding months would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Unlike myself, you're obviously a competent "chart-maker." So why don't you go ahead and make said chart. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am an amateur. I use this online tool: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph
The hard part is finding the data. If you can layout a timeline with dates and numbers of rockets you or I could plug it in to one of the chart formats there maybe. No guarantees. I am fairly busy. There are more tools here:
commons:Commons:Chart and graph resources --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess List of Qassam rocket attacks would be a good start for the data. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The chart doesn't complicate things with the diversionary "civilian" issue -- though CNN (Anderson Cooper) just reported that 100% of the people being killed now are "civilians".
In answer to Jan Hofmann, the kill ratio prior to the Israeli invasion was FORTY-to-one. E.g.: "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", 30 Jan 2006. Now, it's a hundred to one. So the high number of Palestinians being murdered cannot be explained away simply by the current invasion. Israel has been operating in Gaza all along, raiding, bombing, shelling, starving the populace. What happened on Dec 27 was merely an ESCALATION in an existing Israeli presence.
I looked at List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 earlier today, and I was amazed by how FEW rockets were fired during the truce period -- and some of those were launched by Fatah, which has been known to collaborate with Israel. Obviously, these ineffectual rockets are being used merely as a pretext for a long-planned genocidal assault, and Hamas has been set up. Here are two articles that present the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
genocidal assault??? Israel has killed 600 Palestinians in 11 days. Based on this calculation it should only take them 800 years or so to complete this 'genocide' of Palestinians living in Gaza. I guess those Israelis are not very effective in commiting genocide... especially seeing how they've been planning this for so long...lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.182.192 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
"Genocidal" refers to the nature of the operation and the deranged and ultimately self-destructive attitudes that motivate it. It implies that a country is heading TOWARDS genocide, not that genocide has been completed. My use of the term is admonitory, not derogatory: I believe that massively violent attacks on ethnic groups are a path to a dead-end, and I do not wish to see Israel proceed further along this self-defeating self-destructive path. I seek to save Israel from itself. Those who have "no problem" with genocidal behavior are not true friends of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to call this genocide than at least have the costistancy to admit that this would render almost all military action ever witnessed 'genocidal'. Are the Israeli Defense Forces casuing more civilian casualties in their attacks than the so-called 'allies' in Serbia in 1995 or 1999? More than in the 2003 invasion into Iraq? Is the nature of Israel's attack more 'deranged' and more 'violent' than in these? Or were these simply also genocidal attacks. Why don't you Tell the truth: you disapprove of this military operation because you oppose Israel on ideological grounds as being 'zionist' or 'racist' or whatever. This is a legitimate position. However, your position does not rest on the way on Israel's operation is being conducted nor on any proof that Israel is attempting genocide.
  • Support as a service for the lazy or mathematically inept readers. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (yada, yada) actually mentions one reason in oposition. That it would be a little childish to stress score-keeping. But his second argument (which he intended to be in oposition) is a non-argument, since there is no reason to asume equal figures. The whole purpose of the table is showing the figures in an easy and intuitive way. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak-Oppose This graph is better than the 2 data point version but I still think, as others have pointed out, that charting is for more complex data than this. Separation of figures for combatants and non-combatants would be much better. I would support it in that case. Nice work though. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Can someone besides me add the chart to the casualties section? 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. Here is the code to add to the top of that section:

[[File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png|thumb|300px]]

The chart will be on the top right side of the casualties section. Just like it is in this talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. How does the chart get updated? NonZionist (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Support so long as someone can update this regularly through the duration of the conflict. Joshdboz (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As I stated below (by mistake), there's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary. Most importantly, if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself, unlike a few above me... remember this? WP:Soapbox), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV. Trying to say "See? Clearly Israel is targeting civilians etc etc." has no place in an encyclopaedia. Either way, it's redundant, unprofessional and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP. Jeztah (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Support. I don't even see any solid reasons to challenge this. As argued elsewhere, graphs like this, which cover both sides, give statistics, not a POV. Everyone may infer from the statistics whatever they like. Unlike the abusive qassam rocket graph tendentiously posted top of page, which is unilateral, and therefore violates NPOV, this graph covers both sides.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: I think the charge would be a mistake on both point-of-view grounds, (Namely: the purpose of it seems to be to make the Israelis the villains) and aesthetic grounds. Simply put, the chart would additional disrupt the flow of the article and would not clarify the obvious point that the Israelis are giving more casualties then they receive. V. Joe (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Casualty figures, while interesting, should not be given such a prominent place. This is simply an attempt to bias the reader against Israel, by highlighting a certain property above the rest (say, attacks on civilian communities, intended to kill civilians - Hamas's specialty). Right or wrong is not determined by who has more deaths. okedem (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

dont assume bad faith, nothings wrong with the chart and its reliable as long as updated.Lord Archivo (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Those voting oppose are assuming bad faith on the part of those who support this chart's inclusion, attributing all kinds of nefarious motives to that support. It's a simple visual, it includes the casualties sustained by both sides. That the casualty count is wholly unbalanced is a function of the reality on the ground and not POV reporting by wiki editors. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. Tiamuttalk 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the emphasis of a certain aspect, over others. While the facts are not in dispute, this is akin to the question of what pictures we use, or how much we write about a specific subject. Visualization is another editorial question, and placing this graph is like placing a huge headline, saying - "There are many many more dead Palestinians than Israelis!". It's the same thing, only in different packaging. If we had a whole bunch of graphs, detailing attacks, etc - then maybe. But by itself - no. okedem (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I hear your point, but strongly disagree that a chart gives undue editorial emphasis, it simply visualizes data we already provide in an infobox. If these where being given priority over other data that could be visualized in this same manner, perhaps your point would be stronger, but I don't see any other data specific to this conflict that is being overlooked. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't provide our readers with the Operation Cast Lead name just because we do not know the name Hamas is giving to their operations: I am sorry, but while I might raise issues of wording etc, I will never oppose the inclusion of uncontrovertible facts nor their visualization whenever possible. However, I am not fully convinced this is the right time for this type of chart, so my support is weak.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Aside from the fact that it is POV and meant to give an idiot-visual for people who can't read or think, the casualties have yet to be confirmed from a consistent RS. Mainly it doesn't reflect the title since the title is for 2008-2009. Thus it should include the dead and wounded from Gazan attacks for all of 2008-2009. Else rename Operation Cast Lead and start on December 27th. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. At first I was skeptical of this. However, as long as Timeshifter, or someone else can update this, the I think it's ok. I still think that at it would have been a good idea to chart casualties on a daily basis.VR talk 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The chart says the data comes from the AP, the UN and Israeli government. What happens if there is a conflict between the numbers? I would want verification and reference for every data point on the chart. I would find it more than amazing if all three sources agreed on the numbers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thus far the only disagreement is on the number of militants and civilians killed. As far as I know, the number of killed reported has been a factor of time only.VR talk 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment why isn't this an SVG chart? The data look simple enough for that. gringer (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've done that now (SVG version). The chart can now be edited quickly with a text editor to update numbers. I probably won't be updating this much myself to match the other graph, due to other commitments gringer (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel intelligence claims Hamas using hospitals and mosques

"Hamas operatives are in the hospital [Shifa] and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors," one official said.
OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private homes as ammunition stores. [4]

hmmm...perhaps that explains some hits on mosques as well as hospitals. Could Hamas militants be giving us their own casualty figures from inside hospitals? hmmm Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, please don't do things like this. There's too much chaos on the talk page and in the article already. It doesn't help. Stick to comments about the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Things like this? We have Israel supposedly attacking ambulances and that's big anti-Israel news. What if Hamas operatives, dressed as emergency personnel, (doctors and nurses) are using ambulances to transport weapons and rockets? It has been done before. Do I need to bring in references? Israeli intelligence told the Israeli cabinet. It is highly relevant. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 4th january report states the following:
""This morning, an ambulance of Al Awda hospital in the north was shelled, seriously injuring 4 medical staff""
So if you're going to say IDF said that and tat, clearly mention that the information is reported by the UN. The most accurate and neutral reporter in such matters. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 5th january report states the following:
"A paramedic working for the UHWC,an Oxfam-funded organisation, was killed when an Israeli shell struck an ambulance trying to evacuate an injured person in the Beit Lahiya area; another paramedic lost his foot and a driver was injured in the same incident." There are lots of similar facts on all those netural reports, without mentioning Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable with all these huge number of IDF statements and 0 number of Hamas statements in the whole article. Things need be way more balanced up. I remember I've read many times Hamas saying that those are false Israeli claims. I'll search where I read them and put them beside this IDF quote to fairly balance matters --Darwish07 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith on Sean's behalf, I don't think he realized your intention was to add the information into the article. I think he thought you were just stating it as a matter of fact. In any case, I do agree. This is something that should be added to the article. These tricks are old ones and I'm surprised it has yet to be mentioned in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I read somewhere in the past 48hrs that the palestinian MOH gave Hamas a direct order not to use ambulances THIS TIME, as they are needed to evacuate the injured. This "exception" clearly demonstrates the rule...--Omrim (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant 'things like this' in the sense of statements that don't directly address proposed improvements to the article. I'm not challenging the importance of your information but I will say that information like this should be set in the context of what is required by both sides under international law/the rules of war or else people won't know what is and isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If its added it must be attributed to the Israeli government due it being very controversial. They were probably just paramedics killed by accident. No one really knows (yet) why they were killed or if they were allegedly Hamas militiamen in disguise, but we do know according to sources that "four paramedics were killed on their way to rescue injured civilians". Until we get a neutral source (not Hamas nor the Israeli government/military) this is what should be stated. You can't keep on accusing Hamas as basically being a terrorist group that uses human shields or disguises as paramedics, unless you want accusations of the IDF of being gruesome terrorists who kill entire families because they are personal point of views and not reliably sourced facts. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree wih Al Ameer regarding attribution of the claims. Until reliable sources make these claims independently, the claims should be attributed to the Israeli government. However, there are reliable sources asserting that in the past Hamas has resorted to using Human shield's and similar schemes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
In the past, Israel has used human shields - in the West Bank city of Nablus during raids on houses and in other localities to deflect stone-throwers. We could do this all day (sorry if I'm getting carried away), but just because Hamas did in the past doesn't mean they're doing it now, especially since I think Gaza's hospitals need every ambulance they have and additional ones too. Omrim backs this by saying the Ministry of Health ordered Hamas not to use ambulances, but we need a source to verify this. Anyhow, this is all blabber. What Hamas has done in the past has no room in the timeline since its strictly about the current conflict. --04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)
When the Israeli military goes on their raids they don't intend to kill, but to take prisoners (use them as bargaining chips or to get information). So there's a fundamental difference between using shields as a defensive mechanism and using shields to kill. But I agree with Al Ameer, this is all blabber. Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UT=C)
You are editing now as an advocate for Israel. The Supreme Court of Israel has twice ruled that the IDF in ther past has consistently roped in Palestinians, especially adolescents, to use as shields in their urban warfare operations. Your first sentence mirrors exactly the language Hezbollah used in seizing IDF soldiers not to kill them but to use them as bargaining chips in 2006.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that this is all inconsistent with this article goal. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
If the Israelis "don't intend to kill" and have weapons that are a thousand times more precise than the primitive rockets available to Hamas and Hezbollah, why is it that Israel is killing forty to a hundred times as many people? The ratios for children killed are even worse. See: Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007 and Jan 2006 to June 2007: 172 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli child murdered and children killed, numbers, graphs. We don't need to rely on "blabber" (black propaganda): We have facts, tons of them, and these astonishing facts will not stay buried forever. NonZionist (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not refer to blogs, propaganda sites and opinion pieces when trying to work to accurate figures and improve this article. These are not reliable sources per WP. As Brewcrewer commented: "Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions," or as per Darwish07: "inconsistent with this article goal." I urge you to review Wikipedia Reliable Sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Haaretz (the Gideon Levy article) is not a "blog". Anyway, please feel free to look up the figures yourself, Tundrabuggy, in whatever "reliable" (Israel-approved) source you wish. You will find the same 40-to-1 kill ratio I reported. I, for one, do not feel comfortable supporting such a slaughter. Killing all of these innocent people accomplishes absolutely nothing. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop pretending the Arab world only has access to 'primitive' weapons. Stop hiding behind extremely poor excuses for Arab behaviour over the past decade.
Gideon Levy writes mainly opinion and this opinion piece is over a year old. Wiki does not consider opinion pieces to be reliable for anything other than the author's opinion. Please try to keep focused on this (contemporary) article and try to avoid soapboxing. You might consider reviewing WP:NPOV. Thanks! Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The number of civilian casualties, several hundred, is about the population of a single Gaza apartment building. Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery, etc. But there are only several hundred civilians dead. With the number of strikes launched, had Israel wanted to kill civilians, there would be hundreds of thousand dead, not hundreds. okedem (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The dead has been scattered across several apartment buildings...you are correct...

I would remind people that 30% civilian dead (and I am not basing this on any RS) is still a "militant" ratio of 70%. I think that is a very restrained figure. What is the ratio for Hamas? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Children make up third of Gaza dead. Women make up about 15% of the dead. That means 45% of the Palestinian victims of this war are women and children. Surely some of the men killed were civilians too. Israel is killing more civilians than fighters, but assuming we restrict defining civilians to just women and children, it's about a 1:1 ratio. By way of contrast, Palestinian miltiants have killed 4 Israeli civilians and 7 soldiers, meaning their "militant"-civilian ratio is almost 2:1. 82.102.241.96 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous IP, yes it is interesting what can be done with numbers. First of all, where are your numbers coming from? Are you just talking Operation Cast Lead or are we talking the last year or all the casualties inflicted by Hamas on Israelis? Your article from the Age references: "medics say". Maybe the numbers are correct and maybe not. Who knows? Also I would ask what constitutes a child? I have seen articles in which Palestinian "youths" were as old as 23. Certainly old enough to tote a gun. I am not of course claiming for one moment that there are no child casualties. Of course in such an operation there will be child casualties. I just doubt very much the factual accuracy of your claims or those of anonymous "medics". Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wounded Israelis

Does "shock" count as being wounded? Surely not. I think the figure in the infobox needs to be clarified because I doubt 119 Israelis were physically injured by Hamas rockets. I could be wrong. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism as I've seen accounts of "light wounds" and "slight injuries" as well a shock being reported. I'm uncomfortable with the injury accounting in South Israel and this number of 119 injured which derives directly from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their reports are extremely lacking in detail and I've not seen them differentiate the injured at all (into critical, light, shock etc). As of now I can only say that the number probably includes many light injuries and possibly "shock victims" due to past accounting practices in this conflict (I think the BBC has made a point of referring to some of the injuries as light or slight). As it stands though there is no basis to change this number. Someone would have to find a reliable source differentiating the injury victims. I think its a significant issue becuase very few if any of the Israeli injuries will turn into deaths given the fact that most that have been reported with any detail have not been severe and the fact that South Israel has an intact medical system. Obviously neither applies in the case of Gaza.

Thrylos000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

I actually tried really hard yesterday, but I couldn't find a single source reporting the total number of Israeli wounded.VR talk 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
An example of recent accounting practices of the Israel Ministry of foreing affairs (from the 2006 war with Hizbullah):

"Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."

Only 101 people were wounded moderately or severely (2.4% of the total figure!) while 65% of the "injured" were victims of shock and anxiety. Unfortunately, the MFA has not provided a similar breakdown for the injuries in the current conflict. They are only reporting an undifferentiated count of injuries, currently totalling 119: "Since December 27, 480 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. 900,000 Israeli residents are under immediate threat. Three Israeli civilians have been killed and 119 wounded (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA)."

Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that those Israeli injuries seriousness are .0001 of the Palestinian ones dangers, but it's not my job to say this statement in here anyway :) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the 3 sources cited for the 119 injuries and, though I may have overlooked something, I couldn't find any support for the figure. So I have removed 119 for the time being and changed civilian casualties to ~10 which is just until someone can find a definitive figure. I can't expect there are many injuries, from what I've heard most of the rockets have missed.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw the figure there. The google cached version shows it.[5] Maybe the moved it or revised it.VR talk 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has put the 120 figure back in, citing the israeli govt. I won't remove it in case i'm being blind but i've looked through the page and can't find the 120 figure in it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of you have raised valid considerations. It does seem to be Israeli policy to bring in shock-victims to hospitals. Frankly, I suppose having a sudden rocket explode next to you, deafening you, destroying your car/house/surroundings, and possibly killing your dog/friend/husband may be a little shocking. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. This policy being as it is, I doubt it is feasible to not include shock victims in the count. Perhaps we should make separate mention that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians". Debresser (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course no one is suggesting, I don't think, that shock or other psychological trauma doesn't result from events during this conflict. The problem is however that no one is even going to try to estimate who has suffered "shock" in Gaza. If they included this categories, undifferentiated, in the injury counts in Gaza I would venture to say the number of injuried would be close to 1.5 M. :)
For the time being I am supportive of using the Israel MFA figure with a note saying that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians" and perhaps linking to the example I mentioned above: "Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."
Thrylos000 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The 120 number I can find on the mfa.gov site is here (site dosnt work properly for me at least, you have to scroll way, way down) Now the figures are from the 4th — chandler — 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is probably not directly relevant but the Israel MFA is now reporting casualties of family pets on their website: "Jan 6: A 3-month-old baby girl was injured by shrapnel when a Grad rocket fired from north Gaza Tuesday morning exploded in the city of Gedera, between Ashdod and Rehovot. Twelve-year-old Shir was in a ground floor room in her home when the siren sounded. She ran to the shelter and was saved when the rocket struck the room she had just left. The family's dog Sili was killed by shrapnel in the yard. Since December 27, over 500 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. Almost one million Israeli residents are under immediate threat."

Thrylos000 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The dog should be added to the number of Israeli casualties. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No.VR talk 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. I'm contacting the Animal rights. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Chesdovi: the death of human beings, regardless of what side, shouldn't be for jokes. Please refrain from doing this again, it is in very bad taste. There are places for gallows humor, this isn't one of them. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. People are dying in hundreds and seriously injured in thousands with a severe humanitarian crisis and you're talking about fuckin pets. Ooh, We should really mention the sufferings of these cute pets, you heartless people! Damn --Darwish07 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reporting the death of a Dog, by name. The Israeli state is setting aside funds to help treat injured pets!!! Thrylos000 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat to Wikipedia?

The State of Israel has deployed a world-class arsenal of fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, gunboats, tanks and troops against a densely-populated, impoverished and blockaded area small enough to cycle across in an afternoon.

And after ten days, close to 700 Gazans are dead and several thousand more are injured or maimed. Meanwhile on the Israeli side, maybe a dozen have died (about half from friendly fire).

Yet Wikipedia still won't call this event an "attack" or "assault" or "invasion," because a number of highly-committed editors are arguing every which way that it wouldn't be neutral to make Israeli look bad.

Instead, we've made Wikipedia look bad.

What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered building a concrete wall around Wikipedia, blockading it, occasionally carrying out random deletions of articles, cutting off power to the servers and so forth. I mean, what could possibly go wrong ? Seriously though, I don't know what to say. People are idiots and I include myself in that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The mix of our idiocies is what build up Wikipedia ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
F***ING GENIUS DARWISH, F***ING GENIUS!!!--Cerejota (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you'd be an Internet Security company, or an ISP, and Wikipedia servers would have been used to DoS attack you... Then you'd talk to Wikipedia owners/admins and they'd respond with "MUWAHAHAHA! WE WILL DOS YOU UNTIL YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR SERVERS FARM! DIE!", I guess you'd take them down, no? Especially, when the Police can only tell them "We condemn your DOS attacks" ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, there are about 550 deaths, not "close to 700". That's a big difference. And Israel attacked/assaulted Hamas, who are hiding in Gaza's residential areas, thus so many civilian deaths. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very wrong, even if Hamas and BBC consider it so. Invasion, perhaps, but it's a tempporary thing because IDF doesn't plan to stay in Gaza after the operation (and everybody said it MANY times over and over again), so you could say that Israel invaded Gaza to "deal with Hamas", but you can't really call this war/operation as an Invasion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is an Israeli attack on Hamas and not Gaza. Just today 20 potential members of Hamas were killed, yes they were children, but let's face it they could become Hamas members.*sarcasm intended* the facts are civilians area have been hit, the civilian casualties make up a significant portion of the death toll, the Israelis have invaded the area. So if it talks like a duck, walks and quacks like one, then it is one. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very accurate. --Learsi si natas (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(my ORIGINAL RESEARCH and BIAS not related to article). I'll tell you a funny fact by the way, ofcourse I'm biased but as mentioned I'm not saying this for the sake of the main article at all. The IDF and the Israeli media really love to make a distinction between Hamas and "non-Hamas", but here's the catch that the Israeli Intelligence knows very well. All people on Gaza support Hamas cause it's the one (on the opposite of Fatah) which calls for opposition against the "occupying force". We were not really originally from Gaza, we were withdrawn by force from the land that's above Gaza (Ashdood, Asklan, ..) in the 1948 war. So all the Gazans believe that Israel is an occupying force and what they are doing is legal opposition against an occupying force, whether this force is on Gaza or not. That's why every home helps Hamas over there and every one there prays for them. There's no difference between who's Hamas and who's not. And that's why Israel are doing all those killings and infrastructure destruction. It knows very well that she's not fighting Hamas, she's fighting 1.5 million population. And from here, and because all those wars, hatred over hatred continue. and sadly, here we are :-(. (End of ORIGINAL RESEARCH /) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My response, unrelated to the articles as well, just stating my real honst opinion. Sorry mate, but this isn't "original research". That's the "common propaganda". Not all Gazans support Hamas. And the propaganda part is saying that Israel is targeting 1.5 mil population. Fatah used to fight Israel too, but looking at reality on the ground - the situation is that there is the Gaza strip (where there isn't any Israeli presence since 2005), there is the West Bank (where there are Israeli soldiers and police checkpoints and etc., for now, until we can pull out of there and a Palestinian state will be founded), and there is Israel. The 1967 borders (pretty much the same meaning as the 1949 Armistice Lines) are widely accepted as the sanest way to make this work for both of the peoples. Of course there are problems like Jerusalem and the "right of return", and both sides have both support and oposition on every issue. This can be solved by negotiations. And it will, when weapons will not be used against eachother. And I believe that many in Gaza know that too, and want that to happen. But for now, we have Hamas, who is terrorizing Israel, and Israel cannot let it happen. Of course there are controvercies about Israel's actions and Hamas' actions. Imagine what would happen if Israel was not imposing any kind of blockage on Gaza, and leaving the borders widely open? Hamas would get plenty of long-range missiles, Hamas will launch suicide bombers again, and etc. Yes, it might improve the living standards of the Gazans, but no sovereign country will accept improving the lives of a neighbouring area a little bit, in the cost of bloody terror against them. Imagine Burma attacking China. Burma would be flattened if it'd happen. Israel, on the other hand, tries to help the citizens. Before the military operation, Israel opened the border, and let supplies in, for several days. Hamas kept on firing. There is no peaceful solution against an organization who vows to kill you. Anyway, sorry for the offtopic. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, perhaps not everything you don't like is "a threat to Wikipedia"? Your comment is very dramatic, but doesn't mesh with the facts. Thus far Israel has performed hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery shells, etc. How many civilians died? 200-300? That's the number of people living in a single Gaza-city apartment building. The very fact that Israel has carried out so many strikes, with so few civilian casualties, shows beyond doubt that Israel is making great efforts to avoid hurting civilians. In contrast, Hamas targets civilians. They can fire their rockets at military targets. Lots of those in range. They might get lucky and kill a soldier, hit an aircraft, or at least damage some runway. But no. They choose to kill civilians. The Palestinians elected Hamas, fully knowing that Hamas does not recognize Israel, the peace process, etc. Fully knowing that Hamas will continue its attacks on Israel. They do this even after Israel left Gaza, evacuated settlements, gave back the land. Palestinians chose to attack Israel and elect Hamas, instead of trying to continue the peace process. When civilians die, it's always a shame, be them Israeli or Palestinian. But this happens in war, and if Hamas (again, the folks Palestinians elected and support) hadn't fired, if they didn't hide in the middle of cities - none of this would have happened. So your pity drive doesn't impress me. And right or wrong have nothing to do with casualty figures. okedem (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The WAR started a long time ago, and there has not been an 'official' cease-fire or end to this war. You could call this a battle, or better yet, another Israeli military excurion into Palestinian territory. Calling it an invasion would mean the start of 'another' war, but this is the same war, and the latest action is an additional confrontation.
Please, we can't blame Israel for having the superior firepower, it should use it as it sees fit. Just like we can't blame Hamas/Palestine for defending itself as it sees fit. The best we can do is to continue updating the casualties, as many Iraq war objectors have been doing with US military deaths.
Also, i would like to know what Israeli military base is within reach of Hamas rockets.
And, would Israel allow Hamas to build 'official' military bases away from the population in order to have a 'morally' responsible war against it? What is the problem having MILITIANS firing rockets from their background? Yet, with all the videos Israel has published, i've yet to see any of those militians using civilians as shields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Bases - for the airforce alone - Hatzor and Hatzrim, maybe also Tel Nof (very close to Gedera, which was hit today) (see the map of the IAF website). There are many ground forces bases in the area as well.
Hamas has military installations, mostly from the time of Abu-Mazen's control. But they fire from civilian areas, from schools, from between houses. They use homes and mosques as weapons stores. See the videos. There's an incredible amount of evidence for this conduct. okedem (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
As well as the Ashdod naval base from which the naval blockade is operated (would have made a super-quality military target), and the Gaza Brigade base from which the entire operation is managed (haven't heard on a single mortar round falling there). Both are HUGE bases. --Omrim (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
All three of those bases and cities, are NOW coming under attack, thanks to what it seems as 'better' rockets from Hamas arsenal.[6]
Also notice the strategic location of those bases, as it was my reference point, all being at least 25 miles away from the Gaza Strip...and yet, as good as a target that they are(as you noticed) it seems they are hearing the call.
"On December 24, five days after the lull arrangement ended, the cities of Ashqelon , Netivot and Sderot, the towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, the crossings and IDF bases were subjected to a massive rocket and mortar shell attack. At least 60 rockets and mortar shells ::::::were fired, most of them by Hamas."
I think you both are Palestinians agents. "Hamas now has longer range Iranian-made rockets, and several hit near the Israeli port city of Ashdod for the first time, 23 miles [37 km] from Gaza.Israel's Home Front Command recommended that all communities within a 40-kilometer range of Gaza be hooked up to the Color Red incoming missile alert system."
"While news accounts reference these as Grad rockets [the Russian nomenclature] or "enhanced Katyusha", the rockets used in the attack on Ashdod must have a range twice that of the BM-21 Grad. Photographs of a rocket that landed near Gan Yavne, northeast of Ashdod on 28 December, do indicate that it was a 122-mm rocket. This is inconsistent with the idea that HAMAS was using Iranian-made rockets, either the Oghab with a range of 34-45 km or the Fajr-3 / Ra'ad with a range of 45 km."
Also, you mean to say "Hamas had military installations"...or Israel not attacking them in this latest excursion? That would seem out of touch with reality.

The Gaza Brigade base is ON THE BORDER between Gaza and Israel. Not "25 miles" away. The Naval ashdod base is not in ashdod, but NEAR ashdod, in it was not hit, or even targeted. --Omrim (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your increased attention-span would had been a better response in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.70.168 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles

In 2008 there was a Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles. The page includes user descriptions of the problems and arbitrators' final decisions regarding the conflict: remedies (discretionary sanctions of blocks, bans, etc. by uninvolved administrators, a working group and reminding and counseling editors) and enforcement (logging of notifications, blocks and bans on users who have engaged in problematic editing on Israel-Palestine issues). Read the whole arbitration for an in depth understanding of the issues and remedies involved. Therefore issues can be brought directly to Wikipedia Arbitration Enforcement.

There is a WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which has some tips on how to resolve disputes, including up to arbitration and a Current Article Issues Discussion page for reporting or discussing issues with specific articles. Check them out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems I think RomaC's highlighting are a consequence of the title changing from "2008-2009 Gaza Strip Airstrikes" to its present one. I came here (initially commenting as unsigned) to read about that story, but when the ground incursion / invasion loomed, it was inevitable that the title would have to be changed.
However, it seems to me that under the auspices of changing the title to something neutral sounding that also reflected events, the article has been re-cast in such a way as to be broadened beyond coverage of the current events and their immediate strategic context -- which are after all what most readers are interested in, and are what is keeping the article on the front page as a Current Event! At the moment there is just about a reasonable balance between events and context - it's reasonable to mention the rocket attacks - but only insofar as they are a stated reason for the conflict. If there's too much detail about them, pro-Palestinians will want the blockade discussed in detail, and we enter into an infinite chain of causality (or rather, recrimination).
This broadening of scope inevitably serves a pro-Israeli agenda, which clearly is to frame the assault in the wider context of Hamas rocket attacks. However, to some extent this *is* appropriate. Whether the rocket attacks are the true reason for the attacks or as I believe, a pretext, should be left up to the reader to decide. I say we should change the title to "Israeli offensive" -- which is the notable event this article arose to cover -- concentrate on reporting the atrocities in Gaza, and let the pro-Israelis have their justification about rockets but not in detail - let them refer readers to the list of Qassam attacks that already exists. Don't let the article grow beyond reason, become broken up and edited as a number of cheesy and obviously partisan "counter articles", where credibility will be lost as a whole.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree and take issue with your characterization. The title change was a result of the events changing, and then a widely participated, contentious and well argued discussion that led to the current title, and has continued as a current debate.
The topic has not widened, and inclusion of background information is not widening the scope, it is simply including a verifiable fact of these events: they didn't happen out fo the blue, and both sides have argued motivations and counter motivations and have their own take on the events. We must write about this. That some editors are actively trying to steer the narrative in one way or the other is only natural in such a controversial article. What we should do is face it head on, assuming good faith, bringing sourced material, reverting the shit out of the POV pushers and WP:SYNTH warriors, and then applauding our results for the 30 seconds consensus lasts until the next BRD starts. Your conspiranoia is insulting and unwikipedian.
Furthermore, those who have argued to narrow the topic of the article have mostly been pro-Israeli editors who want to use the "Operation Cast Lead" as the article name. <sarcasm>Are you false-flagging for any chance? I mean, if you are into conspiracy, so can I, right?</sarcasm> >:) --Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you leave no doubt as to your own sympathies. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The point it is it is a remedy if the article gets too partisan and there are numbers being pulled, especially as a result of tag teaming and canvassing. They don't have to be proved; the resultant POV will be the issue, of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks people for the discussion. It is possible to focus on one event within a larger, related and ongoing event -- in the interconnected world, that is what Wiki ought to do -- see the Bombing of Dresden article, which does not delve into the evils of Hitler or concentration camps etc, but instead looks dispassionately at the bombing of Dresden. By contrast, in this article a novel framing device was introduced, reflected in a name that few RS were using, and the article proceeded in the opposite direction -- away from a focus on the event. This is the threat, not because I didn't agree, but because editors lined up and used their numbers to trump Wiki policies (see: Wikipedia naming conventions and polling is not a substitute for discussion). RomaC (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN biased?

This edit,[7] alleges that CNN is biased. I don't think the edit has merit because the sources are not reliable, but would like to hear what others think.

Previous messages that I left the user on his talk page have been blanked without response.VR talk 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message for this user about repeated disruptive very pro-Israeli (but probably good faith from his perspective)edits. Someone else did too. It's getting to the point where further action might be required in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Yahoo Answers? Who is he trying to kid... Remove it. I've been watching alot of CNN and can't see a bias. I mean he claims they don't cover Israeli deaths, from what this article states, there are 9 israeli deaths and 560 palestinian deaths, if anything it would be a pro-Israel bias to report the deaths as equals. And they are obviously showing injured Palestinians because there are many more than injured Israelis — chandler — 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

VR and others.In these cases, where the narrative assumes a personal voice, and editorializes, one does well just to note this on the talk page, and erase the edit. Feel free to delete that section, since it is both poorly sourced and editorializes. Anyone here may remove it without objection, since removing this kind of abuse does not require consensus. It violates core policy.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed it for now, If someone comes with a RS criticising CNN it can be re-introduced (but re-phrased I guess) — chandler — 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a wise move to find an RS to jusatify its reinclusion. It only opens up a battle to stick in many sources saying Israeli official or unofficial but mainstream sources are biased. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well Ok, meant if a credible source really, in that it probably should be mentioned if the BBC ran something about it, but not if the Sun came out with "CNN hates Israel" — chandler — 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the claim that CNN is biased should be removed. From what I've read from international media the coverage on CNN seem quite balanced. --user from Finland.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.66.153 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the claim should not be reinserted, even if someone finds a reasonable source for it. Otherwise we'll end up in circles, with someone then finding a source that says that the critical source is biased against CNN, and on and on until we have an absurdly qualified piece of text. All media in this area are accused of bias one way or the other, sometimes of bias both ways. CNN as it happens seems to get a lot of stick from the other side as well. Note as well that the editor including this seems to have made a habit of dumping extended commentary into this article over the past few days. It's hard enough to produce a decent, readable and accurate article about an event which is both in the news and part of such a controversial topic area, without that sort of constant interruption. --Nickhh (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have written on the subject of a possible CNN bias before, see Archive. I personally have found the CNN to be slightly anti-Israel biased in comparison with the BBC. Accusations of a pro-Palestinian CNN bias are also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on CNN. Honest_Reporting[8], an organization monitoring the media for anti-Israel biases, in it’s Year Analysis of CNN has come to the conclusion that “anti-Israel bias has crept back into CNN’s coverage”. Furthermore, fear of possible anti-Israel bias by media in general, has been stated to be one of the reasons for Israel to actively engage in an online media propaganda. SOTT net Information Warfare Monitor Frankly speaking, “where there is smoke, there is fire”, has been a proverb probably for as long as mankind uses fire...
In this article, however, mention of a possible CNN anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias should not be made unless it appears in sources pertaining to the present conflict. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, VERY unbiased. I just watched a report in its front page showing the borders of Israel encompassing all Palestinian territories. Go back into your Hebrew fanaticism close circle cause here you're only being ridiculed publicly. Leladax (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Leladax. I find your language insulting. Please consider changing part of your last comment. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggest you report him at WP:DRAMA. That was bullshit and uncalled for. Borderline antisemitic, if not antisemitic period.--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I put a level 3 warning in his talk page. Sorry you had to endure that. :( --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care if you put 100 warnings. I'm not a racist, so you take it back. Just because I think there are Hebrew fanatics, and Christian fanatics, and Atheist fanatics it doesn't mean I'm a racist. Leladax (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not what you ARE, but how you EXPRESS yourself. You have been warned not to use such language any more, and that's it, whether you like it or not. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thebiojoe is one of the worse ninja editors we have. He refuses any kind of dialog. If he continues, I am asking for sanctions under ArbCom for WP:POINT and contentious editing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this but let's give him a chance. He's new, he's Israeli-American and I suspect he's probably young, bless him. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why all the Hamas qualifications?

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 lede/intro/lead section issues at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead, if you want to continue this conversationa s part of the background section, open a new section.

From the first lines of the article: "conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas" -- Like them or not, shouldn't Hamas be more accurately described here in Wiki as the "Gaza government"? Soon after we see: "This Israeli-Gaza conflict is the deadliest conflict since Hamas established political control of Gaza in early 2006 and forced out Fatah in the 2007 Battle of Gaza" How is this germane to the article? Hamas won the 2006 elections, a Fatah coup failed. Why not "...since Hamas was elected in 2006"? Wiki uses neutral descriptors, why doesn't this article? RomaC (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the text should read for economy 'the conflict between Israel and Hamas'. Links can clarify what Hamas is about. 'Islamicist' says nothing other than flag the usually red rag to a POV bull. It is, as you say, the duly elected authority of the Gaza Strip. The phrase 'deadliest conflict' should be eliminated as irrelevant especially in a lead, and is notoriously poorly phrased and badly sourced.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. we would have to discuss the differing political factions in israel with regard to who has currently "established political control" and that all belongs in a different article. Untwirl (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is only the government of Gaza in a defacto sense, describing it as just the government of Gaza is too simplistic. Its not entirely clear the Hamas takeover was a response to an actual coup attempt. This article should not seek to answer that issue. Writing should recognise Hamas's electoral victory, but also its ejection of Fatah from the strip, its the only manner fair. I agree the wording needs to be altered. Superpie (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a neutral title would be "Gaza's Hamas regime" (since Israel's talking about regime change[9]), although others have called it "Gaza's democratically elected Hamas government".[10]VR talk 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie What's not entirely clear? It was elected, and a coup was staged, and repressed, as we learnt in April from a well-documented study in Vanity Fair The Gaza bombshell. Israel again may seek 'regime-change', but an unadorned 'Hamas' (linked) is perhaps the best way to go, NPOV-wise. 'Hamas government', like 'Hamas regime' are POV or question-begging, the former because it is a regional administration and stateless, the latter because it is a term of political abuse by Hamas's adversaries. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.
  • Nishidani what I am saying is that irregardless of the in my view, still unclear circumstances surrounding the Gaza takeover, calling Hamas the "government of Gaza" legitimises the actions it has taken and isnt neutral -I essentially agree with the latter part of your comment, it would be more sensible to use Hamas unadorned rather than attempt to cover its electoral victory, the takeover, its technical mandate etc etc. Superpie (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edit

Wandersage made this edit[11] in the infobox. He removed a source[12], as well as combined "military and police", which is not appropriate. He also changed "Gaza officials" (more precise) to the more ambiguous "Palestinian estimate". I disagree with all of the above edits.VR talk 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The question whether or not military and police should be united, has been debated before. I do not remember if any consensus was reached.
I could argue that such a decision might depend on their actual function in Gaza. I mean to say that if police takes part in the struggle against the Israeli army, they should be for all purposes considered as combatants.
A more compelling argument might be the convention used by sources. If they take police and military together, we don't really have that much choice.

As to whether to use "Gaza officials" or "Palestinian estimate" I have no real argument. In this case I would favor "Palestinian estimate", since Gaza is not a political entity in itself. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The official source for "Palestinian estimate" is the Palestinian Ministry of Health and should be cited formally as such. It is not a general "Palestinian estimate" but a number directly from the Ministry of Health. It is cited as such in all UN documents. Also the fact that Israeli injured includes shock victims was edited out. I implore everyone to review my general criticisms of casualty accounting for Palestinians and implement the changes I have argued for as not a single person has argued against them. We have good numbers for women and children killed, they should be included, we have good sources indicating that civilian counts only included women and children this should be noted.

Thrylos000 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed to mention that 'wounded' included shock-victims.
So now the question is, should the Palestinian Ministry of Health be qouted as 'Gaza officials' or as 'Palestinian sources'. I still prefer the second. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We agreed, and yet it had been edited out of the article. The Palestinian Ministry of Health should be quoted as the Palestinian Ministry of Health and nothing more or less. No reason to be more ambiguous that necessary. We have an explicit source, so our citing of that source should be explicit. Someone needs to edit the infobox and casualty sections to restore the note on shock victims and to update the number of women and children killed. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go with my blessing, my son. :) Debresser (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done: Added caveat about shock victims. NonZionist (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Waiting to be autoconfirmed, in the mean time it would be good for someone with sufficient user access to take initiative here... Thrylos000 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about "Ministry of Health (Palestinian)". I linked it as "MoH" a very common abbreviation, and linked it to Ministry of Health (Palestinian).VR talk 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding policemen and military, they are coming from two different sources. I wouldn't combine them, just as I wouldn't combine policemen (often considered 'civil servants') with civilians. The policemen, according to the source, were killed the first day of strikes, mostly while in the police station, so they were not KIA. I'll separate them.VR talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't agree with counting policemen separately. Should we also count firemen as "combatants", since they are combating fires? -- sarcasm intended. AFAICS, victims of aggression are ALL civilians. International law condemns aggression and recognizes the right of victims of aggression to resist without loss of protected status. Do we REALLY want to discard the distinction between aggressor and victim? NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The military figure is not by MoH, nor the UN or media sources, but rather claimed by IDF. I'm wondering if you should quote it in the infobox at all, given that Hamas has made parallel claims as to how many IDF soldiers it has killed[13]. Hamas has also claimed that a lot less of its soldiers (around 10[14]) have been killed.VR talk 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree on not including figures claimed by the military wings/branches of the combatants in the infobox, but on separate related issue, I am going to move the Ministry of Health (Palestinian) to Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in consistence with the articles on the PNA's interior, planning, information, education, foreign affairs, and prime ministries/ministers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Despite this agreement, why do users keep on adding Israeli claims on Palestinian casualties to the info box?VR talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Other

VR since you've taken the lead with the edit box and casualties pleae look at #Counting the Women and Children Killed and make the appropriate changes in the editbox and under the casualty subheading.

If you could: 1. Include women and children killed in the infobox 2. Note the accounting of civilian casualties has not included men under the casualty subsection and only reflects women and children

See: #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for the full analysis I provided.

Thrylos000 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that Gaza militants have since the start of the operation been fighting almost exclusively uninformed, and the fact that there is no practical difference between "Police" and "militant" in function, and given that distinguishing between Civilian and Militant in this case is difficult enough, (especially with the lack of journalists in the area) I believe that Partitioning non-Civilian casualties even further makes things unnessecarily ambigious, not to mention clogs up the info-box. WanderSage (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Israeli police then fair targets? Civilian police forces have always been considered that, civilian. But it doesn't matter what you or I think about this, reflect the sources is the answer (as it almost always is). Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with WanderSage. The fact that a large number of police have been killed is a significant fact. It should be noted appropriately, if not in the infobox then at least in the Casualty section. It is not for us to decide whether the police are legitimate targets at this point. If someone can find a good, current, justification by Israeli officials for the targeting of police then we can post that along side the casualty figures.Thrylos000 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I guess I'll separate policemen and militants. However, I'll let the civilians stay as they are, and we can discuss women and children in the Casualties section. I'll also put a fact tag on the Hamas militants killed, so that we can get independent sources on this.VR talk 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As someone else here noted earlier, the whole population opposes the Israeli assault and resists, so the entire population should be treated as "combatants". This simply demonstrates that the distinction between "combatant" and "civilian" is meaningless when applied to people under occupation. These artificial distinctions merely serve to obscure the significant distinction, that between aggressor and victim. NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Under Palestinian casualties there is an entry for "Unknown". I think that that is unnecessary, and there is no source backing this unknown up. "Unknown" can be interpreted to mean "missing", which is misleading.VR talk 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WanderSage, please don't write (Hamas claim), (Israel claim), in the infobox. We don't do this when Israel reports its casualties, we shouldn't be doing this for Palestinians either. Let's relay on Reliable Sources for our claims. The previous discussion seems to be in agreement with that.VR talk 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
VR, we don't do this for Israeli casualties because they can be indepdently varified. Due to the restrictions placed on journalists and other organizations in Gaza, this isn't the case there. This is the reason we have such a discrepency between the Israeli claims and Hamas claims. 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "shock" victims is a bit of an underestimated term. The correct way to call it is Trauma victims. Also, since we're not mentioning Gazan trauma vicims, I don't see why should we could Israeli trauma victims. Either give physically injured on both sides, or give also trauma victims on both sides. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One good reason is that the official Israeli figures mention them. We should reflect information, not points of view. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't think we should include everything official Israeli figures mention, a point has already been made that Israel officials stated the death of a family dog. I'm not completely sure that they don't, but unless other such articles mention shock or trauma victims this one shouldn't either. Untwirl (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You wanted my opinion on the infobox edits VR so here they are:
1. count the total number of dead, currently at 670 dead
2. count the number of policemen killed by December 29, 138 dead
3. count the number of militants killed in the ground offensive, currently at 150 dead - YOU may not want to include that number because it is coming from an Israeli source, BUT the UN itself said today that 300 of the 670 dead are civilians, so logic dictates the rest are eather militants or Hamas policemen. So that would fit the pattern. Also, a Palestinian human rights group said 40 percent of the dead are civilians, so that still leaves enough of the number of killed to fith the 150 number, even with the inclusion of 138 policemen in the remaining 60 percent
4. count the number of civilians killed, currently at 300 dead according to both the Palestinians and the UN
5. with 150 militants, 138 policemen and 300 civilians that leaves out of a total of 670 dead another 80 or so unidentified and so they are put in the catagory of unknown. That is my opinion, simple as that.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN never said that there are a maximum of 300 civilians dead. In fact most sources say that there at least 300 civilians dead. You can't simply subtract numbers like this when most most are approximate. The fact is that there are no independent sources, nor Palestinian sources that have found the bodies of 150 militants, nor does Israel claim to have the 150 militants' bodies. Secondly, Hamas has made claims about killing many Israeli soldiers. Do we include that too?VR talk 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated dead to 297 and wounded to 3085 citing http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200917151851205482.html Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I never, never said a maximum of 300 civilians dead! You are trying to twist my words. I said that both the UN and the Palestinians have said that 300 of the 670 dead are civilians. Because of the 150 and 138 number I put another 80 in the category of the Unknowns so we would be close to the total of 670 dead. Actualy, a new source now says 350 of the dead are civilians, I have now decreased the number of the unknowns but that still leaves enough bodies that would support the Israeli claim of 150 dead militants. Are you going to tell me that you belive Hamas when they say they lost only 10 fighters, and the Israelis themselves admited they lost 7 soldiers? What? A 10-7 kill ratio? We are talking about the most powerfull military in the Meadle East fighting a war against a guerrila group. How come nobody asks questions when the Americans say they killed 30 insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan at the cost of only one soldier killed or maybe just wounded? Hmmm?BobaFett85 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian school massacre by Israelis

Can someone add that the people in the school were families taking refuge and many of the targeted massacred people were children?? The article is locked to me, otherwise I would add this information myself. --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already in (unless someone removed it, and apart from the word "massacre") as well as the IDF arguments that Palestinian militants were firing mortars from within the school grounds.--Omrim (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the people being families and no mention that many of the victims are children.--Learsi si natas (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's not call things massacre here. That language is uncalled for.VR talk 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My opinion precisely. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? An American student walks into an American school and shoots dead 15 people, and that event is called a massacre. This slaughtering of families in this school is a massacre. The obvious doesn't need to be stated, everyone knows what it is without me telling them. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Another point for you Mr. I got to be a politically correct Muslim so people can tolerate me, the phrase "That language is uncalled for" can be used if I had said the Israelis are Satanist, not when I call their butchering of families a massacre. It is a suitable name. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I support the use of the term massacre, and the event having its own section, although I disagree with your ad-hominem. The UN claim the IDF had the GPS co-ordinates of the school, and if this is true the IDF knew precisely what they were doing. Whether it is collateral damage or not ('incidental to the outcome') it was still a massacre because the killing was intentional, not accidental. They knew many civilians were going to die. For comparison example the My Lai Massacre was both intentional and incidental to the objective of destroying a village suspected of harbouring Viet Cong. i also note this article is referenced from List of events named massacres--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that yours does not seem to be the majority opinion, from muslims and jews alike. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
My arguments would be that 1. The IDF has consistently claimed Hamas combatants were in hiding in that building, so that any non-combatants killed would have to be considered 'collateral damage'. 2. A 'massacre' implies the intend to massacre. We're talking about war here, my friend. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So there are no massacres in wartime? What absurd logic! Ever hear of Custer? The "intent" issue is completely bogus. Israel tells us that it never intends to kill anybody, while Palestinians, out of pure sadism I suppose, intend to ki9ll everybody. And yet the Israelis, with their precision weapons, are killing forty times as many! How do you explain that? Is it all just one big accident? Do you really believe that Israelis are not intending to kill anybody when they drop one-ton bombs on apartment buildings? What do they think will happen?! NonZionist (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that the an IDF sergeant getting killed from that building indicates it to be something else besides just a place of learning. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A point worth mentioning is that according to the 4th Geneva Convention, the presence of a protected person (civilian) does not lend protection to a place used for any military activity - the presence of a protected person in such a place does not prevent an attack on said place, and the protected person is no longer protected. Meaning - if the school was used for military activity (firing at Israeli forces) - it's fair game, regardless of civilians there. Usually the Geneva conventions are mentioned when criticizing Israel. Somehow, I don't see people talking about the conventions now... okedem (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And I dont see people talking about Hamas saying there were no militants at the school. As far as using the word massacre to describe the events, can't do it unless reliable sources, and for something that can be considered incendiary, multiple reliable sources use that term. It isnt for us to decide how to describe what happened. If you think it should be called a massacre find sources. The ones I see don;t say massacre, they just say how many died (42 from reuters from medical sources, at least 30 from bbc quoting un). Nableezy (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well obviously Hamas won't say anything else. Do you expect them to come out and say "We were using this school for shooting the Israeli soldiers, while there were civilians inside"?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly should I believe the Israelis and not Hamas? Why is whatever the Israeli military says, which as all professional armies undertands and engages in propoganda, taken to be the whole truth and what Hamas says to be a lie. I personally would believe Hamas claims over Israeli ones, and as Israel has refused to allow foreign press, despite a supreme court ruling that they must, I have no other sources than Palestinian ones. Nableezy (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. Fig (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the subheading back in. I think this is worthy of its own section, if the Dignity incident is.217.43.237.159 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
They were sacrificed for the greater good. It is impossible to conduct a war without civilian deaths. We have to just accept that these tradegies happen. Chesdovi (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do not quote Hermann Göring here. -Stevertigo 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was a Churchill. Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know public support of terrorism was allowed on these pages. --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the point of my post was not to advocate the inclusion of the term massacre (although this should be considered). Can we mention that the massacred victims included children, that's what I said earlier?? Yeah I still think it is a massacre, most people do, even Israelis like Chesdovi knows it a massacre (and in his view a terrific idea!!). --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think of massacres as the intentional killing of civilians. And I do not support terrorism. There is a time for war. And when that time comes, civilians will die. It is inevitable. Just as roads deaths which are waiting to happen, kill thousands each day, cars are still used. The good they provide outweighs the deaths incurred. I know it sounds awful, but that's the reality. Israel is hoping that greater good will come from actions it is forced to take. If Göring was referring to unintentional deaths of civilians, he had a point. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You say you do not support terrorism. But you do support war, which is mega-terror, terror multiplied by a thousand times. But you would not dream of applying the same cold-blooded "arguments" -- "It is inevitable" and "Killing people is for the greater good" -- to Palestinians. Only Israelis get to decide what is the "greater good" and when it is "time for war" (murdering people at a 40-to-1 ratio). Yes, I see why you like Göring: He too was a believer in a "Master Race". NonZionist (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's why wars arise: because both sides feel that they are the ones in the right. But there is a time for war. Why? Because evil exists and it must be fought. Would you prefer that Nazi Germany had extended its rule over the whole world? G-d forbid we should make war with them. No way! War means killing innocent people. We can't allow that. Let the master race just march in to every country one by one. The difference with the Palestinian "war" is that they target civilians. Israel - the good guys - do not. Simple! Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand why someone with a POV would want to use "massacre". But as this is the English Wikipedia we probably should best use English. The unintentional killing of people is not a "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


OMG, did you just realize that someone has a POV, and can you believe that other people have povs too? We're speaking English. And the part of it being intentional is arguable. --Learsi si natas (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, a "massacre" is an intentional butchering of civilians. You've been told that already. You cannot, and you will not call accidental civilian deaths (due to being used as human shields by Hamas, and there are video proofs) as a massacre. That's just an anti-Israeli demonization and it has no place in Wikipedia. It's no different than quoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", saying that Jews drink firstborns' blood and use it to make Matzah bread. Jeez! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you are not following along, I will explain it to you what I and what others have said!! The massacre/butchering/slaughter whatever you call it - is arguably intentional. Ummm.. with their constant targeting of children and blasting their body into pieces, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a certain problem with the "unintentional" concept here. For one, they destroyed three UN schools, not just one. I could go on. -Stevertigo 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The attacks were certainly not unintentional, aren't even Israel making a big deal about that "Hamas weapons can't aim so they're war criminals", they their weapons are so accurate, they knew they were shooting at UN schools, where civilians where taking refuge, that sounds like a massacre to me (if compared to other massacres). The biggest Swedish newspaper (described "independently liberal") have even reported is as a "New bloodbath at UN school in Gaza" (Google translates to "New carnage at the UN school in Gaza") — chandler — 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The attacks were intentional, on Hamas' launching pads. There are videos of rockets being shot from these schools, and other buildings. Unless you're saying that IDF's UAVs photos are fabricated by the Zionist Propaganda Machine. *sigh* -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your claim that the slaughter was "unintentional" is unsupported. Usually, when we have a serial killer, we assume that the killing is deliberate. One or two accidental killings, we can accept, but ceaseless killing of men, women, and children over a sixty year period? -- that is more than just an accident.

There are videos of the UN school being used as a launching pad for Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and conclusive evidence that militants were working within the civilian population at the time. If you're going to throw a term like massacre in an article as sensitive as this, both sides must be held responsible. WanderSage (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When making such strong claims it is customary to provide reliable sources supporting them. Please do so, I would be interested in seeing this video and this conclusive evidence. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The videos are from 2006 or 2007, the school had been evacuated due to an Israeli raid and only then did militants use the school to respond to Israeli aggression. Don't believe the propaganda. Forget intentional, a massacre is the indiscriminate killing of people and/or animals. Yes massacre is a heated word, but it is correct. The IDF has the GPS coordinates of the schools, but their secret (and probably illegal) rules of engagement are so broad that ground forces are responding to fire without regard to what they are firing at. This is what I heard an IDF spokesman say this morning. Okedem, the presence of fighters at a school does not make it "fair game", as if it were open season on school children. Article IV of the Geneva Conventions prohibits as indiscriminate "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." The schools were fired on without any regard for civilian lives, so clearly there was no weighing of civilian losses against military advantage, there couldn't be. Instant war crime. Karldoh (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Massacre is entierly an issue of intent. Anyone who says otherwise has no grasp of the english language. And considering that civilian casualties provide absolutely no political or military advantage to Israel and only serves to undermine support abroad and at home, yet serves as the bread and butter of Hamas' political capital and fodder, even if you could prove that Israel had intent to slaughter civilians for no reason, all you would be proving is that Israel has developed a self-destructive masochistic complex. WanderSage (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
When a force is being fired at, striking the source of gunfire is legal, as it has clear military benefit. okedem (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that these videos were not "photoshopped" in "Zallywood"? We presume that every photo and video that comes from Palestinians is fake, and every photo and video that comes from Israel is true: Why? What is the basis for such presumption? NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that all of you are engaged in in instant original research. Sources verify that this is being labeled as a massacre by one side, and one side only, with very little verifiability. As we all know, we are about verifiability not truth, so we must write about what is verified (that one side calls this a massacre) and don't write about what is not verified (that this is a warcrime). Its easy, really. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the only way you can "verify massacre" is if you'll find reliable sources that will say that these attacks were intentional because there were civilians, and that was the whole purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The killings were intentional because Israel, knowing the potential for civilian casualties, intentionally failed to take measures to avoid them. Karldoh (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, these are just empty words. "Intentionally failed to take measure to avoid them?!" Are you kidding? If soldiers are being shot at from this school, they should sit and wait to die, or should react? You don't see any way how Hamas is responsible for this, by shooting FROM the school?! I know that this source isn't reliable for you probably, but it's the official statement, but you can't ignore the claim that a "mortar battery cell who were firing on IDF forces in the area" was there, and "amongst terrorists that were identified to be killed" were "Hamas operatives Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar", unless you think it's a lie, and then I'll revert to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" argument. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This event seems to closely parallel the Waco incident in 1993. Perhaps it should be called a mass suicide if the victims placed themselves, or were deliberately put, in harm's way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.220.50 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have found yet another way to blame the victims! No doubt the Palestinians, for no reason at all, are a "suicidal race", and love to suffer and be tortured. Their fondest desire in life is to perpetrate ethnic cleansing upon themselves. Fantastic! NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is claiming that the Palestinians are a suicidal people per se. However, using human shields is a common practice among Arab militants, as generally opposed to Western armies who conform to different moral values. As such, the reports coming in from Gaza about Hamas using heavily populated areas as launching areas fit in with this current case, with the poor Palestinian civilians taking refuge in the school acting as the shields for the militants. It is a damn shame that Hamas terrorists are deliberately firing from distinctly civilian areas. Rabend (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Surely it is moral to attack one of the worlds most densely populated areas with missiles and bombs, surely that is moral. Why I never thought of the morality of engaging in a crushing blockade of an occupied territory. And as far as being terrorist, read any number of UN declarations against terrorrism, this section will always appear:
Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
But I forgot, the UN is anti-Israeli, right?Nableezy (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what's relevant in the quote above. Gaza is not under Israeli colonial or racist regime or foreign occupation or other form of colonial domination. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza and let its people be. Its people elected a militant organization for a government, which instead of positively using the billions of dollars it received from the world to develop a self-sustaining country, decided to use these resources to arm itself and incessantly bomb Israeli towns for no apparent reason. The poor people of Gaza not only do not get a fair chance to develop their country, as Hamas is simply not doing that for them, but they're also being taken hostage by their own extremist, militant leadership, which, again, thinks it's more important to start a war with Israel than to actually make something useful out of their could-be country.

BTW, apropos violations of UN laws, while Israel may indeed be violating laws in this conflict, one must point out that Hamas is commiting war crimes according to various articles in the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court statutes. Rabend (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The entire world, Israel excepted, recognizes that Gaza is under foreign occupation. Beyond that the billions is should have received were withheled from the government, so you are clearly wrong on basic facts. Israel controls Gaza's borders, airspace, and waters == Israel occupies Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel needs to control the borders since all Hamas is doing is smuggling in weapons. Blaming Israel for everything that's wrong in Gaza is just pathetic. And if you're looking for those billions, do some research maybe. Foreign assistance to Palestinians has been around $310 per Palestinian a year (while the post-WWII Marshall Plan provided around $70 for each European). Where did it go? The Funding for Peace Coalition reports that it mostly went to terrorism and embezzlement. Yasser Arafat, for example, amassed a fortune of around 1-3 billion dollars. Not too shabby. Just think if it all went into infrastructure and actual Palestinian citizens, instead of training suicide bombers.
It's much easier to keep blaming the outside world for everything. This way you have where to funnel your frustration to, while your 'leaders' are having everyting their way. Rabend (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yasser Arafat has been dead for some time now, so I do not see the relevance. And perhaps you should do some research before you make such completely false statements. After the election of Hamas, the EU, the US, and Israel refused to provide the government with the funds promised to it. Currently that funding has been provided only to the Fatah run PA, but the undeniable and completely true fact is that foreign assistance was withheld from a democratically elected government. And to speak of infrastructure after Israel has destroyed the police system and all governmental offices and then blame Hamas for that, cmon that is ridiculous. As far as 'my' leaders, as a dual US and Egyptian citizen, I think all 'my' leaders are bitches. You make these moronic assertions about money being funneled to train 'suicide bombers', about how they are only smuggling weapons. Really, how many 'suicide bombers' has Hamas claimed responsibility for since they won the election? Open your eyes, the world is not as Israel portrays it to be. Should the Palestinians be barred from defending themselves, their people and land? Should they have to face the regions strongest armies with just rocks? Why does Israel have the right to amass such weapons, including nuclear devices, while the Palestinians are relegated to throwing rocks at tanks? Hamas has a legal right to resist occupation, which they are currently under. Nableezy (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As someone actually living in Israel, experiencing all these things on a daily basis, having friends from all walks of life, including the security forces, I can safely say that I'm quite in touch with what's going on in this area day-to-day. Israel is a modern, democratic country, and as such it shares many of the same principles as other western democracies. It doesn't want to conquer the middle east or enslave others or nuke Arabs just for the hell of it. Its people (in general; of course there are also extremists) want a peaceful coexistence with everyone around them, education, work, and just a reasonable life. I don't want to control Gaza or Ramallah or whatever. These views are not shared, apparently, by some of Israel's neighbors.
We would all wish for the Palestinian people to be strong enough in order to pursue a peaceful democracy and a viable economy. However, when non-stop attempts are made (and I'm speaking from first-hand experience) to kill Israeli citizens, well, screw that. The terrorists are gonna get it. And if the terrorists cowardly drag kids to serve as human shields (reports of that are plenty), the latter unfortunately might get hurt. And no one in Israel is happy to see civilians being killed in Gaza. No one. I wish the Palestinians would also be saddened to see all the Israelis killed or injured by suicide bombers and rockets in the last decade.
In any event, it is clear to us in Israel that both the Israelis and Palesitinians are victims of a militant leadership that insists upon living in a hateful past, instead of working together towards building a future for its people. Rabend (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with the entire last statement, except for 'as someone actually living in Israel'. A modern democratic country upholds its own law and international law, not so with Israel with respect to the illeagal speration wall and not allowing foreign reporters intro Gaza, both of which the Israeli Supreme Court stated must be stopped, as well as settlement activity, the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and Golan, and countless other violations of international law. Sure the people may or may not want to live in peace, there are certainly thoose who wish to see the entire Palestinian people removed, countless settlers have committed horrific acts of violenece against Palestinians who have done them no harm. (Yes some Palestinians have commited horrific acts against individual Israelis that have done them no harm either). The idea that Israel really wants peace with its neighbors is proven incorrect by its actions. Syria has stated it will negotiate with Israel provided that Israel accepts to borders as recognized by the international community (ie give back Golan to Syria and Sheeba to Lebanon), Jordan and Egypt already have peace treaties with Israel. The whole of the Muslim world would grant recognition of Israel if it performs its duties under international law. And the Palestinians are not a victim of a 'militant leadership that insists upon living in a hateful past,' they did indeed vote to have them be their representative. It seems to me if you want peace than you negotiate with whoever is the representative of the people that you are in conflict with, here Israel decided that they would not negotiate with Hamas, so long as Hamas did not recognize preconditions, such as the recognition of right to exist. All this time Israel has never once recognized Palestine's right to exist. As far as using human shields, the UN and Hamas have both stated that they were no militants at the school, so how exactly are they using them as shields? Gazans are not a victim of Hamas, they are a victim of an Israeli occupation and attack. I dont see how much clearer that could acctually be. Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have seen my share of individuals who are only capable of seeing their own side, and I must admit you rank pretty high up there. None of what I say is true, all of what you say is true, Palestinians have been victims for 60 years and they will forever be that, and Israel is comprised of evil sadists who enjoy killing innocent babies. There is no middle ground, right? No chance that someone on your side might take some of the blame as well. Well, good luck with that. That is just the kind of attitude that's keeping the middle eastern countries in the 3rd world. Nevertheless, have a good day. Rabend (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say everything you say is wrong, and I know I am biased in this (this discussion, I try very hard to keep my personal bias out of my edits). I don't think Israel is filled with evil sadists, but I think that the leadership is not interested in peace, or they would have taken steps needed to achieve it. And I truly hope that the Palestinians do not continue to be victims. What I think is keeping the middle eastern countries in the developing world is the leadership in those countries are corrupt and only looking after themselves, not their people. There is plenty of blame to go around, hell if the Arabs had accepted the original partition plan things might be quite different. What I take issue with in your comments is the idea that the Palestinians are to blame for their situation, they are one group that I think is blameless here. The blame in my mind goes to Israel, Egypt and Jordan for the historical apathy for the Palestinians while they were in control of the territory. As a side question, do you think that you are capable of seeing the other side? I can certainly understand the position that Israel is under attack from these rockets and had to respond, I think it is bullshit but I do understand it, and I would very much like to see a middle east where Arabs are not attacking Israelis and Israelis are not attacking Arabs, but to say that Hamas or the Palestinians are to blame for their situation I think is an odious statement. I do, with all sincerity, wish you peace and happiness, and that you have a good day as well. (And I don't think anybody enjoys killing babies, even the *wink* evil sadists in Israel) Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Websters defines massacre as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." First it is important to note that the language used in the definition is purely subjective, that is to say that when it is written "usually" or "circumstances of atrocity" it all depends on who you ask, I think that since there is clearly dispute on this issue the word massacre would be unfit for use in this article due to POV issues. Secondly, even if we would use the subjective definiton, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476664,00.html this article cites the Israeli Defence Force that claims that Hamas was using the building to shoot rockets and it also presents this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI youtube video. The civilians who were inside the building are no longer protected by the Geneva convention, and they are not protected by common sense either. If there is a war, and someone is shooting rockets. Dont hide near him when there are chances the backlash will spill onto you. Either get rid of him or move yourself. It would be biased to claim this as a massacre. (213.8.225.111 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Even if this were true, international law guarantees the victims of aggression the right to resist. NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to post a comment that starts with "even if this is true" you should probably a)point out what is not trueand b) bring proof to show it is not (especially if there are references that claim "it" is). Also, with a username like "NonZionist" it is clear you are pushing an agenda/bias. Please, for the preservance of Wikipedia, keep your opinions to yourself. If you are going to critique do not do it in a manner that makes rash statements that are based on inference, guesswork and rumors.Do it in a constructive manner, if you are uncapable of this. keep it to yourself. This is not meant to insult you or your opinions but rather a sharp notification that especially in an article as charged as this one, transparent implementation of POV should be unacceptable on WP Relidc (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The U.N. is repudiating the IDF charge, so I was absolutely right to question the IDF version. The "Non-" in "NonZionist" is like the "non-" in "non-biased": It indicates my desire to be free of ideological prejudice. I do try to keep my tone civil and constructive, but that is hard when people are trapped in the grip of murderous fascist "logic". I'm sure many others here feel as I do. NonZionist (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
How in any way that is sane, are you (and you happen to be grouped in with a bunch others) claiming that Israel is murerous and facist. Unless you dont really understand what they mean. Israel is a concensus democracy (if you dont know what that means it means everyone who receives enough votes gets a seat in their parliment based on proportion of votes.) everyone, the winning party and the smallest minority, have their say in the government. This happens to be the farthest thing away from fascist that is still a democracy. Murdering is a little harder to define but lets look at Hamas for a second. Sure they won their democratic elections, and they are now the sole representation in Gaza, no reflection of the minority party (Fatah) but i guess thats not really correct since there is no minority party anymore cause Hamas murdered them all. Sounds a bit more like Fascism to me. And the murdering... Israel fires precision guided missles at military targets. Yes, civilians die but this is accidental, not that accidental means acceptable but there is a concept of collateral damage. Hamas sends unguided rockets at cities with no military presence what so ever. Ignoring the whole slew of problems this creates, it violates two main articles of the geneva accords (firing on civilians when there is no military presence, firing unguided rockets). So even if you want to claim Israel is murderous and fascist. How is Hamas not? Thucydidies (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there are no exact figures and no way to verify anything yet. If you remember the Battle of Jenin, you might know that it's worth waiting for official figures and details, before jumping to conclusion. According to the Palestinian side, there were 45 children and women there? According to IDF there were Hamas' mortar brigades and important militant commanders. The only thing we do know is that IDF shot at the school because they were fired upon from there, and that there are casualties. IDF also gave names. For now, it's just one foggy battle. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct Nomæd, an IDF spokesperson is not a reliable source, just as a Hamas spokesperson is not. The IDF cannot lie straight in bed. And it is not "the" official statement, it is desperate propaganda to retroactively justify their butchery. UNWRA spokesman Christopher Gunness (a somewhat more reliable source, you must agree) denies that Hamas was using the school to attack Israeli troops. If they were fired upon from the school, the very least they could do is wait for orders before responding. Are they not professional soldiers, at least some of them? If they returned fire indiscriminately (and I believe they did based on IDF comments at the time) then they committed a war crime. Karldoh (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare IDF's reliability with Hamas. Again, Hamas are using a very common device in the circles of radical Islam; Battle of Jenin, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, etc. But if you see them in the same way, I have nothing more to add. And you know what, about UN, they have been pushing Anti-Israeli decisions as long as I can remember. It's not surprising, considering the arab oil they love so much. UN is NOT an unbiased source. See the history of UN decision concerning Israel, and you'll see that they've been Anti for a long time. Also, see how much they scream and condemn about every single (even small) military action Israel (UN member) performs against Hamas (unrecognized), while they do nothing about enormous genocides in Africa, nor do they do anything about Hamas' missiles. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
UN is all the countries together... If the UN has a "anti-Israel" bias, it would be because the World would have a anti-Israel bias... And I don't buy it, wasn't in UN a helping force in creating Israel? If they truly were anti-Israel there would be sanctions and similar things for the genocidal tendencies preformed on the Palestinian people. — chandler — 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Gunness, spokesperson of the Unrwa have now stated to AFP that they are 99.9% after initial inverstigations that there were NO Hamas militiants in the school [15][16] [17]. Not looking good for Israel — chandler — 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive been observing these conversations for quite some time, one small question. Why is it that Israel takes heat for hitting a school or mosque, when their intention was to kill terrorists. But when Hamas fires rockets into Israel (clearly not targeting military installations) and they hit civillians and schools and so on, it gets ignored. My main concern with these discussions is the ignorance of the intent. Hamas fired rockets into Israel as retaliation for a blockade, something lobbying or peaceful protests could have solved. Now when Israel defends itself they are called the oppressor. Maybe if there was some organized government in Gaza, this situation could be avoided. But the world, and apparently the fine editors of Wikipedia, are convinently forgetting and failing to mention that Hamas is a listed terrorist organization. Im seeing a lot of anti-Israel sentiment here hiding under the mask of "academia" (you 'scholars' know who you are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucydidies (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's anti-Israel to now think it's ok for them to have a free range and do what ever they want against other peoples? Just so you know Hamas is the elected goverment in Gaza. And for everyone who considers Hamas a terrorist organisation it shouldn't come as a surprise if they preform acts of terror, but when a "free democratic country" sinks to that same level while still trying to hold on to the moral high ground, everyone won't stand for it. If any other country in the world bombed a school filled with refugee families killing the same number civilians, it would cause an out cry. So it's not anti-Israel, it's anti-hypocrisy and anti-killing human beings — chandler — 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
In Gaza, ruled by the "freely elected" Hamas, People are being shot in public for being suspected in collaboration with Israel, no trail, no jury. This is why I also have to question the UN "reports" coming out of Gaza. I can only imagine what would happen to UNRWA personell there once UNRWA starts accusing the Hamas in war crimes (not to mention that many, if not most, UNRWA personell in Gaza are Palestinians)...--Omrim (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about the UN being "99.9 certain" that there were no militants inside the school has no source...the sources (128 at the current moment) leads to a dead link. If you really want to use that as proof that Israel had "intentionally" attacked civilians, you'd best find actual proof for it, cause right now it's not there. 99.237.129.197 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Yorky

You've been in the dark for long if you've missed it being reported all over... Or just have access to a pro-israeli propagated media outlet — chandler — 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The 99.9% issue is widely reported in "pro-israeli propagated media outlets" also. For ex: [18] --Omrim (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Im going to try to wrap my head around what Chandler just said... Because an organization claims it is, or is deems a terrorist organization it "shouldnt come to a suprise if they preform acts of terror" ?? Is that in anyway a rational response? Perhaps we should include in the article "Israel's response to Hamas was unjust because Hamas said they were terrorists, and therefore had the right to fire rockets at innocents." Essentially what you said is that it is acceptable for terrorists to kill civillians, because thats what they are there for. But it is unacceptable for a legitamate country to defend itself from terrorists because it risks collateral damage because said terrorists are hiding amongst civillians. As for the "democraticly elected government" I dont know if you could really call it that considering they killed all the opposition. Hussein and Castro were also democratically elected this way. And to get to the point of this whole rant, Read the article posted by Omrim, 2 of the bodies found were confirmed as members of Hamas. So much for the 99.9% As well as the fact that Israel has called a cease fire so supplies could be brought into Gaza, name me one war, ever, where the nation with the upper hand allowed its enemy to restock. Yes, Israel is quite the Ruthless oppressor. Thucydidies (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
WRONG and ridiculous assertion, why dont you actual look up what you are talking about Palestinian legislative election, 2006 were described as the freest and fairest elections the arab world had ever seen. And because Israel confirms that 2 of the dead were Hamas militants does not make it so, and further does not make it so that they were engaged in hostilities at that point. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article currently states that Hamas militia were firing mortars from inside the school grounds. If I'm reading this CNN report correctly, it seems that the Israelis are now officially saying that Hamas were "in the vicinity" of the school and "next to the wall" of the school but not necessarily inside the school compound itself. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, why don't we present the FULL statement by UNRWA? Gunness indeed said that UNRWA "is 99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school" but immidiatelly added that "That does not necessarily contradict Israel's claim that the militants were operating close by".[19] How close is "close by" I wonder? Suddenly it is not such a "black and white" statement. Context, it is all about context. I think we should add the second part of his statement to the article as well.--Omrim (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And as per CNN report, maybe you should read it again. Palmor specifically says within "school grounds".--Omrim (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the CNN report Yigal Palmor clarified that "the immediate vicinity" meant "right next to the wall." But, he added, "What wall exactly I'm not in a position to say now.". BBC television news has tonight reported that Israeli government sources have "admitted privately" that Hamas were not operating from inside the school compound. I think there is more to be revealed about the facts of this incident if and when the 'fog of war' clears. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...and Mr Palmor himself has now appeared on BBC television to be given the full Paxo treatment. Palmor stated that a Hamas mortar team were within metres of the school compound wall but under questioning was unable to say on which side of the wall they were positioned. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, as we can see from the 2:25 long video, it only takes a matter of minutes to launch rockets and disband. I am sure no one in the school even noticed. Chesdovi (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The video was from more than 1 yr ago, to use that as a basis for they were firing rockets from that location at a time when there were a mass amount of civilians taking refuge is unfounded, and to further use it as a justification for an attack on said location is also unfounded. Nableezy (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
1) regarding the "fairest elections the arab world has ever seen" need i remind you of what happened a few months later? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007). Funny how there is no Wikipedia page about how after Bush won in 2000 he took Al Gore to the top of the Empire State Building and threw him off of it... right. And yes the video was from a year ago, but they claim that they were being shot at then from tht location, and just because the video we see is old doesnt mean they are lying. Why would the Israeli military want to blow up a school? Also I read that due to a series of explosions after the school was hit, it is most likely they were storing ammunition there. I'll try to find that source. The Israeli military has said that the two militants were found, Hamas has a history of using civilian shields, the UN is saying they are "pretty sure" there was no one but there is still that .1%, from an objective standpoint it would make sense that Israel is telling the truth on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucydidies (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The battle was a result of fatah and the PNA, and the rest of the world refusing to recognize a farily elected government, and attempting to usurp the powers of the legislature and PM to hold on to power, so no I dont need any reminder as to what happened later. Also, Israel has now admitted that there were no militants in the school and that there were no rockets being launched in the school, so not much of a leg to stand on. 99.9% does not translate to pretty sure, it would more likely be represented as almost certain. I dispute that Israel can be trusted any more than Hamas on this issue, and it does not make sense 'from an objective stanpoint' to assume that Israel is telling the truth here. Nableezy (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_8&oldid=1136276412"