Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Pavlovian Presumption

Youtube is surely not considered RS, but when embedded in JPost, it looks much better: IDF did more to safeguard civilians than any other army. Here's a full transcript International Law and Military Operations in Practice. Just one short paragraph, a teaser: 'During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. This sort of task is regarded by military tacticians as risky and dangerous at the best of times. To mount such operations, to deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

still not a RS, just the opinion of one former British colonel. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<=> International Law and Military Operations in Practice | Col. Richard Kemp | UK Affairs | 07/07/2009

- Igorp lj (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not just a one colonel, but the former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, one former colonel who was commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. Nableezy (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This article describes a real situation involving a real humanitarian crisis. Scalar terms like "huge amounts of humanitarian aid" contain no useful information for this article. The humanitarian orgs have provided information that highlights the difference between what they receive and what they require. It's the difference between those 2 quantities that contains useful information relevant to this article. To present incomplete information to promote a particular way of interpreting information is a propaganda technique. We shouldn't have propaganda in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was for the article? It was for you to read. But still, after reading one short para., you miss the point. It is not about the quantity of the aid that was or was not or ought to be supplied to Gaza. It is about the fact that Kemp believes (and he is competent in this field as a former commander) Israel and IDF did more for the civilian population in Gaza than troops under his command. He says it is 'normally quite unthinkable' to provide humanitarian relief that might fall into hands of enemy and many more interesting things. Let's put it this way: our minds are set up and this discussion will not probably change that. I for one read the entire AI report yesterday, and even though some of their findings are disturbing, it didn't change my point of view in general (because other findings they report are dubious, many (maybe not all but still) of their conclusions are speculative or simply erroneous and the way the report is written is unbalanced to such an extent you cannot help questioning its credibilty). So at least be equally fair - read what others (2 experts in strategy and military matters, Kemp and Cordesman) have to say. Btw, I got no answer but I am still curious - what do you know about current conflict in Sri Lanka? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The military see the world from a military perspective. That's what they're for and like everyone else there's a spectrum of opinions. That's fine. I don't think it's useful to ask about Sri Lanka for this article but since you've asked I'll answer to be polite. You asked the wrong person. Firstly, I grew up in the UK so like many millions of people around the world I'm very familiar with the decades old conflict. It's been on my TV screen my whole life. Secondly, my Sri Lankan aunt let me go on a rollercoaster on my own when I was far too young for which I am eternally grateful. That is about as relevant to this article as any other info about Sri Lanka. I do know that Israel supplies military equipment to Sri Lanka, complains about violations of IHL by Sri Lanka and yet Israelis generously donate large amounts of their own money to charity to help the people of Sri Lanka. This probably tells us something profound about human nature and society which is beyond me. I'll end with some Tamil wisdom from a Tamil friend. If your child sees a couple kissing and asks you what they're doing tell them that the man is counting the lady's teeth. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Loved it (your answer and especially the wisdom). I'm a bit embarrassed to admit but til the day before yesterday I knew virtually nothing (except for the name 'Tamil Tigers'). Then, I came across this: The United Nations has previously said 7,000 civilians were killed in fighting between January and May, and this is a lower estimate. No, no, it has nothing to do with the article. Only with my soapboxing. But I'll stop here. Thanks for a break anyway, peace to your relatives and friends in Sri Lanka whoever they are. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my aunt was much better at gambling than she was at surviving a stroke. Such is life. Strokes are much more successful at killing people in Israel-Palestine than rockets and warplanes etc and yet Hamas and the IDF hardly ever comment on them. Luckily for you I don't have an aunt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and I barely know where it is so if you were to re-formulate your question and ask what I know about the DRC instead then your point about inequality in media coverage etc would work very well and we would probably agree entirely. Anyway, I see from an edit summary that you have requested a discussion about this article which I suppose is what we should be doing... Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be embarrassed. If you watch CNN you probably know more facts about Michael Jackson than a whole camp full of Tamils. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks the almighty I don't watch CNN, but if I was, I would probably know more facts about Michael Jackson than Leonard Cohen. While it is interesting to understand why MJ produced much greater impact in the world than LC, it is a question irrelevant here. Still, I wonder, how come a person who lives in Thailand, brought up in UK, has apparently no relation to Jews or Arabs and most likely is not Muslim, is so much aware of the I-P conflict. How come millions of people in the world are so much aware of it, knowing virtually nothing about conflicts in other parts of the world? For how long China occupies different territories and suppresses other peoples there? For how long Russian empire rules other peoples and deprive them of self-determination? For how long Turkey occupies half-Cyprus and crushes brutally every attempt of Kurds to gain 10% of rights Arabs have in state of Israel? For how long Basques and Corsicans strive in vain for self-determination? These are the most trivial examples, hundreds more could be found. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Sean, I believe that he gets all of his information from Wikipedia. It really is a wonderful resource. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish that were true. Maybe one day. I get everything from Electronic Intifada and CAMERA. Doesn't everyone ? Wikipedia is fantastic though. The best thing about articles in Wikipedia is the references section. They're a superb resource. That's why I think we should be a bit more rigorous about where we source info if possible. People can find things in there they would never find by just using search engines (e.g. a ref section is where I got the UNWatch quote, something I would never have read otherwise). And Sceptic to satisfy your curiosity, pretty much everyone has their own connection to the I-P conflict don't they ? Mine involves working/travelling in the Middle East for years (and coincidentally working in Cyprus and Corsica...not the same as Gaza methinks), many stories from a relative who was in Palestine in 1948 in the army, too much TV/reading, a pathological aversion to religion and the fact that "reality has a well-known liberal bias". I can only apologise for any unfortunate results and distress this causes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing us with more of your personal background, but you know, it was a rhetoric question. Ask an average person in London or Paris or NY or Buenos-Aires or Tokio - it is more likely that they will be aware of I-P conflict than Sri-Lanka or DRC. And yes, I agree, Cyprus and Corsica is not the same as Gaza - Gazans do not live under occupation anymore, even though Gaza is blockaded and life there is apparently hard; on the contrary, Corsicans and Basques live in good conditions but their struggle for independance is brutally repressed. Too bad people around the world are unaware of such basic facts. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

++
Hamas, the Gaza War and Accountability under International Law, Thursday, June 18, 2009

Session One: The Limitations of International Law in Handling the War on Terrorism

Chairman: Adv. Sigall Horovitz, Legal Officer, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; PhD Candidate, Hebrew University
Daniel Taub, Director, General Law Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Prof. Yoram Dinstein, Law Faculty, Tel Aviv University
Prof. George P. Fletcher, Columbia Law School
Prof. Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director, NGO Monitor; Bar-Ilan University; Jerusalem Center Fellow
Dr. Roy S. Schondorf, Legal Consultant to Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Israel

Session 2: International Law and Military Operations in Practice

Chairman: Maj.- Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Program Director, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Jerusalem Center
Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, Law Faculty, Tel Aviv University; Former Head of the International Law Department, Military Advocate General's Office
Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan
Col. (res.) Adv. Daniel Reisner, Former Head of the International Law Department, Military Advocate General's Office; Herzog Fox, Neeman and Co.
Major Gil Limon, International Law Department, Military Advocate General's Office; Former Legal Advisor for the Israeli Mission to the United Nations

Summaries of the Presentations:
...
- Igorp lj (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the US reconstructing Iraq by itself? Cryptonio (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamas makes IEDs out of plastic bottles thus depriving puppies of chewy toys while also breathing air intended for civilians

Apparently I missed the point. I'm listening. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You see, according to IHL, when there's strong suspicion the enemy will make improper use of humanitarian aid, there's no obligation to supply it. This is what I inserted to Int-Law section. But the more reports we have in the article, the better. I say the bottles stay. Israel is not in war with US, not yet, so it is irrelevant. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Improper use like having a drink of water or eating for example. So, are you able to explain the decision procedure you used to conclude that for this particular information the following process was appropriate in terms of due weight and such like. IDF statement -> Yaakov Katz article -> inclusion in this article ? The reason I ask is that it's notability appears to be derived from a theory rather than from reliable sources. In other words it's notable based on the notion that it could conceivably be used by the IDF as evidence to be presented to the Supreme Court of Israel in an application to change the terms and conditions governing the blockade. Have reliable sources outside Israel picked it up for example ? I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report, I'm just not clear about why this particular instance of improper use is in the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I love your sarcasm, Sean, but sometimes you take it to places not exactly appropriate. You do question the reliability of the report. What do you expect, soldiers would take it to the Guardian or BBC? Thanks the almighty, JPost is still included in the list of RS. Your perception of the report is as much speculative as the article itself. And this is what it says: Medicine bottles, transferred to the Gaza Strip as humanitarian aid by Israel, were used by Hamas as grenades against IDF troops during Operation Cast Lead. Pictures of the grenades were obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post. Now to your question - I say why not? It is there for months, even before me. You wanted at one point to include more info about Israeli weapons (like drones) and Cptnono started doing something in this direction. Why can't we keep the Palestinian military activities as they were? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like this sentence stands alone, I could add one or two more, based on sources I used in Int-Law section. Maybe it is worth to search for more like this one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for the inappropriate statements. This stuff is so depressing that I can't help it. No, I'm really not questioning the reliability of the report at all. Not one bit. That's not my point. It's entirely plausible but if it hasn't been picked up by the international media I always wonder why and question whether it's notable. That's an answer to your 'why not ?' question. No disrespect to JPost although I do sometimes wonder why Katz doesn't simply provide a link to the IDF site rather than spend time writing articles or making up terms like 'medicine grenades' but that's just me. I'm in favour of adding more details about Palestinian 'military activities' but I would rather see them pass through the sanity check/due weight filter of the international media or a specialist neutral military site. I'm uncomfortable with us simply allowing the IDF -> Katz -> Wiki information flow to happen without some sanity checks. There is an information war. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well kudos to Hamas for recycling (I'd have called them "eco-grenades") but they presumably didn't need Israeli bottles to package explosives. So that was a cute story but I don't see why it needs to be in the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful sense of humor, JGG. How exactly do you think they collected these bottles? By going to garbage site? By knocking on doors of ill people asking them no to throw away used medicine bottles? Didn't it occur they simply laid their hands on humanitarian aid, emptied its contents and used it they way they need? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadians have the lowest confirmation bias scores on earth. Okay, I just made that up but it could very well be true...or not. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. But I'm sure there are lots of ways. Even in a country like Canada it would be easy to get the bottles from pharmacies and other dispensers. But I'm sure that all the garbage in Gaza is combed through by waste pickers pretty thoroughly.

You say "the way they need". That's the thing -- I don't think they needed the bottles. And the article doesn't say so either. If I tried to make some grenades in my basement, I would uncork the champagne once I got the explosives and the fuse: the case just isn't that big a deal. Although I'd prefer metal for the shrapnel factor just like in a traditional jam tin grenade. The ITIC says these plastic ones are inefective outdoors.[1] They also say that Super-Vit is for plants and not people. Hamas has access to metal. In fact they even have access to actual jam tins.[2] --JGGardiner (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

All this chat is nice, but I don't understand what its all about. Katz from JPost reproduces words from Israeli representatives who charge Hamas with misuse of humanitarian aid. I can merge it with other incidents of misuse. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be merged with this one: 'Several instances of Hamas seizing convoys of humanitarian aid were reported before and in the course of the fighting.'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

AI Casualties

It seems as if, in its report - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm - AI is providing casualty data that is not sourcing back to the PCHR etc. They largely resemble numbers given by Palestinians.

"Amnesty says some 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the 22-day Israeli offensive between 27 December 2008 and 17 January 2009, which agrees broadly with Palestinian figures."

"More than 900 of these were civilians, including 300 children and 115 women, it says."

Reasons why it hasn't been added? Cryptonio (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A quote directly from AI report: 'Some 1,400 Palestinians were killed in attacks by Israeli forces during Operation “Cast Lead” between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009. Some 5,000 were injured, many maimed for life. Hundreds of those killed were unarmed civilians, including some 300 children, more than 115 women and some 85 men over the age of 50. The figure is based on data collected by Amnesty International delegates in Gaza and on cases documented in detail by local NGOs and medical personnel in Gaza.' It is hard to understand from this sentence to what extent they rely on self-collected data and to what extent AI rely on data from PCHR. Anyway, their numbers correlate precisely with PCHR data. PCHR said 313 children and 116 women killed. Such precision is suspicious - figures from Al-Mezan group similar but slightly differ. AI figures do not differ at all from PCHR. I think it would require stronger arguments to claim that AI had done independant research on their own. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We could add them and later add all the accompanying dissent(F.E. the numbers are a carbon copy from PCHR numbers). We can't argue about the level of research that they performed(how would we do that?) when the UN largely employed PCHR numbers when it was really fashionable etc. That AI numbers resemble anything can be looked at in two different ways, and both ways are conductive to certain camps. Cryptonio (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'the UN largely employed PCHR numbers' - exactly, and they even said that PMoH numbers are not contested. But this doesn't mean UN made an undependant self research, and we don't use UN directly in casualties numbers. Since it is unclear and impossible to know how they obtained that figures and to what extent they did relied on PCHR (they refer to local NGOs) - I would recommend to refrain from using them as a source for casualties. However, it is concievable to insert a sentence based on AI in disputed figures. I would like to hear from others. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Studies Institute

I was looking for a decent academic source about Hamas and chums' military tactics etc. It's unfortunate that the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute published this report just prior to Cast Lead but the report (and the refs) might be useful in someway (maybe in other articles) just in case anyone is interested. HAMAS and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

References

too much space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, what is this? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Me is such an idiot...--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up to Goldstone team

The UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict is scheduled to begin hearing two days of testimony Monday from residents of the Gaza periphery on their life under the constant threat of Kassam rockets and mortar fire from terrorist groups inside the Gaza Strip. Btw, heard on a radio today that Noam Shalit is about to testify too. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Noam Schalit, father of captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, will appear before the UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict in Geneva Monday. Nableezy, I'm not starting this again, just ask yourself why and how is it relevant to fact-finding team of Gaza war.

Eli Moyal, former Sderot mayor: "The army should have struck in 2001, when the first rockets began to fall in Israel. That would have nipped the attacks in the bud." I am afraid he's a little bit mistaken - the first rockets were indeed launched in 2001, but actually reached Israeli territory in 2002. On the other hand, intent is all that matters. Still, 2002 is a long way before the disengagement, blockade, lull, etc. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Noam Schalit, father of captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, appeared before the UN fact-finding mission on Operation Cast Lead on Monday. Not helpful to the article but worth to take a look. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, why not? Deserves a sentence in the para. about the Goldstone team. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Complementary from Haaretz: Noam Shalit to UN: My son's abduction was a war crime. 'Ashkelon Mayor Benny Vaknin also testified before the committee, as did Ophir Shinar of the Sapir College in Sderot, Dr. Mirlo Sidrer, who was injured during a rocket attack on a medical facility at the Ashkelon mall, and a resident of Sderot, Noam Bedein, who heads a public relations group on behalf of the city. Bedein showed the committee short films on the lives of the people of Sderot during the eight years under the threat of Qassam rockets. "We documented the residents running for cover and the horror of their lives in recent years. We presented statistics and findings of research, so that they could understand what the residents of the Negev went through." --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

→More from JPost: Israel believes the mission's findings were decided ahead of time. It doesn't help Goldstone's case that mission member Christine Chinkin, a law professor at the London School of Economics, signed an editorial published in the Sunday Times in January calling Operation Cast Lead a war crime. Would you go before a judge who had already told the media you were guilty?.

In each wave, the UN's Human Rights Council, in which Iran and Libya play a central role, established biased "inquiries" providing NGOs with additional platforms.

Finally, Monitor (sorry, Nableezy) sends letter to Goldstone team - NGO Monitor Warns Goldstone Inquiry on Dangers of Biased NGO Claims. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope last for today - Dershowitz. Some say he's brilliant, other accuse of being unveiled propagandist. This won't be used, but it fits the subject of the thread The UN kangaroo "investigation" of Israeli "war crimes". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not. Nothing new, but still: UN Gaza investigation 'in final stage'. 'A UN-backed investigation into Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip is its final phase, international investigator Richard Goldstein said Tuesday. He noted, however, that it was too soon to conclude that war crimes were committed during the conflict.' I wonder when it won't be soon enough to conclude that rockets launched to kill and terrorise civilians in southern Israel is a war crime. One more thing - they heard testimonies from the West Bank. I don't really understand why, but the question I was asking Nableezy above, can be boomeranged back at me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz would be a good source if we were talking about certain aspects of US criminal law, on international law or anything related to the Arab/Israeli conflict he is useless as a source as any number of sources can show (not just Norman Finkelstein, but Israeli historians who have showed his research to be fraudulent. Nableezy (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The man who told you that Finkelstein or Ilan Pappe are more reliable than Dershowitz - lied you in the face, but don't worry, I wrote above that I didn't intend to use it in the article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My favourite criticism of Ilan Pappe by an intellectual heavyweight is this one by Janet Levy.

"It is noteworthy that, during the question and answer period following his lecture, Pappe entertained queries mostly from students of Arab appearance".

It really ought to be in Wikiquote fully attributed. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, on this topic Finkelstein and Pappe are both recognized historians who have done considerable research and contributed, in peer reviewed texts, much scholarship. Dershowitz is not. I do not plan on getting into a debate about this, but Alan Dershowitz is not a historian, is not an expert in international law, is not recognized by anybody as having contributed any serious scholarship to this field. Both Finkelstein and Pappe have. There are a number of Israeli Zionist historians that are perfectly fine as sources, Dershowitz however is not. Nableezy (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we couldn't include a point raised by someone like Dershowitz. He might not be a "serious" historian but, like it or not, he's a well-known commentator in the field in the same way that Chomsky is or at least was in the 70s. Dershowitz might not be the best at it or my taste but he's notable enough that we could mention a point he raised. Not that we should but I think we could. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JGG, but Dershowitz opinion has very little actual use. Let's see: 'As Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky recently noted: The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 UN member states combined. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel, the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt.' - of course true, but can be verified via other more reliable sources. As for the mandate, its bias would be shown using other sources too. Calling it 'a kangaroo court'? My opponents would immediately find dozens of statements by some notable figures, saying that Israel's refusal to cooperate is the best proof it has something to hide. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More info on Goldstone team

You live - you learn. Here's much more from NGO UN Watch. I guess my some of my colleagues will disregard it as another pro-Israeli NGO (even though Israeli-based Palestinian-sympathetic NGOs won't bother them apparently). However, it seems as notable NGO, even though some of its members are definitely affiliated to Israel. Below I'll try to present without too much comments relevant data in a chronological order. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Preamble: Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC. 'The council has criticized Israel on 26 separate occasions, in resolutions that grant effective impunity to Hamas, Hezbollah and their state sponsors. Obsessed with condemning Israel, the Council in its first year failed to condemn human rights violations occurring in any of the world’s 191 other countries. In its second year, the Council finally criticized one other country when it “deplored” the situation in Burma.'

1. Relevant to our matter, it all starts on January 12th, 2009, with Resolution S-9/1: The grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip. Bullet 14: 'Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.'

2. One step backwards. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime. Future team member, Professor Christine Chinkin, signs a letter that say the following: 'Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary. Israel could have agreed to renew the truce with Hamas. Instead it killed 225 Palestinians on the first day of its attack. As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law. In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes... We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes. Israel has a right to take reasonable and proportionate means to protect its civilian population from such attacks. However, the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas.'

3. Before Goldstone was appointed for the mission, it was apparently offered to former UN rights chief Mary Robinson: I absolutely condemn what Hamas does. And that also should be a subject of inquiry. And unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel had done, and I don’t think that’s a human rights approach. We need an inquiry to look at the violations of international humanitarian law by—potential violations by all sides.

4. UN Watch notes that To be sure, Goldstone claims that the council president gave him special “terms of reference” that expanded this mandate in order to include an examination of all sides, but the president has no power to change a council resolution, and the council itself never amended its entirely one-sided mandate.

5. UN Watch addressed the team directly: Judge Goldstone: Denounce the Gaza Inquiry's Biased Mandate. They asked specifically about the letter signed by Professor Chinkin, asking: 'How can someone be impartial after already rejecting the principal argument of one side of the conflict? Should she not recuse herself?'. The answer was: 'With respect to the letter in question, again that was way before any question of any fact-finding mission, and the letter concerned the very particular issue about of the legality of the use of force, what we call as international lawyers the jus ad bellum, whereas this mandate is the human rights and international humanitarian law, the jus in bellum, which are very different legal questions'. UN Watch notes further: Why Goldstone Mission’s Christine Chinkin must resign. 'Professor Chinkin did not tell the truth. In fact, her January 11, 2009 statement in the Times expressly accused Israel of committing infractions of both jud ad bellum (denying Israel was acting in self-defence) and of jus in bellum (that Israel violated international humanitarian law). Chinkin and her colleagues said that Israel was guilty of acting “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.” In addition, she accused Israel of committing “prima facie war crimes.” Indeed, this was the very title of the statement: “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime.” - see the above link from Times.

6. Unrelated, but still, before I forget: The USA and the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union argued that Falk’s report should be discredited for its unbalanced and unconstructive approach. They suggested that the council look into the objectivity of his mandate, which is to only investigate Israel’s violations while ignoring those of the Palestinians.

7. U.N. Human Rights Council fails to ratify changes to Goldstone Mission. UN Watch notes that 'While on April 3, 2009, the UNHRC president purported to give new terms of reference to Judge Richard Goldstone’s fact-finding mission, the ensuing council session in June failed to take up UN Watch’s challenge to ratify the purported changes, thereby legally preserving intact the original one-sided mandate that pre-determined Israel’s guilt'.

8. International law expert testifies before Goldstone’s Gaza inquiry team.

9. Military expert testifies on weapons use by Hamas, Israel at Goldstone’s Gaza hearings. It is interesting to note that this one was picked up by Reuters: U.N. war crimes inquiry on Gaza wraps up hearings. Reuters do not elaborate on DIME and WP, as noticed in UN Watch report.

10. Father of Israeli captive Gilad Shalit addresses Gazans through U.N. testimony.

11. Goldstone’s Gaza fact-finding mission hears from Israeli victims.

12. West Bank and Israeli Palestinians testify before Goldstone mission.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

13. Picked up by BBC:UN Gaza inquiry wraps up hearings. Mr Goldstone said written questions would now be submitted to Israel and Hamas and the team was aiming to present its report in September. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda lesson 1 - create counter-narratives to distract and discredit. But regarding UN Watch, pro-Israeli ? No way. When the head of UN Watch addressed the "despots" that run the UN Human Rights Council and told them that they "seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state, to scapegoat the Jewish people..." the context was that he was upset that the council wasn't doing enough about Palestinian rights.See, it's here. Clearly reliable and neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time I fail to understand what part of your words is sarcastic and what is serious (or both?). And yes, I know that '... The President of the Council, Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba, responded with quiet outrage, threatening to "remove from the record" any similar remarks said in the future. He said that for the first time, he would not "express thanks for that statement...'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there's no way of telling whether he was genuine about being concerned for the rights of Palestinians or cynically exploiting an entire people to score a cheap political point but either way they're entitled to their opinion. I don't think they're really relevant to the article and I don't think there's any value in embroiling this article in ongoing propaganda wars. Actually, the less partisan opinion we have in the article the better as far as I'm concerned. For example, I'm not really interested in whether AI think something was "devastating". People should just be able to make their own minds up on the basis of the verifiable information we present. Why not just wait for the outcome of the inquiry ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of UN Watch, but the UN Human Rights Council is a sad joke, a ridiculous show put on to attack Israel, while basically ignoring anyone else's questionable actions, or obvious crimes against humanity (Hamas's suicide bombings, for instance). This is an organization with members like Syria or Libya, the well known Human Rights respecting countries. An organization that devotes most of its time to attacking Israel, while spending little time on places like Darfur, etc. The Council was created to replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which was controlled by human-rights abusers, but suffered the same fate. It happily passes completely one-sided resolutions, such as condemning Israel action in Gaza, but never mentioning the rockets fired against Israel cities.

You can read about in United Nations Human Rights Council#Accusations of bias against Israel. okedem (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We know Oke. Anyways, I found this little review of the probe in the latest Jpost: Israel believes the mission's findings were decided ahead of time. It doesn't help Goldstone's case that mission member Christine Chinkin, a law professor at the London School of Economics, signed an editorial published in the Sunday Times in January calling Operation Cast Lead a war crime. Would you go before a judge who had already told the media you were guilty?. Haviv Rettig also cites an interview from Hillel Neuer of UN Watch so that could affirm notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I'm slightly pleased I was there before you - look in the preceding section - and already inserted in the article (even though I intend to reword it). Anyway, good that others are following the happenings here. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It seemed relevant so I'm glad someone noticed before I did. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Gentlemen, let's not focus too much on UNHRC itself. Let's concentrate on what's important to current debate. Sean, this is especially for you. As my links from the above suggest, (1) The original mandate of the mission is one-sided. Despite the best intentions of Goldstone to look into violations from both sides, this was never ratified by UNHRC. (2) One of the team members signed in January a letter which strongly condemns Israeli actions, calling the whole operation 'war crime'. Then she didn't tell the whole truth to UN-Watch when asked. These are 2 major points to understand why Israel refused to provide any sort of cooperation to the team, despite their ongoing efforts to get the legitimization from the Israeli side. The most optimistic Israeli prognosis assume that at best both Israel and Hamas would be accused for war crimes. Israel regards it as impossible that the team will blame Hamas in stronger words as Israel - exactly because their employee is UNHRC that provided them with one-sided mandate. You can disagree with Israel, you can believe it is so wrong to bomb civilians with F16s and drones and burn them alive with WP, you can even think that maybe Israel is indeed the worst violator of human rights in the universe. But there's one thing you can't deny. One can't expect fair trial if the investigation was appointed to discover war crimes of one side and if at least one board member already concluded that gross war crimes were executed by that side. You disregard all this as propaganda? Fine. But you're not objective, your mind is already set up. The same is true about AI and UNHRC. This time, I don't want to wait for Israeli response for the upcoming report, saying that 'Israel rejects the report as unbalanced'. I want to show, prior the publication of the report, why Israel didn't cooperate. Again, you are entitled to disagree with all the above, to dismiss it as propaganda, whatever. Just try to understand once, and try for a minte to shut off your sarcastic-network neurons, that I'm not telling you whether the Israeli assault is justified or not or whether IDF breached IHL or not. All I'm trying to say that Israel can't expect a fair and impartial report from Goldstone team, no matter how hard he tries. Do you see my point? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't see it as relevant. My interest for example isn't in whether Israel gets a 'fair' trial or not or whether something was or was not a 'war crime', or whether somewhere is or is not 'occupied' according to legal opinions and all of the other myriad of abstract notions of fairness, justice etc. I don't even know what those words mean objectively if anything. I'm trying to be objective in the sense that I think it's better for the article to simply describe what actually happened after the events. That means having the self-discipine to simply describe things and resisting the temptation to fit things into our pet theory/model in an attempt to make sense of it all. We're not historians and it doesn't have to make sense. If you're so keen to impose a revisionist Israeli model on everything why not a Marxist analysis, why not a Buddhist perspective, why not a Feminist model ? Isn't it better to focus on the data (i.e. stuff happened) and forget about the theories (e.g. it's all caused by a bored djinn). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'I think it's better for the article to simply describe what actually happened after the events.' - wonderful. This is exactly what I intend to do. The neutral facts are: UNCHR passed resolution that called to appoint a team aimed to investigate war crimes by Israel; one of the future team members signed letter that called Israeli operation 'war crime' in the course of the fighting; despite Goldstone's intent to investigate IHL breaches from both Israelis and Palestinians, UNCHR didn't change his mandate; in June the team visited Gaza; despite formal refusal of Israeli Government to cooperate, the team heard in July testimonies of witnesses from southern Israel and WB. This is the stuff that happened. And this stuff is making its way in the dedicated section. When we'll have more, there'll be update. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's sounds fine to me although I'd prefer inquiry starts -> inquiry ends -> findings are -> comments are. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What inquiry? I'm sorry, Sean, I feel obliged to provide minimal background to what is this team and its aim, who are its members and what did they accomplish so far. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You may feel that but you are under no obligation to do so. I guess we shouldn't give it more attention/weight then it's getting in the international media. I don't know what that is. I haven't been following it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am - we are encyclopedia, aren't we? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's not always clear and I hesitate to type 'encyclopedia' into the wikipedia search box and hit 'Go' to check just in case it causes some kind of catastrophic self-referential event. I like your word 'minimal' though. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Its origins are in Minimal Compact. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

UK revokes export licences, links to Op Cast Lead Assault

This article states that Britain has revoked export licences for weapons on Israeli navy missile boats because of their use during the offensive. It says the decision is explicitly linked to Op Cast Lead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/uk-halts-israeli-arms-exports

Perhaps a small mention (no more than a sentence) is in order, either on this article or the int. reactions one. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

it is in there. nableezy - 06:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

More BBC riding on the curtails of AI

Is it just me or has this become systematic? I can't find any comparable press outside of the Arab world that has dedicated so much time to a narrow voice.

Meanwhile, Jpost says rights group has disturbing relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Jpost is inconsistent with BBC. BBC claims the findings contradict government press releases while the IDF claims they were never allowed to review the findings and challenge the anonymous testimonies.

Should we balance the two out or what? I really am having trouble finding similar language the BBC uses in competing newspapers.

Is any of this relevant? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. Jpost simply report on the latest HRW vs Israeli Gov food fight. Seems quite balanced. I couldn't see the BBC saying that there was a contradiction. They just say Israeli military investigations said that troops fought lawfully etc and then fail to mention that these specific allegations weren't part of that. Not sure whether adding more unsubstantiated allegations vs deny, deny, deny adds anything new to the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For those who do not object taking a look at propaganda of NGO Monitor, they reported HRW raised funds in Saudia a month ago: here. Next, Monitor says that "Both of these investigations fall far short of the requirements stipulated in the “Lund-London Guidelines” for “human rights fact-finding visits and reports.” here. Pay attention, Sean, there's a link to Guidelines. It is interesting to read and to try to evaluate do those AI and HRW meet the guidlines or not.

Stuff about HRW raising money in Saudia should be included in HRW article. As for civilian shields, vandalism and firing at water tanks, this would be used somewhere in int-law section. All other bulltes in BBC I see as irrelevant: Rules of engagement, destruction of houses, use of WP - all these is something that is up to command ranks, it is totally wrong to rely on subjective testimonies of low-rank soldiers, they don't see the whole picture. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

For me, NGO Monitor's inability to distinguish between the concepts of 1st and 6th when discussing HRW's reporting priorities provides a simple metric that can be used to make an assessment of their ability to handle more complex issues. I would be interested to see a neutral assessment of HRW's and AI's compliance with Lund-London Guidelines because compliance can be quantified and it's valuable information for everyone. Perhaps deterministic compliance metrics produced by independant bodies are available for these NGO's. Perhaps NGO's publish audit results. I don't know. Either way it's the kind of info that belongs in Wikipedia. NGO Monitor information isn't the kind of info that belongs in Wikipedia in my humble opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"According to NGO Monitor, a Zionist propaganda machine..." There, problem solved. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IDF in moral Twilight Zone

"Israeli combat soldiers have acknowledged that they forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields, needlessly killed unarmed Gazans and improperly used white phosphorus shells to burn down buildings as part of Israel's three-week military offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter."

If these testimonies and statements are correct it will perhaps end diputes in this article about Israels and IDF behavour in Gaza. Toolsother (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

a few links Detroit Freepress APF telegraph Toolsother (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Go blog somewhere else. Those are not the only sources. Some put it under a completely different light. Others strike a good balance and their reporting can be viewed with less skepticism. I liked this one from earlier today and wished this article read a little more like it: [3] One of the best things about it is that it actually lays out the potential positives and shortfalls of its sources so the reader isn't left assuming.Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Im not here for bloging. There will be editing babe. Just waiting for the dust to settle litle more around this report. Toolsother (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. Your initial message leads me to believe you will use sources that are not exactly unbiased and reliable. This article already has enough back and forth. editors need to stop stuffing in every headline they see and improve it. still think there should be an Intl Law during the Gaza War article so this one can be mor ethan a dumping ground for every sensationalist story out ther. Some Israeli soldiers are dicks. That doesn't deserve the weight of half this article.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This make me worried. You are biting me. You dont read what Im writing. Wikioutburned? For the love of Mike, take a break then! Toolsother (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Argh.. snap bite snap snarl". Wasn't trying to come across too aggressive. Sorry about that!Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, an opinion of former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, res. colonel Kemp

A British military expert tells truth to prejudice --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would note that this commander has linked al-Qaida with Iran, which for me makes it hard to take anything else he says seriously. I dont see why his views would be barred from the article, but I do not see the need to include them either. Enlighten me Sceptic. nableezy - 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no more than this former commanders opinions as he dont mention anything that indicate he has informed himself more than anyone reading news. His speach is about the importence of winning the media war for UK military campains. His examples from and about the Gaza War subject is, or well, shouldnt impress anyone. Not professional at all. Melanie Phillips editorial or blog doesnt bring more than her opinion either. Both forwarding IDF and Israels view. Perhaps Melanie Phillips endingwords "Go figure" should be directed to herself. Now, Sceptic Ashdod, what is your point with this link? I also need enlightment. Toolsother (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just let the facts speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ^^^^ Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Many are engaged in this 'headline' game. If the circumstances would require, I'll use it too.

"On the strategic level, any mistake, or in some cases legal and proportional response, by a Western army will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce international outcry and condemnation" - this is exactly what Toolsother does. "...to deliver aid virtually into your enemy’s hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable." - says former commander. At least Sean has balls to admit he understands nothing in military matters. Do you, Toolsother?

Nableezy, it never seemed to bother you the article provides words of Richard Falk (who implied 9/11 was a conspirasy and compared Israeli acts towards Palestinians to that of Nazis)? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No it hasnt. Richard Falk though is currently a United Nations Special Rapporteur and when he speaks in that role he is speaking for the UNHRC. If this colonel is speaking on behalf of the British army then by all means include it. If he is just speaking on behalf of himself I dont see the point. nableezy - 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. Falk could be Adolf Hitler and his "analysis" is still crucial according to wp:V. He acts on behalf of Egypt and Saudi arabia, errr...I mean the UNHRC. There is however plenty of criticism directed at him by organizations and countries beyond Israel (in regards o Gaza). It certainly is suspect to select political activists/crazy professors over apolitical specialists and experts which Israel continues to request. Guilty until proven guilty, as far as the UN is concerned. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, do you think Israel will military 'win' and keep the occupied land without a neverending asymetrical war? And in the long run, how long do you think this behavour from the state of Israel will be confined to the view on Israelis and not be what jews will be judged by? Deep shit, yes. And why dont Israel buy peace for land before Iran or some other country got the real big bomb and use it. Many many thougts how bad this might end if Israel continue like it does now. Damn, Im bloging. Fuck you for baiting me to this, well, /general discussion off. Toolsother (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel gave up Gaza and look what happened. Israel gave up Sinai for a cold peace which mostly benefited Egypt. Peace requires reciprocation, and until the PA meets its obligations according to the Oslo Accords and Road map for peace nothing will change. When Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David Summit the whole world including Bill Clinton, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia blamed the Palestinians. Israel offered them Gaza, 90+% of the WB, and East Jerusalem. Clearly land isn't the issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you stop soapboxing. nableezy - 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I please, please, just something very very short? Please? Palestinian children stand at a gate to the Rafah border crossing in the southern Gaza Strip during a protest against the Israeli blockade. Nableezy will be my witness that we already clarified - Egypt control Rafah on Egypt's border and Egypt sealed Rafah by herself, regardless of agreements between NPA-Egypt-Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Sceptic's excellent proposal to use more photographs in the article to illustrate the plight of civilians caught up in the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a decent goal in itself - as long as we preserve the context... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Belated gloat

All I am saying is that I have been for naming this "Gaza War" since the tanks rolled in.

I am glad the consensus has held so far. This is the most relevant title until the next Gaza War or until there is no more Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

And argument that only hindsight provides, and that hence I didn't use at the time, is that this is not only a geographic descriptor, but actually focuses on what separates this conflict from previous ones: Israel didn't attack the west bank whatsoever as part of Operation Cast Lead. It was the first incursion by Israel in the Palestinian Authority era in which not only the focus but the entire operation concentrated solely on Gaza. It was not a war intended to dismantle/weaken the Palestinian Authority as a whole, but only the part administered by Hamas. This is a defacto change of posture by Israel, and a historically significant difference from previous wars on Palestinians which didn't defacto make a difference between Palestinian actors while on the ground - and which treated the entire PA controlled areas as under attack.

Of course, this is all secondary to the overwhelming support in reliable sources. Good job guys and gals! --Cerejota (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your gloat is somewhat undermined by the fact that until the day before yesterday and for the whole period you were away the article was called 'Operation Cast Lead - A Righteous Victory'. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sean, please don't feed em!... Wikifan, I never left, just have severely constrained editing opportunities. I read teh wikis daily. --Cerejota (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Testomonies & "testimonies"

As I see, so disputed part, being passed to the end of "Ground invasion" and thanks to "balanced" editors, now has already no evidence nor for lie of D.Zamir & Haaretz, no enough for real soldiers' opinion who's honor are trying to dirt those from BTS, D.Zamir & Haaretz and their friends here and throughout the world.
Only example: these words "Soon after the publication of the testimonies, reports implying that the testimonies were based on hearsay and not on the first-hand experience" are deleted regularly without any relation to their truth.

Let's be honest and do not make this article yet battlefield or yet place for Arab propaganda as it stated now just in the beginning of article: "and known as the Gaza massacre"
What massacre? HAMAS wanted this War, made all what it can for the War, and is responsible for all disasters what it (not Israel!) brought for its voters. Somebody can find anything about that in the article?

Returning to the testimonies.
I propose to make a separate part with above-mentioned title and to add there all what is concerns to. Any way, I am going to add to the current paragraph all links what are really missed yet and what were already discussed here in "Second paragraph (Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about" above.
- Igorp lj (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

discussed and ended without any type of consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Yourself (as minimum) did agreed about Maariv, Channel-2 ... as RSs and did not bring some evidence that Camera - no.

Moreover you did not agree to include the evidence & appeal of 65 reservists (who REALLY jeopardized in the War against terrorism) to Mazuz for criminal investigation against Haaretz, and you too did not oppose to include (or added by yourself - I do not want to investigate) the word "several" to the "another kind of evidence was collected from several soldiers". So you give me the good argument to return this link as well. - Igorp lj (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is you are saying. nableezy - 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say, Igorp lj, but as someone mentioned to me above, try not to go too nuts. (Some of us do it more than others when frustrated with other editors). If we are going to use individual reports for subsections, this one can get one pretty easily with the sources available. However, it would be pretty easy to separate into the prose with related information. As a reminder, the AP piece says about everything anyone would need to know. Good and balanced in my opinion: [4] Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about WP:V. Truth is irrelevant. AP source is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some good sources too: IDF soldiers give testimonies to counter Gaza war crimes claims. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The 110-page report, which included videotaped testimonies in which soldiers' faces were blurred out, did not represent a cross-section of the army. Rather, they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. Two were junior officers and the rest were enlisted personnel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And just to make sure we're even steven with Toolsother about HRW: Fundraising Corruption at Human Rights Watch - some counter-propaganda to that blog of yours.; "According to Steinberg...HRW work in other Middle East countries, since the attention Israel gets is way out of proportion to those given those countries, and since much of the work in countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria only really began after 2006 because some of the organization's key donors earmarked their funds for reporting there". Real sorry for ruining the decent thread with biased agenda. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Silence

The report is based entirely on sources within the IDF, and seems to support third-party criticisms of the assault on Gaza. RomaC (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Anonymous testimonies from low-ranked soldiers with IDF spokesman dismissing the report as *shocking* hearsay. Considering the program is bankrolled by governments/organizations that have taken sides most wouldn't say the report isn't particularly unique. Spec gave a nice reasoning in a separate section for a very similar report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to BBC "But Breaking the Silence has a long - and to many, credible - record of getting soldiers to talk about experiences which might not reflect well on the Army. The group is funded by the British, Dutch and Spanish governments, as well as the EU." Toolsother (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Anonymous testimonies from low-ranked soldiers with IDF spokesman dismissing the report as *shocking* hearsay. Considering the program is bankrolled by governments/organizations that have taken sides most wouldn't say the report isn't particularly unique. Spec gave a nice reasoning in a separate section for a very similar report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

re Wikifan: Your description is even less exactly, Wikifan, given the available information. e.g. Haaretz quotes "The soldier said he was present at several such operations", and BBC: "we simply began to fire". That's 1st person talking, not hearsay. Then the IDF-reaction is just spreading fog. And being payed by government doesn't say anything about the statements being incorrect, as you suggest by your research. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You consider that meticulous data? An anonymous soldier claiming he was present in x war-crime? Not to SOAP here (ok, maybe a little), but these organizations possess some of the largest confirmation bias on Earth. Regardless, this is hardly empirical and wouldn't pass in a court of law (maybe international law though, haha). Same deal with Operation Defensive Shield. Organizations from AI, UNRWA, and even the UN published confident reports that evidence of a large-scale massacre conducted by Israeli soldiers existed. They relied on very similar evidence, anonymous yet vivid testimonies that ultimately wasn't consistent when the experts showed up. You need impartial, apolitical specialists to conduct these sorts of investigations, Hamas holding Goldstone's hand doesn't say much integrity-wise. And neither does this "damning" report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you write "international law though, haha", on a war-crime topic, why are you here in the first place? If you don't take war-crimes & Geneva serious, why use the word serious on other writings? -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I take war-crimes and Geneva convention seriously when they apply to all countries, not just Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the good Honest Reporting's questions to those from "Breaking the Silence" : Unanswered Questions, July 15 2009 - Igorp lj (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this would actually be an organized, informative, not bloated like a whale, and neutral enough article if it was written like today's Associated Press piece.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Honest Reporting Toolsother (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly compelling. Nothing particularly offensive about calling the Guardian and enemy of Israel. It is a watchdog and partisan organization (duh), but isn't even comparable to Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs that claims Israel is probably behind the assassination of JFK. At least HR is honest and doesnt pretend to be something it's not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

→Peled: Soldier who testified in Cast Lead report 'was not in the field at the time'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I may email the BBC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, wasnt the 30 testimonies in the report anonymous IDF soldiers? Cant really follow this 'was not in the field at the time' claim. Someone explain please. Toolsother (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow? Low-ranking soldier who gave testimony admits to not participating in the conflict, what more is there? It sure is convenient to keep everything anonymous, or else the IDF could actually confirm or disprove soldier's location (i.e, brutal acts occurred here - soldier was at gay night club in Tel Aviv). :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

→I guess this is one of those cases it is better to look at a primary source, instead of speculations of secondary ones. Cast Lead Testimonies. Pay attention: there are exactly 2 incidents of alleged human shields. Peled claims one is based on hearsay. I havn't read all the testimonies yet, but those that I did read say nothing new. It is concievable that such instances did occur, and even more of them than published. But for most of what I read, they might be disturbing/shocking for the guys like that Michael Something (breaking the silence advocate, who escaped the military service because declared himself pacifist) or for liberal-oriented foreigner who understands nothing about fighting terrorist organization. Most of what I read is an inherent part of such war. Unfortunate for innocent civilians, as it always is. Cptnono made a correct observation. No doubt some IDF soldiers are dicks, some cases involved reckless actions, some caused much harm there. But all these so far change nothing in the whole picture. No other army would have done it better. No other state would have suffered rockets' humiliation longer. Ah, and it seems like there's no evidence of direct and deliberate murder of unarmed civilians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to declare myself as a liberal-oriented foreigner who understands nothing about fighting terrorist organizations (hmmm a new barnstar methinks). I do know quite a lot about massive earthquake damage though. Not sure whether that means I am or that I'm not qualified to comment on what happened in Gaza. Anyway, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Is there consensus to add anything new to the article or not ? Thoughts.. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan please provide a source for your assertion that whistle-blowing IDF personnel frequent homosexual nightspots, otherwise it is original research. RomaC (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan and Sceptic dont seem to spread any wisdom about this obvious contradictory of anonymous IDF soldier for sure was not in field at a given point according to Israeli military brass and some Israeli media. To me its obvious that some here are not sceptical enough to whitewashing and Israel propagandaeffort. And look at this not so suprising revelation. (Israeli Government, AIPAC Stepping Up Attacks on Human Rights Watch). Attacking Rights Groups is generally a bad sign imho. I do hope no editors here got those mails. Toolsother (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You, Toolsoother, obviously didn't read my post properly. According to genuine report of BtS, there are 2 (two) cases of alleged uses of civilian shields. Suppose they are true. Suppose more such incidents had occured. It is a bad practice, banned by Israeli HCJ. Any such soldier/his commander should be brought to trial. And? Israel is an ordinary country with ordinary people, placed in extraordinary circumstances. There are good and not so good people. Just as in every other country on Earth. Single incidents still say very little about general trend. Do you know statistics? Go to AI site or to UNHRC, make some statistics on anti-Israeli remarks there and compare the number to other troubled spots on Earth. US and UK declared war and wage war thousand miles from their homeland, after just a couple of terrorist attacks. Much more civilians died there than in those attacks. Take a look at what happened to Chechnia in recent 15 years. Take a look at China dealing with disturbances in occupied provinces. No other army did this better. Britons, who at least have some standards, did not do it better - says their former commander. Russians, Turks, Chinese and all the rest do not have such.

You know, Sean, what is the funniest part here? If I'd say that based on BtS report there are 2 instances of alleged human shields, Nableezy would revert this and say that as long as we do not have secondary RS, it is OR. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true, if you say that "There were 2 instances of using human shields" cited to this I would revert you. If you introduced this into the campaign section I would revert you. If you introduced this in the intl law section with an explicit cite to the article I would leave it alone. nableezy - 17:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your post. Like you I havnt read the whole Breaking the Silence testimony word for word. What in world are you complaining about? Did I disputed your claim about the testimony of two incidents of using human shields? Most of the other you wrote goes under general discussion in a quite bad tone and I wrote a long answer but didnt published it as this is not the right place. Then Sean answered you in a good way.

In this case is easy to see through Israel propaganda tactics. You brougt the link Peled: Soldier who testified in Cast Lead report 'was not in the field at the time'. Peled didnt gave any trustworthy reasons why the IDF soldiers wasnt in field. The IDFguys was anonymous. Again. How could Peled knowthat they wasnt in field then? Sounds like a blatant lie. You understand now? Doesnt look good bringing such cheap propaganda. Don you see it? Toolsother (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet through Honest Reporting (Breaking the Silence: More Rumor & Hearsay, 16 July 2009): Israel MFA - Reaction to "Breaking the Silence" human rights repor, , 15 Jul 2009
"As with the testimonies made at the Rabin (Pre- Igorp_lj)Military Academy several months ago, a considerable number of the testimonies in this report are also based on hearsay and word of mouth". - Igorp lj (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

→Latest from JPost, could be relevant: The 110-page report, which included videotaped testimonies in which soldiers' faces were blurred out, did not represent a cross-section of the army. Rather, they were troops who had approached the group or were reached through acquaintances of NGO members. Two were junior officers and the rest were enlisted personnel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Something very interesting about credibility of latest HRW report from Reuters - "Human Rights Watch based its findings primarily on debris from Israeli-made Spike missiles, which it said are fired from drones. Spike's state-controlled manufacturer, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., says the missile, which has been sold widely abroad, can be fired by helicopters, infantry units and naval craft...Asked how it was possible to know that the Spikes in question had been fired by drones rather than these other means, Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch's senior military analyst, cited corroborative evidence such as Palestinian witnesses who said they had seen or heard the unmanned aircraft. But Garlasco conceded that two of the incidents cited took place in the evening or night, something that could potentially rule out anyone seeing the small and often high-flying aircraft...". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why even bother question here? It's BBC. It's WP:V right? That's all you hear in these god forsaken articles. Mallerd (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You Israeli guys sicken me, perhaps not every army really knows how to deal with urban guerilla warfare, but they sure as hell do know how to recon and acquire targets with a tank. When they spot a school full of women and children they don't fire. Believe me, you know where you're shooting at when you fire the cannon. If you claim otherwise, you claim those soldiers are idiots. Contradicting that would be. Mallerd (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time you show up to spit venom on the Israelis, please care to do 2 things: first, remind us when exactly did Israeli tank shot at school full of women and children; second, 'sure as hell do know how to recon and acquire targets with a tank' - do you have sources to that? Because, you know, numbers of civilian deaths in Chechnia, Sri Lanka, Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Kurdistan throughout last decade say otherwise. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that some kind of defense mechanism? Always shift the attention? You know you are no different than the Russians in Chechnya, the Sri Lankese on their island, the Russians and Americans and what not in Afghanistan and Iraq. The world must confront your people, the most ridiculous nation in the world, for always shifting the attention. There is a incriminating report? Let's just say the sources are dubious. In Russia, a journalist is being too frank? Let's just kill her. In Iraq, people are celebrating New Year's? Let's just shoot them. Thank god you mentioned those horrible crimes in those countries, you fit in just right. Military from those countries know how to shoot a tank or rifle, they just don't care when they destroy a school, hospital or infrastructures. You know this is the case, you just wanted to say something hoping I wouldn't respond. That's the attitude of Isreal towards the world in a nutshell. Dismissing international reports by Amnesty. Blamage! Mallerd (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you or do you not have source behind 'tank shot at school full of women and children'? Amnesty report will be discussed, trust me, but later. And one more thing. 'You Israeli guys sicken me' - this is an insult, an uncivil remark inappropriate here. Please refrain from such language in future. An apology would be appreciated. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, do you have similar feelings towards Palestinians (and other nations mentioned above too) or it is reserved exclusively to 'the most ridiculous nation in the world'? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on Goldstone

The mandate is to find the evidence for a verdict that has already been handed down by an automatic anti-Israel majority in the HRC. It is not only immoral, but shows contempt for the international community and the truth. We will not cooperate with the mission because its duty is not to find the truth, but to find semi-judicial ways to attack Israel. We know this shpiel and are not willing to play a game that's stacked against us." Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

says Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy. nableezy - 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyways I thought it might be relevant since it is the most recent direct conversation between Israel/UN. It's more precise then simply saying "Israel refuses to cooperate" which is a woeful understatement and borderline dishonest factually-speaking. It is clear Israel has legitimate reasons why it won't cooperate and the UN has legitimate reasons why Israel should cooperate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just making it clear that this came from the Israeli government, specifically the MFA spokesman. Nothing more, nothing less. I dont plan on arguing with you on the legitimacy of the complaints. nableezy - 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? The article is about Israel. I'd imagine their POV is rather important. Edit: Also, if you read the article you'd see that other prominent figures such as Ehud Barak gave similar comments. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read "Nothing more, nothing less"? For what? So that it is clear who said the long quote you provided above. Did I say anything about not including something like this in the article? nableezy - 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You said this only came from the MFA spokesman, that is incorrect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? The quote at the top of this section did not come from the Israeli MFA spokesman and only the Israeli MFA spokesman? The article linked contains somebody else saying that exact same thing? They printed the same quote twice or did they attribute it multiple people? Or maybe, just maybe, the Israeli MFA spokesman said this and I said he said this. Could it be? Gee golly, I dont know, what are we going to do? nableezy - 02:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and my "says Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy" was referring to the quote you copied to the top of this section. nableezy - 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like this is about a special person? Toolsother (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is indeed a very special person. nableezy - 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

→Update to the topic: as our previous discussion revealed, Sean knows at least something about conflict in Sri Lanka. The question is do others? ... the council in May hold a session on Sri Lanka? Yes, but one that actually praised the government, instead of holding it accountable. Comparing the UN session on Sri Lanka with the January session against Israel, the one that created Goldstone's mission...

Goldstone defends Christine Chinkin from bias charge. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the Sri Lankan war. Is that the one where the army firebombed 20,000 civilians and nobody cared? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least according to CNN. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Somehow associates with "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." (no disrespect to civilians killed intended). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel sells newspapers, Sri Lanka does not. Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. BBC world were covering this almost everyday for weeks and weeks. The Sri Lankan spokesman was on virtually everyday denying eveything. He's still on but now he's focusing on the evils of the ICRC etc. Come on guys, drop it. Also, if we're going to start quoting Orwell then I recommend his essay on nationalism as a more suitable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Word. I have given up trying to stop Wikifan from soapboxing, but Sceptic I sincerely hope you change your ways. This is not a forum, this is not a blog, this page serves a specific purpose. Unless you are arguing for a comparison of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel with its treatment of Sri Lanka to be placed in this article this discussion has no place here. If you want to talk amongst yourselves exhange emails or do it on your user talk pages where at least I wouldnt waste my time reading it. nableezy - 08:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what we are talking about: "Has any major media commented on this event in contrast with the Gaza war?" Is that soapboxing? No, it isn't. Israel sell newspapers and Sri Lanka does not. It was a single sentence and not an attempt to stifle a dispute, though clearly Sean took the bait. Anyways, has any major media or notable person provided commentary on the Sri Lanka/Gaza war double standard/hypocrisy/discrepancy in the UNHRC and the world? I'd imagine the latter would go in the reactions page. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an attempt to stifle debate. Quite the opposite. I thought it was an attempt to change the nature of the debate so that it could be directed along a particular trajectory which happens to coincide with a path already mapped out by pro-Israel advocacy organisations on their websites. Israel vs Sri Lanka comparisons are arbitrary. Why not Israel vs Malaria, Israel vs Heart Disease, Israel vs Road Safety. They're all capable of producing the desired propaganda effect and they're all irrelevant to this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

'Unless you are arguing for a comparison of the UNHRC's treatment of Israel with its treatment of Sri Lanka to be placed in this article ...' - I might do. I didn't decide it yet, and I'm not the only one to decide here, but the purpose of inserting this info to talk page about the Gaza War, which is part of I-P conflict, is exactly this. Israel is not above criticism. However, according to UN principles, each country should be treated in similar fashion. This is why Sean's sarcastic (yet again) question 'why not Israel vs. Malaria' is irrelevant. There's nothing bad in comparing comparable things. Sean says Sri Lanka conflict gets constant coverage in BBC. I believe him simply because I'm not competent enough not in this conflict and not in the echo it produces worldwide. Nevertheless, I'm puzzled to learn that UNCHR, the body that conceived the Goldstone team, continue to vote for anti-Israeli resolutions one after another, while hardly condemning conducts of others in conflicts with comparable number of killed. Many tragic events as a result of armed conflicts happen around the globe, but this is the first precedent of this sort - to assemble a fact-finding team to probe the war crimes of Israel alone. While some of the info I provide will be left out of the main article - I do strive to put things in proper context the way I see it. And I find it unfortunate that a decent man like Sean makes so many efforts to empty the article from it. Taking into consideration that Nableezy, as far as I understand, is generally tolerant to views of others even when he disagrees, I sincerely hope this won't jeopardize the combined effort to push the article further, despite recent confrontations. Finally, if the citation from Orwell was inappropriate - my apologies. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats nice, but it doesnt have much to do with the article, only with the real world topic. Sceptic, you have a ton of respect from me; that is why I hope you switch things up a bit, I want it to stay that way. If you want to introduce a comparison to the UNHCR treatment of Israel and Sri Lanka we can talk about that (I would say take it to the UNHCR article, it isnt all that relevant to this article) nableezy - 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, my Israel vs Malaria etc examples aren't sarcasm. I'm trying to make a serious point which is that anything can be compared to anything. People will choose the comparisons that best suit their objectives. If those objectives include advocacy on behalf of something, the promotion of a particular viewpoint/context, the steering of a debate away from the pertinent issues etc then I don't think those comparisons are going to be very enlightening here. It has nothing to do with whether I personally agree or disagree with the views or even care about the issue. It's just that I think it's better if this talk page is an advocacy/flag waving free zone as far as possible. I appreciate that might be difficult. I can't imagine anyone objecting to the Orwell quote. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be compared to anything, but the Sri Lanka and Israeli war are comparable events. Israel vs. heart disease is not. It is an unfair comparison. I think it's very legitimate to see if any main-stream people have commented on the discrepancies. I'd say most are disturbed that the UN has taken such a hard stance with Israel while ignoring the plights of others - others suffering under much, much worse conditions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, I suppose our point is well understood, I suggest we terminate the thread. I'm intending to make some edits to the section in the article in the course of the next days. Of course, my edits are transparent to you and if any of you will have reservations, you know how to reach me.

OK, Gentlemen. You read me, I read you. This is not the first time and I guess not the last that the fragile equilibrium is broken. The wisdom is to assemble the pieces together and move forwards - with good faith and mutual cooperation it won't be hard. C u tomorrow. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamas political violence/Inter Law

Hamas political violence contains a response from Hamas that could be use in Inter Law section as well.

I will move then, the section to Inter Law to reflect the point.

Revert without discussion at will, but do address the concern that has been brought(by editing the Inter Law section to include such a response etc). Cryptonio (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Engagement with Israeli forces

1. The references to para. about Hamas fighters using medical uniforms and facilities got totally messed up, and I think it is because of your POV edits, Nableezy. This how it was before (see the actual URLs): 'Testimonies from local Gazan population, as well as IDF probe published on April 22, stated that Hamas operatives donned paramedic uniforms and commandeered ambulances. IDF officer says his men saw gunmen coming out of ambulances. One ambulance driver told about attempts to lure the ambulances into the battle to transport fighters to safety. An IDF probe also revealed an incident when the UN vehicle had been used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad.'

Apart from several IDF-affiliated reports, there are 2 non-israeli sources that confirm the practice. And you ask what about the driver? it is not just 1, it is 1 + 1. AI don't read inet and wiki? Too bad, but don't accept AI as absolute truth. Maybe the para. could be rearranged. But please fix the links and then insert that AI sentence. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I removed 2 things; what the 1 ambulance driver said, and I still do not see the need to include that account, and the NY Times quote from the ITIC report. I removed that because of two reasons; first, it is covered thoroughly in the intl law section and dont see the point in including it here as well, especially when these are allegations not treated as fact by RSs, and second because I dont think we should be relying on the ITIC report so much. We talk about most of the subjects raised in that report in the intl law section, and I do not see much of the relevance in this section. On a related noted, I plan on going through the psych war/propaganda and anything that is not called either of those two things by a reliable source (read not ITIC) should be removed. Nableezy (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Testimony from ambulance driver

As you know, the media access to Gaza during the fighting was, ehh, restricted. Each neutral testimony counts. We have 2 reporters, Cremonezi and this one, who collected evidence of Hamas misuse of medical facilities. And you remove one. The most I can offer as a compromise - to merge the source in one of the preceding sentences.

I will repeat - you try to make a case out from the AI report. Just because they failed to see this testimonies, you conclude that all the rest is insignificant. Why not go further and replace the entire article with AI report? I've already reproduced the very 1st sentence of AI report: Without warning, Israel unleashed an attack on Gaza. What else do we need? Hamas refused to prolong the lull? insignificant. Fired dozens of rockets on Israel between Dec. 19 and 27? insignificant. Olmert warned Hamas on Dec. 25? insignificant. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It can go like this:

Several testimonies from local Gazan population and from IDF soldiers stated that Hamas operatives donned medic uniforms and commandeered ambulances for fighters transportation. An IDF probe, released on April 22 2009, also revealed an incident when the UN vehicle had been used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, I didnt try to "make a case" I just dont see the point of repeating what a single ambulance driver said. Everything else you mentioned is not insignificant, and that info should be, and is, in the background section. nableezy - 17:48 11.07.2009 (UTC)

I merged it, OK? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is the use of the word "revealed" would rather it say "stated that an incident occurred where a UN vehicle ..." nableezy - 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ITIC report

1. 'is covered thoroughly in the intl law section and dont see the point in including it here as well' - it goes other way round. First the allegation is brought in the main body of the article, then repeated in brief in Int-Law next to the description of the breach in accordance with IHL. Words '... Hamas made a main component of its combat strategy “channeling” the army into the densely populated areas to fight' definitely belong to Engagement with Israeli forces subsection.
2. 'allegations not treated as fact by RSs' - hmm, let's see. NY Times say 'the study presents photographs of militants manufacturing and storing weapons inside houses and of Israeli soldiers finding weapons hidden in a mosque in northern Gaza during a military incursion in March 2008'. Still not enough. OK. Tell me again, what would be that RS you are asking me about? Mass media, like BBC? I showed you already they can't even reproduce accurately statements from HRW and ICRC. NGOs like HRW and AI? They are notable and maybe considered reliable according to your policies, but there's zero chance they would. Apart from 2 examples above, I can easily show you another dozen from AI report of a biased unobjective approach. ICRC? They are concerned with humanitarian issues, and again they are so sympathetic with Palestinian cause they would never produce something from ITIC and we both know it. Who else? JCPA and NGO Monitor you dismiss. Cordesman report is based primarily on issues from Israeli MFA that cite ITIC. Vicious circle, isn't it?
3. 'I plan on going through the psych war/propaganda and anything that is not called either of those two things by a reliable source (read not ITIC) should be removed.' - removed under what grounds exactly? Almost all that they say in that section was backed by info from mass media. Anyway, why do I argue about it anyway? The statements are attributed to them. It is NGO. It provides data in academic-style format, much more academic than AI. Show me policy that prohibits using info from a think-tank, that was not picked up by so-called RS. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1. In the first section we are presenting verifiable facts, not simply accusations and refutations. In the international law section we do present these arguments, but I dont care too much do what you want.

2. cant follow

3. removed on the basis that it is not called propaganda or psychological warfare by reliable sources. The RSs may say these things happened, but they do not call them propaganda or psychological warfare. ITIC may present information in an "academic format" but they are not an academic institution, they are a think-tank that does not meet WP:RS. If you want to put something in the section "Propaganda and psychological warfare" you need to have a RS calling these things either propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 18:13 11.07.2009 (UTC)

OK, I reread the policy. Found two appropriate points. First - 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.' For example, one of the sources cited in the section that Hamas threatened to turn Gaza to graveyard to Israeli soldiers. You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war and thus I didn't violate the policy sentence. Second - 'Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' - believe me ITIC are experts in everything related to terrorism and Israeli war with Hamas; NY Times picked up their report, so again I see no clear violation. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I havent removed the ITIC report for stuff on their opinions, like in the intl law section, but it cannot be used to support a statement of fact, but I think the ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions and responses to the accusations from others. When you say "You argue you can remove it because the source never says it is psy-war. I say, a threat falls within definitions of psy-war" what you are doing is synthesizing sources (which is covered by WP:OR), by saying that there is a source that says the threats are psychological warfare, then another source that says they made a threat, so you combine those two sources to say what they did was psychological warfare. If you want to call something propaganda or psychological warfare you need a reliable secondary source that specifically calls those things propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'ITIC is a fine source for presenting Israeli opinions' - then why it is inappropriate in psy-war section? They issued several reports that present the way Hamas was engaged with psy-war. It is not presented there as facts, it is well attributed. I'll find explanations I provided several month ago. Anyway, since when do we remove data like that? I intend to restore it the way it was. Got reservations? No problem, discuss them, but don't remove all of a sudden something that was there for months. Now about SYNTH policy - as I noted above, editing in wiki is subjected to judgement. You leave here no room for judgement. You even challenge trivial things based on common knowledge. Threat is a form of psy-war, I never intendeded to back this statement with source. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

one more time, if we put something in the "propaganda and psychological warfare" section, we, wikipedia, are saying that those actions are psychological warfare or propaganda. To say, as a statement of fact, that these actions are psychological warfare or propaganda we need to have a reliable secondary source saying that specifically these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. Judgment does not enter into it, if a reliable secondary source has not called these specific actions propaganda or psychological warfare then neither can wikipedia. What if I were to say that bombing densely populated areas is a form of psychological warfare and so I then plan on including each instance in which Israel dropped a bomb in a densely populated area? Or the use of incendiary weapons was an example of psychological warfare intended to cause panic among the population, so I list each time Israel used white phosphorous weapons? We dont do that, that is synthesis and original research. You need to provide a reliable source that explicitly says these specific actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. nableezy - 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Israel section for comparison, everything in there is actually called propaganda or psychological warfare in the reliable secondary source cited. nableezy - 09:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Psy-war

If you would be nice to read it: Talk:Gaza War/Archive 47#Propaganda and psychological warfare. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just did, and what I see as the most appropriate response was, oddly enough, my initial one: "That heading is there because the sources describe what is covered in that section as propaganda and psychological warfare". I was gone after that and what I see of the discussion after that response is examples of syntheses, and (by extension) original research. You take statements that you feel meet the threshold of propaganda or psychological warfare without reliable sources that actually describe those actions as propaganda or psychological warfare. We cannot do that. nableezy - 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How surprising. Let's start from the easier example. Please tell me where is synth or OR in the following sentence: 'According to the Israeli ITIC, Hamas also prohibited the publishing of photographs, names or details of its members who got killed or injured in the fighting. '. I guess you can find the word 'propaganda' without my assistance there. And please don't tell me they are not RS. They are NGO, and there's no prohibition not to use them. After all, we agreed in some instances to cite directly HRW, without doubt a notable and profound human-rights organization, even though their expertise in Int-Law is questionable. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But they are not a RS, they do not have the reputation HRW or AI has for fact-checking and making corrections when necessary, they do not publish in a peer-reviewed medium, and you are using them to support a statement of fact, namely that these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare. The actual line is fine as it explicitly cites the ITIC, but putting it under the heading of psych warfare or propaganda is saying, as a fact, that it is such. You need a secondary reliable source saying so. nableezy - 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside reliability and propaganda issues, Sceptic please can you explain why a theory postulated by a partisan source closely aligned with a belligerant and presented without any corrobrating evidence whatsoever is even notable and worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. What it is that makes it notable ? If tomorrow ITIC says 'Black is white' are we to include that too ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sean, wiki is not about truth, you know. Anyway, this is what we constantly do - AI says 'black is white' but we use them as a source for things other than human rights too and when I point out their (and HRW's) horrible lack of competency in the fields of IHL interpretations and military investigations - you dismiss it, you shut your eyes, you don't want to hear it, you don't want to read it (but I still will remind you that AI reproduce the definition of occupation and 2 sentences later conclude that Gaza is occupied by Israel, despite the fact that it is in contradiction to the definition and despite the fact the those 2 additional sentences has nothing to do with definition too). 'Partisan source' - they are NGO, not more partisan than B'Tselem or PCHR for example. The fact that in general B'Tselem or PCHR are more notable is because of political reasons and because topics of human rights (or ecology for one) attract more attention than fight with terrorism. 'Presented without any corroborating evidence' - quite the contrary, each their bulletin including this one presents original evidence that seems authentic (of course, everything in our world can be photoshopped, but still). 'What it is that makes it notable'? - it is cited by numerous Israeli-affiliated sources including JCPA (I know your view on JCPA, but that won't change fact that they are notable too, the conference above demonstrates this), and we know of at least one instance when it was cited by NY Times. 'source closely aligned with a belligerant' - so now origins of who contributes to report do matter? PCHR is a propagandist Palestinian source, but we cite them. Goldstone has good ties with Israel, and? Current head of UN-Watch NGO from above is definitely Israeli (if I'm not mistaken, he was somehow connected with Israeli HCJ), and? One of the seniors in HRW was (or is?) a member of Electronic Intifada, and? One of the Goldstone team-members already concluded that Israel committed war-crimes, and? ICIT members were high-ranked officers in IDF, and? Nableezy, saying that AI and HRW 'have the reputation for fact-checking and making corrections when necessary' is extremely bold sentence and it is not so true when dealing with Israel. They do have the reputation in the field of human-rights, but they fail whenever we deal with Int-Law and investigation of warfare. I know you regard this conduct as unappropriate to wiki, but nevertheless I can easily point out to several (and even more) inaccuracies and mistakes in their recent reports, while you hardly will be able to find one in ICIT or JCPA (not because they are perfect, but because one must be true professional to do so; in case of AI talking about Int-Law, even a dilettante like me can). 'You need a secondary reliable source' - not necessarily. We already saw what happens when ' a secondary reliable source' like BBC distorts completely words of HRW and ICRC. Wasn't it Sean who concluded that it is better in some circumstances to cite a primary one?

To sum it up: (1) AI and HRW are indeed notable in the field of human rights, but their credibility is disputable in other fields (like interpretation of Int-Law). (2) Even though general policy is to search for secondary source, in some cases it is better not to. See BBC incident. (3) NGO ICIT does not violate wiki principles, as they were cited by NY Times. Taking into consideration the subject and quality of their publications, I regard them as perfectly fine. (4) I don't see how a well-attributed sentence like the one above breaches wiki policies.

Conclusion: Wiki policies should be guidance, but the policies themselves leave room for judgement. In my subjective view, your judgement on the issue is unobjective too.

Recommendation: I don't see the point of further discussions in this format. Your opinions on ICIT (and other Israeli-affiliated sources) is clear. I recommend to turn to third-party neutral arbiter. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you made me read all of that and yet you didn't read my question and answer it. I only want to know "What it is that makes it notable ?". I don't want to get onto a debate about whether their theory is correct. How would I know ? I would have to phone up Hamas and ask them and then I would have no way of establishing whether they answered my question honestly. I just want to know why ITIC's theory is in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your question and I answered it, but maybe I didn't understand it in the first place. "What it is that makes it notable?" Too much it. What exactly do you ask? Why do I like ICIT? Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section? or in all the other sections of the entire article? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The closest to what I meant is "Why do I think the sentence from above important to be used in psy-war section?"..or anywhere in the article. What I mean is how have you established the notability ITIC's theory to justify it's inclusion in the article ? If someone publishs a theory and claims that it explains some data, Wikipedia doesn't normally include it until the theory has appeared in RS and established a reasonable level of notability. Do you see what I mean ? Imagine for a moment that the article was about something else, the honeybee dance language, evolution, crime etc etc. We wouldn't add information to the article simply because someone puts a theory on their website ? The information always goes through reliable filters before it gets to us. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean and the general policy is clear. (1) About 'anywhere in the article' - the ITIC 'theory' Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields was quoted by NY Times. I guess that resolves the question about this particular report and allows to quote it in the article wherever appropriate.
(2)By saying 'The information always goes through reliable filters before it gets to us' - you put an impossible constraint. The question is what is RS? Mass media? According to wiki standards it is, but you saw a case of BBC, misquoting HRW and ICRC. So, mass-media is RS only as long as they report news netto, not when they invade in fields they understand nothing about. Next, are NGOs a RS and can we cite them directly? The general answer is yes. We used a quote directly from HRW, there's a direct quote of PCHR in 'disputable figures', as well as ICT (another Israeli NGO). Moreover, I made use of direct quote from B'Tselem in not yet published paragraph (despite the fact that the B'Tselem sentence is complete rubbish in my view). When there are so many notable NGOs, it is absurd to expect that every relevant revelation will be cited by mass media. So, when it comes to NGOs, provided that they are notable and competent in the subject of the conflict, I don't see why not to use them. Try to understand - wiki policy does not prohibit such use, it allows it on the basis of judgement and common sense. When I have a relevant notable NGO (and ICIT is notable, at least in Israel), and when they publish relevant material, that was not necessarily cited by mass-media, there's nothing wrong to use judgement. Look at the para. below. ICIT take facts, backed-up by mass media, and merge it in its bulletin. I think it is absurd to search for yet another mass-media, who would say 'ICIT published bulletin that describe Hamas propaganda efforts'. Consider all these NGOs as a scientific journal. For example, there are many scientific journals dedicated to cancer - types, treatments, research, etc. Each has an editor. The same with NGOs. I can write to ICIT and point out that relevant info was published in some Arab newspaper. The chief of ICIT will decide whether to include it in his bulletin or not.
To sum it up, I challenge the concept of 'mass media news sources must always cite notable NGO publication in order to be included in Gaza War article'. I regard it as taking wiki policies to impossible absurdity and if there's no breakthrough here - I'd appeal to 'higher authorities'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Psy-war, 2nd para.

In a report compiled by ITIC, evidences of Hamas’s effort to perpetuate a victory myth in the warfare are produced: in the course of the fighting, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters, claiming that more IDF soldiers were abducted; declaring destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; taking (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hitting an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. Following the end of the fighting, Hamas declared "remarkable victory", claimed that only 48 Hamas fighters were killed and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 killed in direct clashes with its fighters.

This para. is tricky. Almost all the info ITIC use was backed-up by secondary sources (that Hamas abducted more soldiers, that Hamas proclaimed remarkable victory, that only 48 Hamas fighters and no less than 80 IDF soldiers were killed). All that ITIC did - it merged all these into one bulletin entitled "Battle for hearts and minds" (which is of course a synonym to the word propaganda, that is used several times in the text). So I hope you'll agree, despite the saying above, that there's no SYNTH or OR from my side. Your only possible reservation could be the dislike of ITIC in general, even though in this case they present known and verifiable facts, which I backed-up. Still not enough for the psy-war section? for the article? for entire wikipedia? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the attribution to ITIC is not strong enough... I go through RS policy again an again, it allows you to use judgement and common sense. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you come across a statement in PCHR site that says that casualty numbers published by IOF is a propagandist effort of zionist entity to deceit the world, what difference would it make if secondary source will quote this or not. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I renew my objection not because I do not like the ITIC in general, but because, and I repeat, to call something propaganda or psychological warfare we need to have a reliable secondary source calling it that. That the ITIC assembled a set of statements they classified as propaganda is not the point, none of those statements were called propaganda by reliable sources. Have you looked at the sources in the Israel section? Every single thing brought up there is called propaganda or psychological warfare by the reliable sources cited. If there is a reliable source calling any of these things propaganda or psychological warfare include it. nableezy - 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'we need to have a reliable secondary source calling it that' - says who? ICIT is notable NGO and as I tried to explain Sean above, I see it as attempt to take wiki policies to absurdity. I desire appeal to 'higher authorities'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself for a second, you imply that words of Al-Jazeera reporter have more weight than words from notable NGO. (Btw, the same would be true for JPost reporter, if there were such). You define mass media as 'reliable secondary source'. I say it is absurdity. You impose impossible constraints, leave no room for common sense - I don't think the intention of wiki was to make it a place of copy-edited headlines from mass media rubbish. I want independent hearing. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference RS make...

• It means that RS (not us) have evaluated it's notability and decided that it is of some importance and worth publishing
• Good reliable sources try to filter crap out, check facts, require evidence for assertions or at the very least provide qualifications for statements so that they don't participate is disseminating propaganda and nonsense.
• Good RS use common sense when dealing with partisan sources so that we don't have to. This is good because there's nothing common about common sense. If there were we wouldn't need to write this article in the first place.

Sceptic, I'm going to try to appeal to your common sense because this seems like a very important issue to me that goes to the heart of what this article and indeed all Wikipedia articles should contain. ITIC postulate a theory that the absence of casualty data is part of a propaganda effort. I postulate a theory that is simply sensible military tactics. Which one is right ? It doesn't matter because an encyclopedia shouldn't be filled up with unsubstatiated theories especially ones where notability has not been established. This article needs to present the facts, the data and leave the theories alone. If we just present data this kind of issue goes away. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not that mass media is the best source, it just meets the threshold (the best sources are academic sources published by academic institutions or peer reviewed journals). And the BBC didnt misquote HRW, the line you keep bringing up was almost verbatim from a press release from HRW. There are a number of avenues if you want to "appeal to a higher authority". You could go to WP:RS/N if you want to get other editors to weigh in on whether terrorism-info is a reliable source (though I highly recommend you do not try and go there to say that mass media such as the BBC is not a RS, because it is without any real dispute and the mass news media is specifically mentioned in WP:RS as a reliable source). I have also challenged the text on OR grounds that the sources cited do not call it propaganda or psychological warfare and it is synthesis to say that these actions are propaganda or psychological warfare without a single source calling these specific statements either of those two. You could raise that at WP:OR/N. nableezy - 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Sceptic, have you noticed for all the NGOs, AI HRW PCHR whoever, we do not treat their claims as fact, we treat them as their opinion? Do you at least agree that having these statements under the heading Propaganda and psychological warfare asserts that they are such as a fact? nableezy - 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...and here is an example of how good RS deal with and present ambiguous information "The Israeli army media briefing of 22 April, in the section on “incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles, and crews”, contends that “Hamas systematically used medical facilities, vehicles and uniforms as cover for terrorist operations”, but provides no evidence for even one such case. Amnesty International does not exclude the possibility that such cases may have occurred, but found no evidence during its on-the-ground investigation that such practices, if they did occur, were widespread"...my bolding. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...and ITIC "It should be noted that a similar policy was followed by Hezbollah in the second Lebanon war, when it purposefully did not publish the names of killed operatives, preferring instead to bury them in secret, without media coverage, to reinforce the “divine victory” myth it sought to create"...."It is our assessment that such a policy is designed to ... to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message"...seriously, this is an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Nableezy

1. 'And the BBC didnt misquote HRW' - you must be kidding. Indeed, they copy-pasted one sentence, but "forgot" to produce the second one, which is crucial. And what we did eventually in the article - substituted BBC with original full quote from HRW. What is even worse, and I'll refresh your memory, The International Committee of the Red Cross - ... - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities". I showed you above the genuine ICRC report, who defines combatant as one who assumes continuous combat functions. I'll say it again, I don't argue that BBC/JPost/Al-Jazeera are RS as long as it comes to news. But when BBC reporter starts to write about International law - the result is nonsense. The same would apply if Katz from JPost would elaborate on partial theory of relativity. I wouldn't care if he would do it right or not - I would simply go to the source profound in physics and cite it directly. Policy allows it as long as a source is indeed notable in the field.
2. 'I have also challenged the text on OR grounds' - I understand the challenge with regard to threat sentences, even though I would have liked it better if you discussed first and removed later. Maybe we could have reached conclusion to move it elsewhere. But look at the para. above - you can't blame me for OR and SYNTH. ITIC does it. If there was a consensus that ITIC is RS, would there be problem with that para.? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• 'have you noticed for all the NGOs, AI HRW PCHR whoever, we do not treat their claims as fact, we treat them as their opinion?' - I absolutely agree that we treat info that comes from various NGOs as their opinion, and so far, I tried to well-attribute opinions/theorys from Israeli NGOs in the same manner. And it was never meant to be presented as fact, but as a bulletin (call it opinion/theory) from pro-Israeli NGO.
• 'Do you at least agree that having these statements under the heading Propaganda and psychological warfare asserts that they are such as a fact?' - not sure I understand what exactly do you mean. But I'll ask you again (and tell me if it is connected to your question) - why do you think it is OK to use an opinion of Al-Jazeera correspondent in Gaza (who says IDF engaged an aggressive psy-war by spreading leaflets and it is possible that he distorts their meaning and intent in the first place) and it is not OK to use an opinion of NGO in this section? Also, words of PCHR advocate are reported via the Guardian, but they are still opinion of this PCHR man, not exactly objective, neutral and reliable organization. Anyway, what makes Al-Jazeera correspondent in Gaza more qualified than opinion of NGO?
• Not that important, but in Israeli part there's short sentence that says IDF dropped 400,00 lealfets, taken from here. No referene to propaganda there. But it is a good source, maybe Cptnono will be delighted to take this further.
• This one is tricky. 'Maneuvering the enemy' - of course this falls within definitions of propaganda. But does it withstand the impossible standards you set?
• This one is very good. Take a look, 'The fate of Sgt. Gilad Schalit, who was captured by Hamas-linked militants in 2006 and whose whereabouts remain unknown, is repeatedly evoked in broadcasts and statements by Hamas'. So, one of your deleted sentences will be restored, by simply using another source. MSNBC use 'threat' under headline 'psy-war', but when you see it under different headline, the same phrase is no longer adequate. I understand the policy, but again I think you take it to absurdity. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I dont see the point in getting into this again other than adding another 100kB of text to this page.

2. Yes, if there is consensus that the ITIC can be used to support a statement of fact it would OR or SYNTH would no longer be an issue. But to clarify what I mean by calling it a fact. If we, Wikipedia, place something under the section title "propaganda and psychological warfare" we are saying that it is a fact that these actions were propaganda or psychological warfare, not just the opinion of somebody, but a fact reported as a fact in a reliable source. Why use Al-Jazeera, because they are a RS and they reported it as a fact. What are you talking about with the PCHR advocate in the Guardian? If there is a problem on the other side then I, or you, will fix it. I am nothing if not consistent.

3. I do not think ynet article qualifies, the msnbc one does, so put that line in with that source. nableezy - 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't answer me. I'll ask direct questions: (1) 'we are saying that it is a fact' - why? Why must it be a fact? Why can't we place an opinion of notable NGO and say that some notable NGO thinks that some acts amount to propaganda? (2) Open the link to Al-Jazeera. Why do you say AJ presented and treated it as fact? Quoting direct speech of AJ correspondent in Gaza is a fact? And if that correspondent would have said "by dropping bombs on schools, mosques and children asleep IDF is engaged in genocide of Palestinians", you'd say it is a fact too? In the same AJ piece, direct speech of Azmi Bishara is produced as well. Does it mean that "the war against slums and refugee camps can only be a war crime" is a fact? Btw, the sentences based on AJ are poorly written, I'll fix it a bit, without deleting it all. (3) Seems like you are fixed on this RS thing, i.e. whenever there's source defined as RS, you infer that everything they say or anyone they quote, becomes worth publication. Don't you think it must be treated with caution? Don't you think there are cases when a primary source is better than secondary RS source (BBC quoting ICRC)? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. If we do that I would suggest renaming the section to allegations of the use of propaganda and psychological warfare (which is a bit unweildy), but as it was constructed it is presenting it as fact, at least that is how it read to me. And truthfully that is how I think it should be; this article can be divided into 2, one part is simply saying this is what happened (the actual war section and the casualties section) and arguments (the intl law section). Now it is understandable why the intl law section is like that, unless an authoritative source comes out with detailed verdicts on these allegations is almost has to be presented as such. But the stuff on the military aspect of the war should be facts as reported by RS. 2. Yes, when an AJ reporter makes a news report they are saying this is a fact. 3. Not exactly, not anything they say or quote we should include, but anything they say or write can be included, at that point it is an editorial decision on what we include. nableezy - 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I'll comply (but I think it is inevitable in the future that we'll have a serious discussion about ITIC qualification elsewhere). I hope there will be no objection to disperse the info from RS throughout the article (e.g. Hamas threats in the start of ground invasion; there is already sentence in casualties figures that "Hamas has claimed that it killed at least 80 Israeli soldiers"). 2. Still disagree, the AJ piece attributes the direct speech to correspondent in Gaza, and I believe it would be fare to reproduce the the attribution. 3. At least, 'it is an editorial decision on what we include' is a form of consent with me, as long as 'an editorial decision' means of several editors, and not just one partisan. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. not sure what you mean, do you want it to be allegations of ...? 2. Disagree, when a reporter makes a statement of fact in a report the publication is making that statement of fact. 3. Absolutely it means several editors, I dont own the page. nableezy - 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to seal off the psy-war section, but then, all of a sudden, I came across this: The unreported battle with Hamas: psychological warfare. I'm still left with RS saying that Hamas seniors threatened to turn Gaza into graveyard for Israeli soldiers. This was an intense statement and I think it deserves its place in the article (outside psy-war, but still) in the same way that we're discussing other statements with Cryptonio (I asked you to check it out). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sean

will follow.

• 'It doesn't matter because an encyclopedia shouldn't be filled up with unsubstatiated theories especially ones where notability has not been established.' - correct. the argument revolves thus around the question 'is ITIC notable'? I think it is, the moment NY Times picked them up and because they are cited elsewhere in Israeli sources. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• 'This article needs to present the facts, the data and leave the theories alone. If we just present data this kind of issue goes away.' - I understand your desire, but I'm afraid it is impossible. First of all, this means the whole psy-war sections is removed - for example, leaflets that IDF dropped, are they a genuine effort to reduce civilain casualties or a means of psy-war? Depends on who you ask. Al-Jazeera correspondent told is is part of aggressive psy-war against civilians. But who is he exactly to spread such theories? Another example - fatalities. Let's assume everybody agrees there are 1400 dead. How many civilians? How many fighters? How figter is defined? Was those killings legal? Was it a war-crime? What lead to those attacks? It is virtually impossible to establish facts to these questions, and actually wiki is not about the truth. PCHR says most of them civilians, ITC says PCHR's own data implies that most are apparently fighters. The same I tried to demonstrate you about Goldstone team. You can't separate it from context. One thing if the team is totally neutral, objective, independent, reliable and accepted by all sides. Another thing is when the team was assembled to probe war crimes from one side, its members' mind is set up and the "boss" of the team is obsessed with condemning only one side. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• 'but provides no evidence for even one such case. Amnesty International' - one of the most funny parts in AI report (if the word funny is applicable here). Of course IDF did, it was published on April 22 in IDF site and in JPost - Hamas presumably used hospital as its hide-and-command center. And maybe I see your point, they presented the data they possessed and left room for reservation. But what happens next? The whole mass-madia world reprints this headline - 'AI found no evidence that Hamas used medical facilities'. So let's be honest with ourselves - maybe this particular sentence AI wrote with RS manner (even though I can find many other that don't), but they showed their complete lack of competence in investigating such matters in the first place. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You'd better read a part about destroyed houses. And to give more credit to their unbelievable assessment, they provide words of ... low-rank soldier from tank unit. What exactly low-rank soldier knows about military necessity, about intelligence his commanders have? With all my respect to that soldier - nothing, believe a reservist officer.
• '...and ITIC "It should be noted that a similar policy was followed by Hezbollah in the second Lebanon war, when it purposefully did not publish the names of killed operatives, preferring instead to bury them in secret, without media coverage, to reinforce the “divine victory” myth it sought to create"...."It is our assessment that such a policy is designed to ... to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message"...seriously, this is an encyclopedia.' - what is this supposed to mean? That Hezbollah didn't conceal more believable number of their dead? They did. That Hezbollah didn't proclaim victory? They did. I think these lines are fine and adequate to encyclopedia. You think otherwise? Fine, luckily for me your opinion has no more weight than mine. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats in psy-war

Please explain why you kept this: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1103314/Israel-rolls-tanks-Gaza-storm-Hamas-rocket-bases.html Meanwhile, Hamas threatened to turn Gaza into a "graveyard" for Israeli forces. 'You entered like rats,' Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan told Israeli soldiers in a statement on Hamas' Al Aqsa TV. 'Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing,' he said.]

but deleted this: In Damascus, the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal warned Israel that it faced a “black destiny” if it decided to launch a ground offensive. He also threatened that militants in Gaza could attempt to seize Israeli troops as hostages, as they did two years ago when the young soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. "If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, who knows, we may have a second or a third or a fourth Shalit," said Meshaal. "If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you," the Syria-based Meshaal said in a pre-taped speech aired on Al-Jazeera television. "You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God.". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Honest oversight? removed it too. nableezy - 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What I expected. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)