Misplaced Pages

Talk:2014 Gaza War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:29, 4 September 2014 editKnightmare72589 (talk | contribs)356 edits →Hamas Controlled?← Previous edit Revision as of 16:33, 4 September 2014 edit undoKingsindian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,374 edits →Hamas Controlled?Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 760: Line 760:
::::::There were more than 25 executed, ] by my count during this conflict, ] for Hamas. Arguably shooting and even killing violent protesters is more reasonable than executing hand-cuffed and hooded prisoners in cold blood. ] (]) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC) ::::::There were more than 25 executed, ] by my count during this conflict, ] for Hamas. Arguably shooting and even killing violent protesters is more reasonable than executing hand-cuffed and hooded prisoners in cold blood. ] (]) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::@], it is a misconception that Hamas is the "elected government of Gaza". They were not elected to govern Gaza. They were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and won the most seats. They ultimately kicked out the rest of the Palestinian Legislative Council, so they are hardly the "legitimate" government in Gaza. ] (]) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC) :::::::@], it is a misconception that Hamas is the "elected government of Gaza". They were not elected to govern Gaza. They were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and won the most seats. They ultimately kicked out the rest of the Palestinian Legislative Council, so they are hardly the "legitimate" government in Gaza. ] (]) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be meandering from the original course. If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can). It says the same thing without any issue of vagueness. ] (]) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 4 September 2014

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Gaza War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 4 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Error: Target page was not specified with to.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
In the newsA news item involving 2014 Gaza War was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2014.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Gaza War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 4 days 
Toolbox

Requested move

This discussion was ] on Error: Invalid time..
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:

There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.
@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

@Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (August 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

During the present conflict, the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question. Critics allege that the agencies have lost their neutral standing and question their position as unbiased parties. The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict. Some critics contend that the UN agency lacks accountability and transparency with regards to the distribution and use of foreign funds in the Strip and the hiring of individuals associated with terrorist groups. Critics have also pointed to the three instances during the present conflict where missiles were discovered in UNRWA schools and the agency's subsequent handling of the weapons as casting a shadow over the organization's neutrality in the conflict. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) called for an investigation into the UNRWA's role during the conflict; the U.S. government is UNRWA's leading source of funding. The UN agency OCHA has also been criticized following its publication of causalty figures; critics question the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports. Presently, Israel and the OCHA dispute the number of civilians killed during the conflict. The OCHA has reported that approximately 70% of Gazans killed were civilians, Israel disputes this and maintains that 45-55% were combatants. Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel.

  • I can't imagine this given the bloated state of the article, running to more than two lines. We all know this is pol-spin crap, and has its due refutations also. But if Shrike wants it, then he should craft a succinct synthesis summing up the charges and rebuttals.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This paragraph contains repetition of the rockets in the UNRWA facilities and the disputed civilian percentage. IMO both can be safely removed. Whatever remains belongs under "Alleged violations of IHL/Military use of UN facilities" instead of a separate section.- WarKosign (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first three sentences are vague, unreferenced (or in one case lightly-referenced), weaselly-worded aspersions like "Critics allege that..." (when, as noted above, "'Israeli commentators' is a far more specific label"). The sentence "Some critics contend that associated with terrorist groups" may be worth keeping someplace, though I suspect that place is ] and not this article. Everything from "Critics have also pointed..." to "... neutrality in the conflict" and everything from "The UN agency OCHA..." to "...45-55% were combatants" is duplication of content which is already present (and better-placed) elsewhere in the article, as WarKosign notes. And the bit about what two US senators think is undue (and, as was noted elsewhere on this talk page, probably just spin for domestic consumption) and should be removed like the Irish politician's views were removed some time ago. The last sentence, which suggests certain ethnic and religious groups are inherently biased, and nations where a majority of the population is of such ethnic or religious groups are therefore also inherently going to take certain stances, is problematic for the reasons noted a few sections up. -sche (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a future timestamp so this does not get archived. 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McCoy, Terrance. "The controversial U.N. agency that found rockets in its Gaza schools." The Washington Post. 1 August 2014.
  2. Romirowsky, Asaf. "UNRWA, UNHRC: Fighting for Human Rights or Supporting Terrorrism?." Israel Channel 24 News. Accessed 12 August 2014.
  3. Rosett, Claudia. "The U.N. Handmaiden of Hamas." The Wall Street Journal. 7 August 2014.
  4. Rosett, Claudia. "Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas." Forbes. 8 January 2009.
  5. Joffee, Alexander and Asaf Romirowsky. "From Welfare to Warfare." Mosaic Magazine. 2 August 2014.
  6. Derby, Kevin. "Marco Rubio Wants John Kerry to Look at UN Role With Hamas." Sunshine State News. 7 August 2014.
  7. "Uncovering the Sources of Jeremy Bowen’s BBC Gaza Casualty Figures." The Algemeiner Journal. 15 July 2014.
  8. Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. Cite error: The named reference ynetnews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. Betsy Pisik. "WAR OF WORDS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND UN CONTINUES." The Daily Beast. 9 August 2014.
  11. "how the United Nations was perverted into a weapon against Israel." The New York Post. 26 July 2014.

Indispensable section removed by Avaya1 without discussion. To be expanded.

Added to the main article with some expansions and changes like including Gazan tunnels inside this section

Gazan rockets

Range of missiles launched from Gaza Strip

The number of rockets used by Gazan militias vary in range, size and lethality. They include the M-302 which is Syrian made (based on a Chinese design), and the locally made M-75 which have the range to target Tel-Aviv. Other rockets include the Soviet Katyusha and Qassams. Hamas has also used a "crude, tactical" drone, reported to be Iranian-made and named "Ababil-1". Palestinian militant groups have also used anti-tank rockets and anti-tank mines against armoured personnel carriers.

Lethality

According to Theodore Postol, the vast majority of Gazan artillery rocket warheads contain 10- to 20-pound explosive loads. Postol states that these missiles are incapable of causing damage to well-sheltered people. Mark Perry states that "Hamas’ arsenal is considerably weaker today than it was in 2012" and that "Hamas’ Fajr-5 guidance system was crude, at best, and its warhead nearly non-existent."

Israel

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.
−
IDF Artillery Corps fires 155 mm M-109 howitzer gun, 24 July 2014

Israel has used air, land and naval weaponry. The artillery includes Soltam M71 guns and U.S.-manufactured Paladin M109s (a 155-mm howitzer). The aerial weaponry includes drones and F-16 fighter jets. Drones are used to constantly monitor the Gaza strip.

Israel's early warning sirens and extensive shelters have been an effective defense against Gazan rocketry. They are less effective against short-range mortars because of less time to react.


References

  1. "Syrian made M302." The Jerusalem Post. Accessed 12 August 2014.
  2. "Long range Hamas rockets." IBTimes. 10 August 2014.
  3. "Hamas firing chia designed rockets." NBC News. Accessed 12 August 2014.
  4. "M75 strikes Tel Aviv." Maan News Accessed 12 August 2014.
  5. "Hamas produces rockets as fighting winds down." The Guardian. 13 August 2014.
  6. "Hamas Rocket Arsenal." Business Insider. July 2014.
  7. Smith, Alexander (15 July 2014). "Hamas' Drone Program Will Not Worry Israel, Experts Say". NBC News.
  8. ^ Perry, Mark (27 August 2014). "Why Israel's bombardment of Gaza neighborhood left US officers 'stunned'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
  9. "IDF releases details on Shejaiya battle in which 7 soldiers died". The Times of Israel. July 20 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system is an ironclad success | The Great Debate
  11. Mark Perry (3 August 2014). "Gaza's Bottle Rockets". Foreign Affairs.
  12. http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/israeli-drones-buzz-ghost-towns-gaza-24628058
  13. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140721-gaza-strip-tunnels-israel-hamas-palestinians/
  14. Theodore Postol, Explanation of the Evidence of Weaknesses in the Iron Dome Defense System MIT Technology Review 15 July 2014

I have added the military section to the main page. There have been some expansions. Also included tunnels inside the section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The lethality of rockets isn't really relevant to the article. I'm sure the families of those killed by rockets and those who live under constant rocket fire would disagree that they are "harmless". Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the section does not call them "harmless". Indeed, since 7 civilians have been killed, they're not harmless. The section only quotes two scholars describing the capabilities and the size of the warhead. One of them calls it "incapable of harming well-sheltered people". That is his judgement, properly attributed. If you have contrary information about the size of the warheads etc., you can add it. The section needs expansion. Kingsindian (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That is essentially what it is saying. That they are basically harmless. Also, it doesn't explain what "well-sheltered" exactly is. Is it a shelter that has a roof or is it a bomb shelter? If it's the latter, then that is the point of a bomb shelter. To shelter people against bombs. The bomb shelter is what saves lives. There's also the opinion that the Iranian Fajr-5's warhead is "basically non-existent". According to specifications, the Fajr-5 has a 150 - 200 kg warhead seen here and here. Unless Hamas purposely takes out the warhead (which I highly doubt), that is not "not-existent". Saying the type of warhead is perfectly fine. But the opinion of how lethal they are is just that, an opinion. I think the name of the section should be changed to "Rocket Specifications", and add things such as range of the rocket, speed of the rocket, size of the rocket, size of the warhead, etc. But the opinions of how lethal they are should be removed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR or second-guessing sources again. We write according to sources, not according to what we think sources should have said or missed out saying. Debka is a crap site, and RS gicvve good reasons why the Hamas Fajr-5s don't have the payload designed for them.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
3 points. I have changed section name to "Rocket specifications":
  • As I already said, this section is about the military capabilities of either side. There is no implication that the suffering of either side is being minimized.
  • Regarding Postol's comment, he explains what "well-sheltered" means in his article. He credits Israel's network of bomb-shelters with reducing the damage by the rockets.
  • Regarding Mark Perry's comment, it is of course an opinion. It is an opinion of a noted military and intelligence specialist, and appears in the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, a very old and very respectable institution. As to the Fajr-5 warhead, if you read the piece, he mentions that Hamas had reduced rocket capability, and a lot of the Fajr-5 rockets were destroyed in the 2012 war by Israel. Also, Fajr-5 is very hard to maneuver. This is why the warhead was very reduced. Your links are from 2013, which is not looking at the capabilities of the rockets which were used in the conflict. Kingsindian (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Avaya1: Regarding your edit. This is the second time you have removed stuff wholesale and the second time you have removed the Mark Perry source. Such behaviour is not acceptable. You give your reasons here and we can discuss them. The Mark Perry source is eminently RS and goes into the rocket capabilities in detail. Please revert your edit and discuss here instead. Kingsindian (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1 has a reputation for doing things like that, and doesn't seem to communicate much or when he does, unless I err, it's at a favourite page like History of the Jews in Russia discuss much his almost invariably controversial decisions. Just mark it down as something to be restored and if he does this drive-by excision of reliably sourced info again here, he should be reported.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

  • The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
  • Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
  • Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
  • New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
  • The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
  • Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Misplaced Pages's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Al-Aqsa

@WarKosign: Your edit here is not to the point. Whether the US govt. defines Al-Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is beside the point of whether targeting them is legal or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway ) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To the point of this section (legal debates are a waste of time) -- a gazillibillion NGOs and their failed electornic-intifada contributors (see section about Ms Awad), are not more important than the tiny insignificant government called USA. If they say something about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or about the Hamas run PR department called Al-Aqsa TV) it belongs in the article's body. Yes. It does. In fact, it should probably be placed before NGO allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said." --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The 2010 treasury article is a primary source talking about ties. And it makes no determination for the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV. There needs to be a reliable secondary source reporting on the Treasury report, and connecting it to targeting of TV station during a war. Without that, it is WP:OR. I have added tags. Kingsindian (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?
It's not a position of the government unless it's actually stated by the government. The fact that no statement has been issued means the government has no official position. Saying that it follows logically from previous government opinions is WP:OR and misleading, as it implies that government positions are always logically self-consistent, which is patently false. Governments are not like individuals, who can hold opinions without stating them. The US government isn't "thinking" anything right now. That's why they use such nebulous terms, because they don't want to have an opinion until they have to. In the absence of an actual statement of opinion, no opinion exists. Anything else is WP:OR. 162.157.79.24 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Anon contributor. Re-read, and click on the provided links which establish the opposite of what you say. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"

incorrect; source needed. are you at all aware that hamas activists run around in civilian cloths? when they are killed, most of them are simply tagged as civilians by the government - hamas themselfs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.81.109 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument (I hope) that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians. Percent of the civilians among them is disputed and may be bellow 50%, so I changed the statement to say that most of the casualties are Palestinians without referring to their militant vs civilian status here. WarKosign (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@GGranddad: The source you added says "mostly civilians", it doesn't says that they were mostly Palestinian civilians. Please add a source that actually backs up the claim you insist on making. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, according to this, if you apply a simple WP:CALC, percent of civilian palestinians is 49.53%, which is not a majority. WarKosign (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's either 49.53% or 50.9%, they give both 2200 and 2140 as number of casualties. Anyway, I suggest not going into the percent of civilians vs militants in the opening paragraph. WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I added more links.GGranddad (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
One of them actually says that the majority or the people killed in Gaza were Palestinian Civilians. The article speaks about people killed in general, including in Israel - so the source still doesn't back up the claim completely. I would rather keep the lead paragraph undisputable, without the need to present different viewpoints. The fact that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians can't be disputed. Percent of civilians can, especially as final numbers will arrive from the different organizations. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Best I am aware, the statistics on age group casualty rates was not the work of Israel. Do you have a source saying otherwise? Here's one not presented by Israel: MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC) added BBC MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Then that makes them civilians. Regardless if whether or not they are politically associated with Hamas, so long as they don't engage in hostilities, they are considered civilians. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/03/qa-2014-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas; "...mere membership or affiliation with Hamas, which is a political entity with an armed component, is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target. Israel’s labeling of certain individuals as “terrorists” does not make them military targets as a matter of law, so attacks on such persons may be deliberate attacks on civilians or indiscriminate on the grounds that there was no military target, in violation of the laws of war." JDiala (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I added that statement. In the sidebar are statistics from five different organisations, four of which agree that the majority of Palestinian casualities have been civilians, and the fifth of which, the IDF, gives a ratio of civilians to militants of around 50% (and I don't think it would be controversial to note that they're likely to be biased). If you think the statistics in the sidebar are in dispute, despite the numerous sources there, then they should be addressed there; I merely amended the phrasing to reflect the statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if its better to mention the civilian issue in the first para or not. I'm sure anti-Israelis would love to present it as if ALL the deaths are peace negotiators... but, really, since that's disputed -- including whether or not a Hamas "politician" is considered a legitimate target or not (all due respect to supreme court judge NGO extraordinaire HRW). What do mainstream sources use? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a serious institute's research: . Based on their fact finding, which is a much more serious process than repeating the Hamas-Healthcare/Muqawama-Foreign-PR-department line and chanting "illegal!!!!", I'd be hard pressed to accept NGO vying for notability being pushed forward, even if there are a gazzilibillion of them. On point -- what do proper analysts have to say about the lists? OK. NGOs too, but gropu them together if they just repeat Muqawama-FPR numbers without looking into them. Sure reminds me of the Jenin "Massacre". Has anyone seen the short (10 min) movie The Truth - by Scandar Copti & Rabih Boukhary? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I have asked you before to stop your WP:FORUMing. Kingsindian (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I don't appreciate scare tactics. Have you read that link? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of the sources say and report that of the Palestinians killed, there were overwhelmingly civilians killed and that shouldn't be ignored just because Israel and a few others disputes it. The last view is also in the table and relevants parts but otherwise, the first thing should be accepted as a fact. With regards to the table, it's also weird that IDF's claims about militants killed are there but the ones by Hamas about Israelis killed have been removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM and AcidSnow: The majority view (based on reports of the Hamas controlled ministry of health) is that up to 80% of the casualties were civilians. There is also a minority view that up to 50% of the casualties where in fact militants. Both views are represented both in the infobox and in the casualties reports table. We could present both views in the first paragraph of the lead, or we could avoid the disputable topic and leave only short summary of indisputable information in the lead. WarKosign (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not only figures by the administration in Gaza and that something is disputed doesn't mean we won't report that majority of the killed were civilians, as then you give the other, in this case Israeli position, a much higher representation than it should have. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The “short summary of indisputable information” draws a false equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian deaths. Stating that “Hamas rockets and Israeli air strikes have left more than 2,000 dead” overlooks the highly pertinent point that the deaths have overwhelmingly been on one side. There is no dispute that ~95% of the deaths have been Palestinian or that ~90% of the Israeli deaths were military, and this should be reflected, at the very least. Benjamin M. A'Lee (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, this is why I wrote "mostly Palestinians" and suggested to add ", many of them civilians". I believe there is no dispute that by far most of the casualties are Palestinian, only their civilian vs military status is disputed. Recently the total number of casualties increased while there was no Israeli claim of the number of dead militants, so there is no source to contradict the claim that most of the casualties are Palestinian civilians. Once/If there is such a claim, we can return to this dispute. WarKosign (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question the civilian percentages is done by much more than Israel. BBC and NYT both published research casting doubt on the Hamas numbers Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some questions but as I said, the vast majority reports that most Palestinians killed were civilians, and that is the point we should follow. If they stop believe that, then we can change it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So now WarKosign has removed that most were civilians. What we have now in the lead is that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact. This is a serious POV problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits to the section. People were constantly adding more and more of the casualties information to the lead. It was agreed to keep the lead short and simple. Either you have all the different numbers or you have none. As long as it's something in between people will keep adding the missing critical bit. WarKosign (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @IRISZOOM: Let's avoid repeating all of the precise numbers of Palestinian and Israeli and Thai civilians and combatants twice in the space of the lead's four paragraphs (and then a third time in the infobox). The lead's fourth paragraph is where the casualty data are summarized; it already contains the note that "Between 2,000 and 2,143 Gazans have been killed and between 10,895 and 11,100 have been wounded, while 66 IDF soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai civilian have been killed and 450 IDF soldiers and 80 Israeli civilians have been wounded." The ellipsis marks the spot I just moved the data on child casualties to. -sche (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I wanted to restore that most were Palestinians civilians, as this was removed with no basis. It looks good now. The source on the number of Palestinian children killed can be seen in the sources in the lead, with the exception of The National. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The Algemeiner says that "Israel Says Gaza Death Toll 1:1 Combatant-Civilian Kill Ratio", which I take as claiming that 50% of the Palestinian casualties are civilians, which already makes them non-majority. If you add casualties in Israel and Gaza together the number of Palestinian civilians is definitely bellow 50%. At most you could say that "so and so casualties, most of them Palestinians and many of them civilians" or "so and so casualties, according to some sources most of them Palestinian civilians". Anything that is short and does not contradict reliable sources will do. WarKosign (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
We already know Israel gives a figure around that, which is noted in the table and infobox. Palestinian officials, UN, NGO's and hundreds of media reports back up the claim that most were Palestinian civilians and that's why we use their wording. This is a clear majority view. So it's totally reasonable to write that most killed have been Palestinian civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is totally reasonable to write that there are two different views. Your counting of the sources is OR. If there is a source saying that one view is in majority it's also reasonable to write so. Doing otherwise would violate NPOV. WarKosign (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
As I've said, just because Israel and some others dispute the numbers doesn't mean that we don't report the overwhelmingly view which is that most of the dead were Palestinian civilians. It is not OR at all, I can't see how you reached that conclusion, because no doubt the view that most dead were Palestinian civilians are in clear majority. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You cannot ignore one side's POV, and pick the side based on your bias. Either both sides are represented per NPOV or neither is. WarKosign (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not ignored, their position is stated in relevant sections of it. But that doesn't mean we can't state as a fact that most were Palestinian civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It most certainly means that you cannot state a disputed claim as a fact. Why not take any other disputed claim in the article and write it as a fact in the lead as well ? WarKosign (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not true. There are many disputes about numerous topics and claims. Merely being disputed doesn't mean we can't state something as a fact. As I have said repeatedly, there is a clear majority who say that most dead were Palestinian civilians. That can be stated as a fact. For example, you wrongly say that East Jerusalem is "in Israel" here below, but clearly the rest of the world doesn't agree and that's why we say it's occupied though Israel and some others dispute it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT, one cannot state a disputed opinion as a fact. It is OK to mention both opinion or even to claim that one is more popular than another. WarKosign (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, per WP:DWIP, since there is consensus that lead should be kept short and to the point, we should not include both versions in full detail in the lead. Hence the only option that I see is to remove the disputed statement from the lead. More than 2100 casualties, most of them Palestinians, many of them civilians. Unless someone can come up with another indisputable statement, this is more or less what the lead should say. WarKosign (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest: In the first paragraph: "2100 casualties, mostly Palestinians". In the last paragraph, something like this: "Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights orgs give 70-75% civilians. Israel states 50% militants." A short statement, including Israel's position, but making the relative positions clear. Simply saying "exact number is disputed" is too weak a statement. Kingsindian (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -sche, any preemptive copy-editing before we put it in the article itself ? WarKosign (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingindian's suggestions sound good to me, too. I might expand the second sentence a bit, to: "The Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights groups say 70-75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians; Israel states 50% were militants." I wonder (a) where in the fourth paragraph it's best to put that sentence, and (b) if it might make sense to give both sides' civilian %, or militant %, rather than mixing them as "Palestine says  % were , Israel says  % were ". -sche (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


"Both the exact number of people killed and the percentage of the dead who were civilians has been disputed." - do we still need this first sentence of the fourth paragraph ? The percentage of civilians will be discussed better and the exact number of casualties while slightly different is not really disputed. I think it's understandable that it will take some time for the lists of casualties to finalize. I suggest this as the fourth paragraph:
Between 2,000 and 2,143 Gazans have been killed (including 495–578 children) and between 10,895 and 11,100 have been wounded, while 66 IDF soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians and 1 Thai civilian have been killed and 450 IDF soldiers and 80 Israeli civilians have been wounded. The Gaza Health Ministry, UN and human rights groups say 70-75% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians; Israel states 50% were civilians. On 5 August, OCHA stated that 520,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (approximately 30% of its population) might have been displaced, of whom 485,000 needed emergency food assistance and 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools. 17,200 Gazan homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered damage but are still inhabitable. In addition, it stated that during the war, the IDF killed 23 Palestinians in the West Bank and wounded 2,218 others, 38% of them by live fire, while dealing with protests. In Israel, an estimated 5,000 to 8,000 citizens fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks. WarKosign (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree that now that the various estimates of casualties and of civilian-vs-militant percentages are spelled out, the current first sentence ("Both the exact...") can be dropped. -sche (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't at all say so, WarKosign, as that refers to opinions etc. I don't oppose the changes suggested here but again wan't to say that we still can't, and shouldn't, not state it as a fact in where it's relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Too many negatives in the last sentence for me to parse. At least one seems to be a false negative. (wan't). Just a joke. In my opinion, there was a case for simply stating it as a fact, rather than "both sides", but it would have involved too much bother for too little and uncertain gain for the cogency of the lead. Anyone else wants to take up the "fight", feel free. Kingsindian (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? I think it's very important to have a text as good as possible when it comes to perhaps the most notably issue in this conflict, which is the deaths of civilians. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point, all we have is preliminary figures, as the UN itself stresses. Afterwards, there will be investigations by human rights orgs like B'Tselem and international orgs like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (they are currently waiting to get into Gaza for conducting investigations). For the moment, too much is uncertain. Though it is not in my own mind, but it exists. It is good to reflect the uncertainty for now, and let the reader make up his own mind. Kingsindian (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, why did you keep the dubious tag? It makes no sense when the whole criticism there is addressed in the whole section now that it got changed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: I don't know had put it there and why. Doesn't it refer to the whole article ? WarKosign (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I mean the one which was introduced here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion and the changes were about percent of civilians, while the tag is about the total number of casualties. Maybe Blizzisme (talk · contribs) can elaborate. WarKosign (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That is absurd. Saying that the crediblity of the numbers given here is acceptable when coming to percentage but not the total is like moving the goalpost. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Because of your weird unwillingness to remove it, I have now done it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas began firing rockets on June 29 or June 30

See Reuters from that date. It was not a response to the killing of 6 Hamas members on July 6. For the record, Israel holds Hamas responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, and warned Hamas on July 4 that "Israel would only be able to sustain militant rocket fire for another 24, or maximum 48, hours before undertaking a major military offensive." Even if Hamas denies this, it is striking how Misplaced Pages parrots the official Hamas propaganda line.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you see a lot of editors who just write something in order to fill space, if they're parroting the homesite, then it's likely in an attempt to be as true to the material as they can. I went to the article that you posted and felt it necessary to point out that a lot of the Misplaced Pages articles, while, of course, of similar content, it doesn't seem to me that it's being copied. Parroted, sure but not copied. Something I'd like to bring up, however, is that you see most of the articles being produced from Reuters. Almost every story has their label on it. This is a larger problem as I see it, and we ought to try to move our focus to expanding where we find our information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbakadog (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree the article has to changed accordingly.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What Netanyahu says and that he holds Hamas accountable doesn't mean it was Hamas who shot. So the lead is correct now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You could read the article before commenting: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes...Israeli officials had acknowledged that Hamas had held its rocket fire during a series of flare-ups since the brief war ended, and they blamed such attacks on other militant movements while demanding the ruling Islamist group rein them in."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are other sources reporting from that date, prior to the creation of the propaganda line:
Here's a more recent source:
Note that even the 972 Magazine article debated earlier lists June 30 as the date, and that Hamas was attempting to directly fire rockets into Israel even prior to June 30, as the news reports all mention a failed attack the day before, in which the Hamas rocket squad was taken out by an Israeli airstrike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: Please see the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 where all the evidence about rocket fire is presented. All serious analysts use July 6 as the date when Hamas started rocket fire. JJ Goldberg is indeed an exception in this regard, as I noted there. The 972mag source you give makes no such claim, only reporting the statement of Netanyahu in Reuters.
  • As to the reports you mention, most of them are news reports quoting the IDF. For example the first one, by Reuters says "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hamas on Monday of involvement, for the first time since a Gaza war in 2012, in rocket attacks on Israel and threatened to step up military action to stop the strikes." and "No group has claimed responsibility for Monday's rockets...". The rest are in this vein.
  • As to the statement that Israel says holds Hamas responsible for all rockets, that may be true or not. But that does not change the facts on who fired rockets. The lead is just stating the basic facts per WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Since when are blogs, the London Review of Books (cited three times), or The American Conservative more "serious" than the news reports I quoted? (Most of the sources you posted above were merely quoting each other; you are using "serious" as a synonym for "anti-Israel".) For the record, as The New Republic source makes clear, July 6 was when "Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel". Just because Hamas did not claim responsibility prior to that date does not mean they were not firing, or that Israel was not actively taking out Hamas rocket squads. Who debunked earlier reports of rocket fire by Hamas? What new evidence emerged on July 6? Absolutely nothing, just the official Hamas admission, which should carry no more weight than what you dismiss as "IDF claims". Why does this article only describe the official Hamas propaganda line as fact, without even mentioning the Israeli narrative? Is it because the more "serious analysts" have persuasive evidence, not yet publicly available, showing that Hamas was telling the truth and Israel was lying?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I read and again, the article doesn't refute the claim at all but speaks about Netanyahu's position. The evidence is clear as Kingsindian refers too. --IRISZOOM (talk)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: To your points: London Review of Books is not a blog, it is eminently RS. There are two authors quoted from there, Nathan Thrall and Mouin Rabbani, both associated (Thrall currently, Rabbani formerly) with the International Crisis Group a totally respectable middle of the road group. One of the other references is from David C. Hendrickson, an international relations expert writing in The National Interest, a journal founded by Irving Kristol (I hope that counts as mainstream and respectable). I do not see the issue with New Republic source, it seems to support the lead precisely. As to the news reports, they all report the Netanyahu claim, without saying anything about whether it's true or not (as news reports frequently do, they report what is said). Kingsindian (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I said you cited blogs, not that The London Review of Books or The American Conservative are blogs. Your sources report a Hamas official statement. My sources report Israeli official statements. You have no policy-based rationale for only mentioning the former as undisputed fact while totally omitting the latter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I misread the blog part, sorry. As to the rest, these analysts are not "reporting Hamas official statement", but their own analysis. I have already responded to the rest of the points. Kingsindian (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
This quibble is odd. I noticed it only now. There is nothing wrong with the text as it is or was.If anything the Netanyahu claim is accompanied by text that says Hamas had not broken its agreement since Nov.2012, 'involvement' means not holding to the terms of its agreement in November 2012 to police groups firing rockets. As to the period preceding this, Israel and Palestinian militant groups struck each other constantly throughout June, Israel continued its policy of assassinating militants by missile strikes. Hamas was not held responsible for the missiles, which were charged to the Popular Resistance Committees and Islamic Jihad.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Does this help matters or not? (I am happy to undo that edit if it is not seen as an improvement.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: The edit is ambiguous. It can mean Hamas retroactively took responsibility for the past rockets, which is not correct. Kingsindian ([[User

talk:Kingsindian|talk]]) 18:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

-sche. There are so many bad editors pushing a POV without looking at what the effect is here )that the text you tried to emend was not good. Your own edit screwed it up further, no doubt inadvertently. All of this hinges on Thrall. See below. I might add that this article has managed to avoid the unilateral Israelocentric POV drafting that characterizes throughout the sister Timeline article, which has made no pretentions to present both sides, but seems to be drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Odd that that's the language used in the sources. I have no idea if Nishidani's convoluted rhetoric is an attempt to deny that the Israeli claims linked to above exist, but in any case I will let the sources speak for themselves when I edit this article accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what you're planning to do, but it was decided many times that the lead must be kept basic and short per WP:SS and WP:LEAD. Any details can be included in the background section. There is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim" here. The sources are all neutral. So far people seem to be fine with the current version. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thrall is an overview by an analyst, and until more such papers come in, we should be using synthetic overviews by specialists rather than individual articles which are then used, per WP:OR as TheTimesAreAChanging appears to want to do, to overturn what the specialist sources say. Most of the Israeli sources are giving IDF paraphrases or dropping Shin Bet hints. Let's look at it.
  • Throughout June Israel and non-Hamas factions exchanged airstrikes and rocket fire.
  • (Israel did not observe the ceasfire terms, nor did non-Hamas groups)
  • Until the 30th Israel made no claims Hamas was behind rocketry. No one doubts Israel was continuously striking the Gaza Strip as no one doubts non-Hamas activists were firing mortars and rockets over the border. There was a conflict in which the ruling Gaza Authority was recognized by Israel as not being involved.
  • On the 30th Netanyahu claimed Hamas was involved. The sources say he said this after the IAF struck and killed a Hamas operative who, according to the IDF/political view, was ‘planning to attack Israel with a rocketry/ mortars’. Hamas protested saying the man was at a monitoring point on the border (we no nothing of the truths on the ground here)
(Firing by Israel and non-Hamas groups continued after that)
On the 6th for the second time Israel struck Hamas, this time killing 7 militants.
Re the 6-7th, Nathan Thrall writes:

When the rocket fire increased, they(Hamas) found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge.

As said repeatedly in the past, as as repeatedly editors pushing a POV have tried to get round, this statement is ambiguous, and can only be reliably reported by quoting with attribution.
'The day after 7 Hamas militants were killed in an IAF airstrike, Hamas began to assume responsibility for rockets fired at Israel, and Israel then launched Operation Protective Edge.'
The essence of Thrall's point is on the 7th., after taking casualties of its own, Hamas took responsibility for all rockets, abolishing the distinction it, and Netanyahu drew, between Hamas, the governing authority, and the wildcard militants, the former till the 7th July, the latter until the Ist July (though equivocally. Netanyahu's words can be read as saying Hamas which had managed to 'suppress' rocketry since Nov.2012 was not doing so any more, or was present, or actively allowing rockets to be fired in protest against Israel's violent actions on the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian says that only Goldberg qualifies as a credible source, but he is a credible source, and the question is really a red herring: No-one has debunked the Israeli claims, and even if Israel was almost universally believed to be lying it would still be POV to simply omit their rationale from the narrative altogether. A news report is more than sufficient for an Israeli claim, if secondary analysts like Goldberg repeat it later all the better. The notability is established because it is a claim by an interested party, just like Hamas' July 7 statement. There may be ambiguity about whether or not Hamas had attempted to fire rockets prior to June 30 or the degree of Hamas responsibility for rocket fire from other groups, but Israel unambiguously stated that Hamas directly fired rockets on June 30 and the conflicting dates from the respective interested parties should both be presented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edits are problematic in several ways. You remove that an Israeli airstrike killed seven Hamas member and the quote associated with it. And as noted by Nishidani, the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas here but neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that the SPI against you has no merit and that I should respond even to sockpuppets, where do you draw the line? Israel says Hamas stopped enforcing the ceasefire well before then, causing a huge spike in rocket attacks, and that Hamas was directly firing the previous week. Hamas says the rocket fire on June 30, if they did it, was a response to the killing of a Hamas member the previous day, who Israel in turn says was moments away from launching an attack. If we mention the July 6 airstrike, should we also mention Israel's warning on July 4 that continued rocket fire would necessitate a strong response within the next 48 hours? My edit was the most bare-bones, just-the-facts summary I could think of.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit made by TheTimesAreAChanging is not acceptable. As already stated multiple times, there is no "Israeli claim" and "Hamas claim". The statement is made by neutral third parties. There are two references cited there, Nathan Thrall, which Nishidani notes is slightly ambiguous, and the BBC which is not ambiguous. I have already mentioned in a separate section all the other commentary by analysts other than Thrall, almost all of them (except Goldberg) date the Hamas rocket fire after July 6. I did not say anything which implied that only Goldberg is a credible source. I said that the weight of the evidence is against the assertion that Hamas rocket fire began on June 30. If one wants to quote the Thrall statement with attribution, it is fine with me. But none of this stuff will do. Kingsindian (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What you want to believe and respond to is up to you.
This is about when Hamas launched rockets. That seven were killed on that day when they began firing them according to those sources is relevant. That Israel warned Hamas before has no relevance to the argument that the killing of Hamas members preceded their rocket attacks. And you are not adressing the second point, which is that the claim is not made by Israel or Hamas but by neutral parties. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.TheTimesAreAChanging. You are editing against the results of past discussions, using WP:OR and overriding both sources and several editors to get your point over. Contentious articles can't get to minimal levels of quality with this approach.

to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which non-Hamas factions had begun following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank (sparked by the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers by Hamas members), and which Hamas itself began on either June 30 (according to Israel) or July 7 (according to Hamas).[

This result is totally, utterly inept. And it is inept because whoever helps or assists this kind of pathetic prose is writing not according to sources but rather in order to make some point, or dole out the kind of responsibility he or she wishes to pin on a side. It is WP:OR also.
the subject of 'and which Hamas itself began' is rocket fire from Gaza.
'Israel' on June 30 must mean an official statement. Netanyahu's single claim that Hamas was 'involved' or that the obscure incident in which one Hamas member died constitutes the 'beginning' of Hamas firing (where are the claims that Hamas was firing rockets on 1,2,3,4,5,6th of June, in a press allusion does not permit editors to translate this into a statement of the kind 'according to Israel'.
Secondly, the 7th is not 'according to Hamas' (a pseudo-balancing statement): it was 'according to several sources' who are not enrolled in the IDF or Hamas. Making deductions (WP:OR)from POV-spinning breaking news media to disrupt what independent analysts state as the sequence is not how things are done here (and those serious analyses can of course change over time). (The same crap happened on the Al-Aqsa Intifada page where battles were fought to try and get over the idea that the death of 1 Israeli soldier before that incident blew up was part of the cause of the uprising. It wasn't at the time, nor in history books later, taken seriously apart from one mention by Anthony Cordesman, who always recycles without checking IDF press handouts).
And what is 'thereafter' doing there?
We had a fairly carefully crafted introduction and now we have a mess.
I suggest the text be reverted to the earlier version.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that you and Kingsindian are incapable of editing from a neutral POV and that neutral arbitrators would not support your misleading edits. Beyond that, all I can say, Nishidani, is that I will not allow you to blame me for "pathetic prose writing" or word choices ("thereafter") that were not in my edit at all.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: You are free to believe anything you like. Multiple times, you have ignored consensus and tried to put in your version of the lead. Earlier you changed "non-Hamas" to "Hamas", which directly contradicted the source. While there is no consensus on the edit, I have restored the status quo. You can use WP:DRN or an RfC or other methods to get consensus. But please do not change the lead like this. Kingsindian (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh I know, and I intend to. Nishidani and you, however, do not have a clear consensus, and I have made only one bold edit after patient discussion. I do not know why you are so incapable of representing sources or edits honestly, but your description of the unrelated edit you just linked to is patently deceptive.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The conflict has ended

Since the conflict has ended/stopped (no fight since August 26th), I think it would be appropriate to change the date of the conflict in the infobox from the current "July 8 2014 - present" to "July 8 2014 - August 26 2014". 69.196.168.233 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we waited long enough. There is edit warring going between IP and inexperienced users. Current summary is maybe adequate but lacks sources.

I found these sources:

I suggest to write "Open-ended ceasefire, both sides claim victory" just like in Operation Pillar of Defence. Can someone think of a short summary of the ceasefire terms that can be put in the infobox ? Perhaps a new section for the ceasefire terms ? WarKosign (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the current summary seems to be adequate but lacks sources. I'll just add them. WarKosign (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. Cite error: The named reference partfour was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Cite error: The named reference jihad121 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference OCHA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ministry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. Cite error: The named reference PCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. Cite error: The named reference OPE-Israeli-wounded was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. "Gaza Emergency Situation Report" (PDF). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Occupied Palestinian Territory. 3 August 2014. Retrieved 4 August 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 5 August 2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
  9. Gideon Levy 'The IDF’s real face,' Haaretz 30 August 2014.
  10. ^ Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan. "Israel, Palestinians launch new three-day truce." Reuters. 10 August 2014.
  11. Heller, Aron (6 August 2014). "Southern Israelis cautiously prepare to head home". Associated Press. Retrieved 31 August 2014.

RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should or shouldn't Hamas claims of soldiers killed be included in the infobox? There are two versions which keep getting added and deleted.

  • Newer version: HAMAS: 1000 soldier killed, 2000 soldier wounded
  • An older version: Hamas:161 soldiers killed

References

  1. http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2014/08/28/hamas-our-sources-indicate-that-there-are-over-1000-killed-over-2000-wounded-israeli-soldiers-officers/
  2. http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2014/08/28/583978.html
  3. "Gaza offensive 'fiercest,' 'deadliest': Israel". Anadolu Agency. 5 August 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014.

Please indicate: Yes or No. If Yes, indicate which version you prefer.

No one here is disputing it is Hamas' claim, WarKosign, so I don't understand your point. It is therefore it is written: "Hamas: 161 soldiers killed", just as we have IDF's claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't clear that the other number was from the same source as it's different sites but okay then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes Hamas claim of 1000 soldier dead should be used since it is the newest and the 161 figure is outdated.
both IDF and HAMAS claims of how much they killed from the other side are estimates and of course both of them are inflated and ridiculous , but since it is attributed to them and not stated as a fact but rather as a claim it must be included and i will include it no matter what others do even if i keep adding it daily for one year , i have a very long breath.
If you dont want HAMAS claims so change the title to THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 ISRAEL-GAZA CONFLICT.
HAMAS is one of the only two sides of the conflict so not including its claims make the articl out of balance and whatever you feel about them or about palestinians is irrelevant, Imagine if HAMAS were at a justice court wouldnt the judge hear their claims or would he say : listen terrorists i will not hear from you and i will sentence you to so and so
IRISZOOM ANADOLU is the same source for both claims but the 161 is old and this one is newer check this
http://www.aa.com.tr/ar/s/379950
https://twitter.com/aa_arabic/status/504659476260331520
I like the fact that you discribed the agency as an accepted source i guess if you knew that the 1000 figure is also from them you would have changed your mind HaHa.
.Zaid almasri (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The infobox is for a quick overview. Sources for info there should have at least minimal reliability. Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability. But including it somewhere in the article makes sense, though I don't think that Islamic/Hezballah/Turkish site is sufficient even for there. I don't know what to make of AlWatan, it would be better if there were English sources for that. ¤ ehudshapira 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Hamas claims don't have minimal reliability." Why? DocumentError (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
On one hand a history of fabrications, and no credible publication even mentions this. On the other, the Israeli info is so much far off from these claims, and so much more reliable and better accounted for, that mentioning in the overview, for the sake of "impartiality", the info from dubious sites that supposedly quote Hamas' claims just makes no sense. ¤ ehudshapira 22:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, don't put it in the infobox, per ehudshapira. Multiple reliable sources affirm the 65–66 number (for which reason I have removed, as others have in the past, the mischaracterization of the numbers as "IDF"); the Hamas claim is an outlier. It's not clear that the sources for it are reliable (i.e. it's not clear they are reliable as sources of the claim "Hamas says X", independent of the truth/verifiability of "X"); even if they are, the Hamas claim of soldiers killed belongs with Hamas' other dubious claims, either in a section of this article's body (as was the case in early incarnations of this article, and should perhaps be made the case once more) or in the separate media article (as is the case at the moment). -sche (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Hamas' data is propaganda. It's not as reliable as the other sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No - There are people who say the Earth is flat, but in Misplaced Pages we don't consider this claim more than a fringe and hilarious theory. Let's keep this article serious and encyclopedic, please.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither First off, Hamas is a recognized governmental entity which had been duly and legitimatly elected through Democratic processes and as such numbers that Hamas agencies report have as much weight and legitimacy as any governmental enity (i.e. no legitimacy at all.) Secondly, playing the numbers game is what politicians and corporate entities do, and when it comes to body counts no claim is even remotely accurate regardless of its source. Recommend employing more accurate rhetoric such as "The number of dead terrorists were claimed to be anywhere from xxx to xxx." Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you say. Nevertheless, Israel doesn't lie when it counts its own casualties (both military and civilian). Hamas is a different thing. And with all due to respect to the democratically-elected islamofascist government of Hamas, remember they took Gaza in a bloody coup. I'm just saying... throwing your opponents from the roof is not the most exquisite sample of democracy, if i may say so.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a very neutral argument.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not neutral at all, but doesn't mean it's not true. There is plenty of evidence that Hamas provides wildly inaccurate claims and never bother to correct themselves or explain their mistakes. IDF provides facts that are usually correct and admits and corrects its mistakes when they are discovered. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise ? WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Images in the article

I would like to clean up the images through the article.

  • Infobox - there were two images, now there is a collage, which is simply 4 pre-existing images mashed together. Can someone think of a kind of a single image that could represent the conflict ? If not, the minimum number is 2, one per side. Do we really need all 4 in the collage ? If the answer is yes, They should be images not used elsewhere in the article.
  • Background - background talks mostly about the violation of the previous ceasefire. On one side there is the blockade of gaza, with the map that represents it (own work, based on OCHA reports). There is no image representing rocket fire from Gaza during this time in this section. Perhaps some image of rocket shards or damaged houses ? I'm sure there are IDF-released images, is there a more neutral source ?
  • Immediate events - seems ok, 2 images of events during Operation Brother's keeper
  • Operation timeline - 2 images from each side. There are 2 maps of Gaza: one of launch sides (by IDF) and one of attacked locations in Gaza. On one hand it makes sense to have two maps near each other. On the other hand I think the map of launch sides belongs in the alleged human shields, "use of civilian infrastructures". If it's agreed that I move it there I will put another image of damage in Israel instead.
  • Impact on residents - 3 images for Gaza vs 2 for Israel, 1 of the 3 is another map of damaged sites in Gaza. I suggest moving this map up instead the one in the timeline since it shows the whole Gaza strip and not only a part of it.

Image of the wounded girl's caption is very long - is her story notable ? Is it important that she was injured in her uncle's house? The fact that Israel is treating her in Jerusalem is somewhat notable, but I don't think it belongs in the caption.

  • Reactions - ok, 2 equivalent pictures, same order as the text
  • Alleged violations - at the moment only one violation has an image, destruction of homes has a picture of people standing under an excavator, with the caption saying they are retrieving the dead during a ceasefire. Do we want a single image for each violations ? If not, how do we pick which ones get images ? I can think of the following images for violations
  • Civilian deaths - plenty of images of the dead or the wounded. How graphical and explicit should it be ?
  • Warning prior to the attacks - there probably exist be IDF-released images of the papers that IDF dropped on Gaza before attacks.
  • Destruction of homes - sure there are destroyed and damaged houses. Best find one that can be proved to be destroyed intentionally and not as collateral damage while attacking something else.
  • Shelling of UNWRA schools - there was an image of an UNWRA school as it was used for shelter. Perhaps there is an image of the holes that are "consistent with shelling" ?
  • Infrastructure - is there anything related to infrastructure ? A line of people waiting to receive water rations ?
  • Attack on journalists - don't think there is anything to show
  • Human shields by Israel - there is a single alleged case, with an image of the note that he supposedly wrote while in IDF's prison. Probably not in public domain.
  • Killing of collaborators - there are images in the news of militants aiming at hooded people, probably not public domain
  • Use of civilian structures for military purposes - the rocket launch site map from above
  • Medical facilities and personnel - the ruined ambulance from the collage. We can't know if it was used for military purposes and its caption does not make any claim. The section says that it is illegal to attack an ambulance unless it's used for military purposes, so I think the image demonstrates both cases.
  • Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes - there is an image of people sanding on the roof that IDF released.
  • Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians - something that displays the damages, again ? I think this and destruction of homes above can be skipped.
  • Militant use of UN facilities - don't think there are public domain images at the moment. If UN or IDF releases something we make consider it. Hamas will surely not release anything of the kind.
  • Intimidation of journalists - ditto
  • Military weaponry and techniques - seems ok to me: 3 images, one of rocket ranges (gaza) one of a howitzer (IDF) one of a soldier looking on a tunnel (both)

Please respond to my consideration, if there is agreement or apathy I will being cleaning it up. WarKosign (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Re the infobox images: I thought the two images that were there before were sufficient, and better because they didn't duplicate images which were (and belonged) elsewhere in the article, so no complaints from me if you switch it back from 4 to 2.
It's redundant to have both File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg and File:Unosat-gaza.png in the article, and File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg is a better map than File:Unosat-gaza.png (the former shows more of the territory of Gaza, the latter only shows less and is frankly harder to look over and make sense of). I would replace File:Unosat-gaza.png with File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg. I think this is something you are proposing to do, along with moving the other map (the Israeli map of launch sites in Gaza)?
Would it be useful to have an image gallery (probably at the bottom of the article)? A lot of the images that have been removed from the article over the past few weeks have been removed with edit summaries indicating desire for numerical equality of "Israeli pictures" and "Palestinian pictures", rather than disagreement with the relevance or helpfulness of the images. A gallery would seem well-suited to showing things like how geographically spread-out the damage to Israeli infrastructure was and how severe the damage to Gazan infrastructure was, and could possibly also contain pictures of various Gazan and Israeli weapons (or possibly the gallery of that could go in the 'military weaponry' section). -sche (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose all changes DocumentError (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Points:
  • In the infobox: there should be 2 images, as before. I don't know who changed it to 4. They're not representative either. 2 of them are in Israel, one is an Israeli weapon, and one is in Gaza.
  • The background section:agree that there can be a picture about rocket attacks. There can be pictures of truce violations by either side. The closure picture is a separate background. I don't know of any free chart/picture describing truce violations.
  • The UNOSAT image is describing the damage in Khuzaa area, which was one of the major areas of conflict. It is a large picture, so the thumbnail is hard to see. But it can be seen quite well by clicking on the image. The inset on the top-left shows a zoomed in version. I also plan to add one of Shujaiyya, also another major conflict area.
  • The disparity of 3 vs 2 in the impact section is already discussed elsewhere. As I noted, NPOV does not imply that there be same number of images everywhere. Given the differing impact on the two sides, it is not at all undue to have 3 images for the Palestinian side. The 3 images all are illustrating important things mentioned in the text. The UN image is obviously relevant. The Beit Hanoun picture is illustrating the statement that 70% of the housing stock is gone and it is uninhabitable. The third picture is about number of children affected, the subject of the last paragraph. I can put up a different picture for that if needed, and move the picture of Shayma to the casualties section.
  • Agree that the caption of the picture of Shayma is too long. Someone added that she was being treated in Israel for some reason. She is being treated in East Jerusalem. And I agree that wherever she is treated is irrelevant. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not support putting the IDF map of rocket launch sites in the "use of civilian structures for military purposes" section. Firstly, it is one-sided. Secondly, it does not say anything about all the launches being from near civilian structures. Kingsindian (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You can argue whether or not east Jerusalem should belong to Israel or not, but at this point it does. So if she is treated in a hospital in east Jerusalem, she is treated in an Israeli hospital. WarKosign (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If we insist on keeping the identity of the hospital in the caption, then we should identify it by name, not place. In other words, it should be noted that Shayma is being treated at the Sisters of St. Joseph Hospital, not "an hospital in East Jerusalem." DocumentError (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

— Let me sum up what I think should be agreed, so we can apply at least some of the changes:

  • Lead - Replace the collage with two images representing both sides. For now same images that we had before: Ruined Kware home and Iron dome firing. Could there be something better ? Maybe no lead picture at all ?
  • Background - add an image of rocket shards or property damage caused by rockets fired during the 2012 truce. There are such images from IDF, I'll try to find a more neutral source.
  • Shayma picture - replace the caption with "Shaymaa al-Masri, five years old, wounded in bombing on July 9"
  • Gallery at the end - sounds like a good idea to me, maybe it's the place to have more pictures of ruined houses in Gaza. Here the number of pictures can be more proportional to the damage.

A suggestion for a less agreed upon item:

  • Use of civilian facilities - there are IDF released maps such as this that specifically show launches very near civilian infrastructures.

WarKosign (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fatah claims that Hamas committed crimes against them

Should this be added to the alleged violations by Hamas? The claims are:

"It said that Hamas “militias shot and beat dozens of Fatah members, some of whom were transferred for medical treatment in Ramallah, Hebron and Nablus.

The statement said that Hamas also placed more than 300 Fatah members under house arrest, exposing them to Israeli air strikes.

Other Fatah members were kept in Hamas prisons during the war, which also endangered their lives, the statement said.

Fatah also accused Hamas of confiscating food and medicine sent to the Gaza Strip from the West bank and other countries. It said that Hamas distributed the aid among its men in mosques and sold some of it in the black market." Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The title of this article being "Israel-Gaza conflict," and Fatah not being an active belligerent in said conflict, it has no place here. This would be fine for an article on the dispute between Hamas and Fatah, though. DocumentError (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What does Fatah not being an "active belligerent" have to do with anything? Journalists are in the article. Are they active belligerents? Just because Fatah isn't fighting doesn't mean Hamas beating up and shooting Fatah members isn't considered a crime. According to Fatah, putting Fatah members under house arrest in areas that Hamas knows will be hit with Israeli airstrikes is effectively making them human shields. Putting Fatah members in prison for no reason would be a violation of international law. I'm not entirely sure if taking medicine and supplies meant for civilians and giving them to Hamas is considered a violation of international law, but it wouldn't be the first time Hamas has done that. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The title of this article is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict," not "Hamas are Villains - Here's Proof" Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This part of the article is called "Talk" not "Put words in people's mouths". If you can't provide any reason for why you think it shouldn't be added, then please don't spam this talk. Thanks. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In addition to reasons previously stated, the Jerusalem Post is the only outlet reporting this alleged statement and the homepage of the Fatah movement currently contains nothing along the lines of the alleged statement. Given the implications of this assertion, multiple RS would be necessary before inclusion were even considered. DocumentError (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-of-fatah-members-under-hamas-house-arrest-in-gaza/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/fatah-activists-gaza-hamas-house-arrest-25018750
http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/08/22/palestinian-authority-says-hamas-arrested-nearly-300-fatah-activists/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611150 Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
These sources are from a week (and more) prior to the date of the J-Post article in your OP and contain allegations much more tame (and different) than those contained in the J-Post article in your OP. I'm unclear if they're referring to the same statement or two different statements. Let's table this for now and revisit it in a year after the fog of war has lifted. DocumentError (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the other sources provide a more detailed and graphic account. Knightmare72589 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Your OP source (the J-Post) says the statement was issued "Saturday night" and the date of the article is 8/30. Your other sources refer to a statement being made with article dates of 8/18 and 8/22. Obviously these are different statements from the one you mentioned in your OP. Perhaps you'd like to take another run at this? DocumentError (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Those incidents were part of the conflict and should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The incidents or the statements about the incidents? And, if the latter, which statements? The ones Knightmare72589 references in his OP (and which are only attributed to the J Post) or the ones Knightmare72589 subsequently references and reference a different issue entirely? This is too confusing to decipher. We can wait a year and revisit this one. DocumentError (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians - proposed new section

I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.' This should be placed in the article as the majority view (I'm sure there's mention that Israelis wanted to wipe Hamas off the map).

Here's one source (Others should possibly be added here before we start writing this into the article):

  • "האזרחים העזתים תומכים באופן מלא בזרוע הצבאית של החמאס ובמאבקה נגד ישראל. ... אני מבטיח לך שגם אנשי שמאל בעזה תומכים בעז א־דין אל־קסאם" --

Translation: "The civilians in Gaza fully support Hamas military wing and its fight against Israel ... I promise you that left-wing people in Gaza support the Az A-Din al-Qassam"

  • "Like the other families that were harmed by the terrible bombardment of Shuja'iyya, they emphasized their support for the resistance"
  • "Khaybar, Khaybar oh Jews – Khaybar Khaybar, oh Jews – The army of Muhammad has begun its return. Resistance, resistance – we are all with the resistance."..."(the resistance is preparing) for the liberation of our Palestinian land."

-- MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ++ MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV. Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nishidani:, the above personal attack is unfounded and unacceptable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling someone holocaust denier, or cry-baby Muslim (or Jew) is fantastic cheese-head behavior, which has no place here. Cheese heads think it is good conduct when they make nasty unsubstantiated and personal allegations. There's nothing in the title that talks about antisemitism. I did mention antisemtism in an earlier threat, but that was in regards to the classic "Jews slaughter children for using their blood" sloganeering (I think the source involved was a spokesperson for an NGO extra-extraordinaire) and not in regards to Gaza's residents and what they support. Hamas may be blatantly antisemitic (look-up Osama Hamdan on CNN or their Hamas TV poetry section), but that is irrelevant to this thread, and I have not mentioned it in the "evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading" (No. There is no evidence there). So. Let's not promote cheese-head behavior. Focus on bringing the article forward. I've linked a few sources where Gaza residents support the militancy against Israeli civilians. More sources on this public view might help bring a well cited paragraph (I'd hate to use too few samples and meet "resistance"). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What personal attack? DocumentError (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure really. Maybe you should re-read it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
YNet is one source. What are the 49 others? DocumentError (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Executions by Hamas

@Kingsindian:You have put an undue tag on a paragraph in a section dealing with Hamas executing civilians. Two reasons why I think it is not undue:

  • A source for one of the execution cases says clearly that the bodies where brought to a hospital to be counted as civilian casualties of Israeli's operation. There is no source for this happening in this case, but since there is no mention of Hamas' own victims in the "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health ministry" casualties report, it seems reasonable to assume they became a part of the civilian count.
  • This killing happened during the conflict and arguably because of the conflict - humanitarian situation created the need for food handouts and therefore tension and scuffles. Whether or not the killing was unavoidable or not is a question. A creative reporter can write an article on how this killing is Israel's fault. WarKosign (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Regarding your 2 points:
  • No, it is not "reasonable" to assume such things unless there is a source which states that these are counted as civilian casualties.To clarify, I have only added the undue tag for the last sentence, about food handouts.
  • Of course many things happen due to the conflict. I am sure there are some old or sick people in Israel, or old or sick people in Gaza who died or had problems due to the conflict. That is very different from getting killed in the conflict, or getting killed as a collaborator. Kingsindian (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: Given that there is no source that says one way or the other, at least not for all the casualties, either way we count the casualties is an assumptions. One assumption is that they are reduced from the civilian numbers published by the ministry, another assumption they are included in the number. How do you pick one ? The default seems to be counting them towards Israel until there are official reports stating otherwise, but it is factually incorrect. Did people in Gaza stop dying from natural causes during the conflict ? WarKosign (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: I do not get your point. Of course people died from natural causes during the conflict. It is not sufficient to say, "oh we don't know" maybe they are included. If there is some source which says they are included, it should be provided per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, the sources should be used and attributed, as is done. There is a long methodology section which talks about the various organizations. It does not say "let's count all those people who died in this period and blame Israel". Kingsindian (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with points made by Kingsindian. This does seem undue. DocumentError (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you rate reliability of this source ? Does it deserve a mention ? "It identifies itself as a nonpartisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank for international and domestic policy, based in New York City" WarKosign (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable. Anyone can identify themselves as anything. Given the criticism the Gatestone Institute has received, and the people involved (e.g. John Bolton, Zuhdi Jasser, et. al.), it should not be seen as anything other than an editorial board. DocumentError (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Or this one: "Human rights groups acknowledge that people killed by Hamas as collaborators and people who died naturally, or perhaps through domestic violence, are most likely counted as well" WarKosign (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two tags, one for the whole section, I do not think the section has too much detail, though it could be better organised. At some point it may even need to be split off, and have a summary here instead, but there is no sign of that at the moment.

The question of the shooting over food handouts is separately tagged as "undue". The salient part of the "reason" field said

What do food handouts have to do with the conflict or collaborators?

Clearly they have nothing to do with collaborators, I would have thought equally clearly, a lot to do with the conflict. The section is titled Killing of suspected collaborators. I have therefore moved the sentence, and the previous relating to killing of protesters to the following section Killing of Gazan civilians. I have left the {{Undue}} tag, for the moment. It seems to me that a government killing its own citizens is a very significant matter, therefore I propose to remove it unless any convincing argument can be given not to.

Arguably Killing of suspected collaborators should be a sub-section of Killing of Gazan civilians.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

Without even having seen your comment, I arrived at the same conclusion that "Killing of suspected collaborators should be a sub-section of Killing of Gazan civilians" or at least, the former should follow the latter, so I did this. I think the section is not too detailed anymore (it was until I cleaned it up a day or two ago). -sche (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: The Gatestone institute is not WP:RS; however the NYT is fine (it is already quoted in the article in the methodology section). The issue is not whether there are errors in the statistics or not. Of course there are likely errors. The statement in the NYT is not saying that all incidents of natural deaths etc. are included. It is saying that that it is likely that there are some natural deaths which are included in the statistics. All figures are preliminary, and then UN and human rights orgs etc. conduct their own investigations, in the methodology. This has nothing to do with whether a police action resulting in killing of two people deserves to be included in war casualties. These are not military incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and Rich Farmbrough: The section is labeled "Alleged violations of International Humanitarian law". The incident with the food handouts is a police action. There was a scuffle and during the altercation, police opened fire and two people were killed. Whatever we may think of this, a police incident like this is not a violation of international humanitarian law. This is much different from rockets falling on your citizens, or killing suspected collaborators, which are military actions. Kingsindian (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Agreed, the killing itself does not look like a violation of IHL. The fact that (per NY times) the victims of executions are counted as casualties should be in the casualties section, I'll edit the last paragraph of the methodology section. WarKosign (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe this source is relevant to the execution of suspected collaborators, but not sure which parts. Is beating relevant ? Is suspected collaborators being members of the Fatah relevant ?

There is also this source that MarciulionisHOF found:

Sounds like mis-treatment of gazan civilians, potentially relevant, but not no evidence of actual murder. WarKosign (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion/query

A truce has been called. This article is, as is inevitable in real time international 'incidents' articles where edit-warring to push a national POV attracts large numbers of editors, and interference in normal editing is disturbed by political interests, a poor digest violating WP:Undue in many sections, and WP:NPOV. Since news is not flowing in, I suggest that we try to find some highly experienced article writer, with no bone to gnaw on the I/P area, to revise it from top to bottom. If such a volunteer is available, it would mean editors now working the article would desist as the review took place. (Is there any mechanism for this?)Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support While I'm unaware of such a tool or option, I think it generally sounds like an excellent idea given the current state of this important article, which has essentially turned into a scrapbook. I suppose this could be accomplished by (1) arriving at a consensus for such an editor, and, (2) requesting full protection be applied for 3 days to give said editor a chance to refresh the article. For instance, OrangeMike is a tenured WP admin with no edit history on Israel that I can identify. Could we request he (or someone with like characteristics) conduct a cursory refresh during which time other edits would be suspended? DocumentError (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment A review sounds good, but as the conflict ended a flow of reports will begin. More and less biased organizations will publish their reports which should be incorporated into the article. It may undo the work by this neutral reviewer. Wouldn't it be better to wait a certain period? WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Before we paint the house, we need to hose the dirt off. DocumentError (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
My thought exactly. Before fine-tuning the POV balance and writing style, get all the facts straight. WarKosign (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I don't think you understand. DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@DocumentError: I assume you meant it's best to balance the tone/neutrality/style and then add new information. I'm saying the exact opposite, since adding new information would throw the article off balance again. Anyway, I'm not casting a vote either way. WarKosign (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

On "Claiming Victory"

Naturally both sides will claim victory. However, I don't think we should conclusively say what the result of the conflict is. At this point, I think "Return to status quo", "Inconclusive" or "Ceasefire negotiations ongoing" would be a good place holder. Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Only Hamas is claiming victory (they also claim to have been massacred - oxymoron?). Israel is claiming to have "handed a heavy blow" to Hamas and that "non of Hamas demands were met" (albeit, Israel will increase fishing areas and possibly give more things Hamas wanted -- no airport though, duh!). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
According to this, both sides claim victory. Although people in Israel say that Israel didn't go far enough. Knightmare72589 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This source poses a problem. On one hand, they are (best I am aware) what should be considered a reliable source. On the other, nowhere in that speech did Netanyahu say anything about victory. He said precisely what I said in my above comment. I don't know what the protocol is in this type of instance. What do other sources say? This one (best I am aware) is accurate.
This is unrelated but I'm too tired to open/edit another section. Do me a favor (someone) and add it to the relevant talk section. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There are sources saying that both sides claim victory. Netanyahu is quoted saying that all the goals of the operation were achieved - isn't it the definition of victory ? WarKosign (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a bit complicated, but I've decided to allow others resolve this one. Certainly, if there are sources -- we should consider them seriously. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


I was just going to make a post about this all. I think this is a classic problem with Misplaced Pages today and citing both sides. The easiest thinng would be to cite the results in the Egyptian Peace Agreement as the results of the war. Now I've been spending the last 30 minutes trying to find it and I am unable. Does anyone have the actual contents somewhere? Also we must remember that both these governments survive de facto on this war and both have achieved their objectives of staying in power. Any traditional war would seek the occupation, at least temporarily of Gaza. Israels government never sought this. While Hamas knows this and was thus willing to sacrifice any number of people until the anticipated withdrawl happened. Bad people... 79.136.64.95 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits are problematic

The recent edits by Monopoly31121993 are problematic. I have fixed the first part but mostly what's needed now is the other one which was deleted about the situation in the West Bank. Just behind the info is behind a paywall doesn't mean we can't include it. Thirdly, don't add a fact tag without any reason given at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Merging from below)

@Monopoly31121993: You made three edits to the lead. One of them has been reverted at the time I write this, but I will still try to address all of them.

  • edit1 You add "dubious" tag based on "Hamas" claims. Firstly, the claim comes from the Ministry of Interior and is attributed there. It was also reported by Channel 4 news, as indicated in the second source, again with attribution. The dubious tag should be removed for these reasons alone. Secondly, there is little reason to doubt the 20,000 figure. For example, see this source (I included it in the article afterwards), which quotes an estimate that 10,000 tonnes were dropped from the air alone, a figure which does not include tank/artillery shells.
  • edit2 - There is no requirement for having a source which is not behind a paywall for verifiability. See WP:PAYWALL. Use Resource Exchange to verify the information or use the Talk page etc.
  • edit3 - You added a POV tag. For placing a POV tag, one has to open a discussion on the talk page, detailing what is not neutral. Otherwise, anyone can remove the tag. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that you can find the cached version of the Haaretz articles by searching on Google so you don't have to pay. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the edits should be reverted for the reasons stated here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


@IRISZOOM:@Kingsindian:The Ministry of Interior's claim provided no information on how it arrived at that figure and it clearly seems to be fabricated and probably qualifies as a fringe theory. Just think about this. There were around 5,000 Israeli strikes on Gaza. The average bomb weighs 500 pounds therefore the average strike consisted of 16 bombs hitting a target. The biggest bombs weigh 2,000 pounds so in that case the average strike would have been 4 massive bombs hitting a target. Does that sound reasonable or fabricated? We've all read the news reports of these strikes and never have I read a report of 16 500 bombs falling on a target, even shelling normally consists of between 1-2 and 10 shells. I have also read reports of even smaller bombs than 500 pound bombs being used against targets. Without some sort of transparency, I would certainly call this claim dubious. Why something so clearly biased and unsupported by neutral verifiable facts needs to be introduction is unclear.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Your calculations, even if they were correct, would be WP:OR. As it happens, they are not correct. In just one arena (Shujaiyya), 7,000 high explosive shells were dropped. Also, I have already given a "neutral" estimate of 10,000 tonnes dropped from the air alone in the military section. As to transparency, I would have taken that argument seriously if you also had tagged the IDF numbers in the lead, which are just as opaque. If we report the IDF claim, we report the Palestinian claim, which has been quoted by Channel 4 news, and a partial estimate quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald. Kingsindian (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Iron Dome

We should specify in the introduction how many rockets fell in open areas, in urban areas and how many were intercepted by the Iron Dome, like in the lead of Operation Pillar of Defense. We could also add some information about the important performance of this defense system during the war.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A good idea. Work based on other, long standing articles is good form. Here's a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We need a better source than an image by IDF spokesperson on twitter, something in quotable textual form. Some people say that the low number of Israeli casualties is due to the rockets not being fatal. This article claims Iron Dome isn't working at all. WarKosign (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I added two reliable sources to describe Iron Dome's performance, including an article of the Aviation Week contradicting the analysis of Ted Postol (he's a physicist who doesn't know anything about military issues). Remember that Hezbollah fired 4,000 rockets in 2006 and killed 44 Israeli civilians (plus a number of reservists).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The aviation week article simply quotes the Israeli spokesman Defence Minister and an unnamed Israeli senior official, together with a person from Rafael, who were the manufacturers. Hard to call that independent verification. One could read this in any news media. It adds nothing at all of any interest. Kingsindian (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Many sources (including newspapers) state that Iron Dome intercepted 735 rockets. Few rockets landed in populated areas in comparison. Aviation Week is not the only one. Numbers don't lie: firing the same amount of rockets, Hezbollah managed to kill 44 Israeli civilians in 2006, while Hamas killed 6 (mainly with mortar shells, which in general can't be intercepted by ID).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: What kind of independent verification would you expect to find ? I'm sure the system specs and rocket trajectories are kept secret so not to help Hamas find ways to overcome them, so no uninvolved 3rd party can verify the claims. WarKosign (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That comparison doesn't work fully, which is what Theodore Postol also has said, pointing to warning system and shelters that the Israelis has improved. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the IDF spokesperson source for this information. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Of course military matters are not easy to discern. This is why you need qualified specialists talking about them, not people mindlessly repeating claims. This is a better source, though even this is unsatisfactory. Kingsindian (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Postol's claims don't make sense. He has an obsessive agenda against missile defense systems (perhaps motivated by certain economic interests, I don't know). Again, I repeat: 735 rockets headed toward populated areas were intercepted by Iron Dome. There are plenty of sources confirming this number. Besides, civil defenses in 2006 (warnings, shelters, etc) were nearly the same.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You can argue with Postol if you like. It is useless arguing with me. I am not a military expert. Kingsindian (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a technical issue contaminated further by the failure to produce usable data by the IDF both in earlier operations and in this war, and my deep-seated interests in that technology's success. Subrata Ghoshroy, 'Israel’s Iron Dome: a misplaced debate,' Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, also writes that US reports are highly focused on Hamas rocketry. This is true and can be verified. Google 'gassam'/'Fajr'/etc.+Hamas+Gaza and you get results in the millions. Google a similar combination of 'Soltam M71 guns'/Paladin M109 howitzers/ Hellfire missiles/ Merkava tanks/Dvora/ and Sa’ar gunships/Apache helicopters/F-16/GBU-28+Israel+Gaza and you get miserable results. There are strong commercial interests involved as well since Gaza has long been Isael's laboratory for testing (and selling on the basis of results) all sorts of military technology. We should only be looking at independent technical analysis, not dependant on a side's partial and unverifiable claims (that goes for Hamas too) in order to avoid these traps, and Postol for one, use attribution by all means, is independent, qualified specifically in this area, and neutral as well, since he made similar claims against U.S. defence missile systems. The article by Uzi Rubin calling him 'amateurish' is farcical and self-interested.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Same person criticizing both Israel and the US doesn't make him neutral - or you can say that Iran is neutral. WarKosign (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, here is an idea for Hamas: stop giving IDF reasons/excuses to operate in Gaza and this will mess up testing of weapons and hurt Israel's weapons sales. WarKosign (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The point is, he is an expert in missile defense, and considered such by the American Congressional Committees in their investigations and by his peers in the field (b) editors have no understanding of the technicalities and should desist from pathetic attempts to criticize the kind of expertise our sources provide (c)the two examples are examples only for analogy by hyperbole, and the point of simile is lost when hyperbole is used. As to the last point, Hamas's respect for ceasefires has never stopped the IDF from bombing Gaza, (any more than the PLO's respect for the brokered ceasefire in 1981 stopped Israel's political decision to invade Lebanon, ostensibly to protect its north from rocketry) or running across it at night regularly to create sleep-deprivation tramatizing sonic booms.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
To call him an expert on missile defense is giving him too much credit. In reality, he isn't taken very seriously by his peers. He is almost teetering on conspiracy theory. He bases almost all his conclusions of missile defense on amateur video or poor quality videos, dating all the way back to the Patriot Missile Defense. Not to mention that he believes that MIT is trying to suppress him. Somehow, he's tricked media into thinking he is an expert in missile defense. One of his colleagues, Richard Lloyd, who regularly backs Postol up on his criticism of the Iron Dome has a stake in the game, because Richard Lloyd is trying to get his type of Tamir missile for the Iron Dome picked up by the IDF. Basically, the types of missiles the Iron Dome uses is being made by Richard Lloyd's rival. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea at all what the discussion is about. I see lot of soapboxing. What is the issue? Do you want to get Postol out of the article? Then the answer is no. He has been quoted by Reuters, MIT tech review, BusinessWeek and Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Any criticism you want to make of his methods are not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I said he somehow got the media to think he's an expert on missile defense when he's really not. Not to mention his methodology is faulty and unscientific. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: getting quoted on a bunch of news-medias means some type of notability. It doesn't mean reliability (anyone remember Saeb Erekat promising 500+ "massacred" on CNN and later being confronted on this lie by Wolf Blitzer?). So, in the hypothetical case where someone is notable but heavily criticized (is this guy notable enough to be heavily criticized? *brain freeze*), then there's real problem on how/if to include such point of view/claims. Might be good to get a wider opinion on a "generic" non specific case from a band of Wwikipedia long-time contributors rather than run 50000 arguments about this every other Monday. Even if you two come to agreement, two weeks from now, two others will pop in and redo the same argument. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

@Wlglunight93: This edit is not acceptable. There is no requirement for a dead link to be fixed immediately or the content to be removed. I would urge you to read Misplaced Pages:Link_rot and WP:PRESERVE again. The correct link could have been found by Googling for it, as I did in 2 seconds. I would appreciate it if you put back the perfectly sourced information with the correct link. Here it is. Kingsindian (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will. But those who put the sources should be more careful when writing the links. We are talking about recent articles, not events from several years ago whose links may be lost due to the passage of time. This political POV claim also needs proper citation, since it's not an infallible truth. Other much less controversial statements are better quoted in this article. Besides, it's not true that only 3% of rockets hit populated areas. I think another sentence is necessary to counterbalance this claim, don't you?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It is irrelevant for this issue. Removing sourced content like this is unacceptable. If you think something is wrong with the content, it advances a particular POV etc., then you should make edits and give edit summaries based on that. This kind of behaviour, if repeated, will be seen as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAMING. Kingsindian (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If this kind of behaviour by several parties on this page persists, I think they should all be reported at the AE case regarding WarKosign, who is amenable to discussion, studies the rule and generally does not fly in the face of commonsense, to have their behaviour examined. They should be there, not him, and en bloc. Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
From the data currently in the article, 4.9% of the rockets fired from Gaza hit populated areas in Israel, 16.1% were intercepted by the Iron Dome, 6.1% or more fell in Gaza (this number is from another source so can't be used in the article) and the rest either failed to launch or was ignored by Iron Dome and allowed to fall in empty areas. The article claiming 3% is from July 29, so either it uses outdated data, uses a source other than IDF (which?) or is simply wrong. Perhaps it's best to mention the unreliability of this number while leaving the argument intact - 4.9% is almost as low as 3%. WarKosign (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
All these figures are evidently provisory, even the 4.9% one. Much depends on what you mean by 'populated areas'. And you would not expect much statistical variation between the first three weeks and the subsequent three weeks on Hamas rocket efficiency. If anything, one would expect a deterioration. I don't know how one gets to 4.9% with such precision. I'm not prepossessed by the point however. I just don't think the IDF has much credibility on matters like this. That's why I prefer outside experts. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I took the numbers from the Iron Dome statistics and divided the 735 intercepted rockets by the 4564 fired projectiles and rounded it to 4.9%. Assuming these numbers are final, they should be correct - it's not just some guy watching the sky and counting rockets as they fly by, but results of automatic system tracking objects on radars and classifying them by trajectory. All the data is surely recorded for future reviews. By 'populated areas' I mean areas that the Iron Dome is configured to protect. It surely includes a safety margin to account for inaccuracy of the rockets, so these populated areas are somewhat larger than the actual areas people live in. An outside expert would need to have specialized radars located strategically to be able to record all the rocket launches - which is something nobody but the Iron Dome operators have. Hamas could potentially know the number of rockets launched, if it could collect the data from all the militants that were launching - including those killed mid-action by the IDF, but even then they wouldn't know what happened to each rocket after the launch. WarKosign (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Israeli forces had deliberately killed 296 children in Gaza"

In IP added {{Verify credibility}} to each of the citations which are currently being used to support this statement, including the citation of ynet. It's my understanding that the credibility of ynet is generally accepted — however, the full text of the cited ynet article is "At least 296 Palestinian children and teenagers have been killed in Gaza since the beginning of Israel's offensive against the Palestinian Hamas movement on July 8, UNICEF announced Saturday. 'Children account for 30% of civilian casualties,' said UNICEF." That does not support the claim that Israel deliberately targeted the children, or even the weaker claim that Monica Awad said Israel deliberately targeted the children, so I changed the template to {{Not in source}}. Let discussion commence about whether or not any of the citations, or the wording of the paragraph, should be changed... -sche (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO it's enough of misrepresentation to be reverted on the spot as vandalism before further edits make the revert difficult. If there is anything new and relevant in the source quoted, it can be added to the relevant sections. WarKosign (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ynet indeed doesn't say the killing was intentional. For the other two sources - this is what they say. Anyone knows what el-balad is ? Middleeastmonitor looks British and openly pro-palestinian, how reliable is it ? I do not see this claim reported on major and supposedly neutral sites, nor on UNICEF.org WarKosign (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Misleading citation of sources should be considered immediately revertible, as per WarKoSign. Most of our sources are pro-Israel (Ynet, Times of Israel, Haaretz (70% of articles), New York Times, etc.etc., so having a pro-Palestinian bias is not in itself troublesome, but MEM should not be used for facts. Commonsense tells one that no one can have knowledge of such a phenomenon, i.e 296 Palestinians killed by a deliberate desire to kill them qua children and therefore that should not be in the text. It is well known that children, teenagers are killed regularly by the IDF in ground actions, but in these cases the totals are known (West Bank demonstrations and the Gaza border infringement (children being shot because they enter the no-go zone to get chicory etc. 300-600 yards from Israel's border) instances because the shootings occur, are verified as soldiers shooting kids dead, instance by instance, and then analysed. In intense bombings, this kind of detail, as instanced in the figure, cannot be ascertained and is therefore propaganda.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your common sense, however wouldn't omitting "intentionally" be a misrepresentation of the source ? The claim is not that IDF killed the children intentionally but that Monica Awad said so. If she indeed said so I would expect it to appear on the UNICEF site. So far it was only on tweeter, facebook and many pro-Palestinian sites that I do not know reliability of. Maybe it would be correct to add "Pro-Palestinian sites reported that ..." WarKosign (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Nishidani, really? New York Times pro-Israel? lol! You must be kidding. Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper... not very popular in Israel, precisely because it's considered pro-Palestinian. What matters is not if a newspaper is generally 'anti' or 'pro' something, but if it's reliable and serious when giving information. I just wanted to clarify that. Of course the paragraph needs to be changed, because it states that Israel "kills children deliberately" which – besides of being ridiculous and false – is not supported even by those POV sources. Furthermore, there's evidence to support the contrary: Israel tries to avoid harming Palestinian children (I know, even so civilians die in every war, it sucks). For example, watch this video. Let me put this in clear words: apparently IAF had its target in reach. It was an armed terrorist whose goal was to attack Israelis. Right before the strike, this coward entered a yard full of children. There was a missile heading towards the terrorist. But because of his proximity to the kids, the Israelis immediately aborted the strike. This is killing children intentionally, right?
Although it springs to mind a people who does have a long history of killing children deliberately, bombing schools and hospitals, cutting babies throats and the Maalot massacre amongst MANY others while inciting child martyrdom, using children as front line troops (and those baby-killers are considered "heroes" by their own kind)... I better stop here.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Human shields!! Baby-killers!! You, as opposed to WarKosign, don't seem to understand the distinction I made. In any case, it is pointless talking to someone who edits wikipedia with the POV that a whole population ('a people who does (read 'do') have a long history of killing people deliberately') is characterized by a zest for killing babies. My remark spoke of a practice common in IDF operations (5-7% of all armies are stocked by natural born killers, and this is known. It's just some armies, not the IDF apparently, take legal precautions against them abusing their desire to kill): most Israelis are either appalled by, or flip the page as just too uncomfortable, over reportage like this, which is a weekly event, and has been so since the Ist intifada.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(after e/c) If we can't find evidence Awad actually said what the Palestinian sites allegedly attribute to her (comments above have called into question whether or not there even are sites attributing what our article does to Awad), perhaps we should just reduce the wording to only that bit which is supported by the citations we are sure of the reliability of (Ynet and Haaretz). Otherwise, we have to add a qualifier like WarKosign suggests... and then we have something that boils down to "According to a few pro-Palestinian sources, one spokesperson for one organization said Israeli had deliberately done X", which is pretty wp:undue, IMO.
The relevant portion of the Haaretz article is: "At least 296 children have been killed in the Gaza Strip since the operation began until 11 A.M. on Saturday, about 30% of the operation's fatalities, AFP cites UNICEF as stating. Of these, 187 are boys and 109 are girls, with at least 203 under the age of 12, Unicef says. (Haaretz) According to the Palestinian health ministry, the death toll in the Israeli operation currently stands at 1,624, including 315 children " Hence we could say:
UNICEF reported that between 8 July and 2 August, at least 296 Palestinian children died due to Israeli action, and that 30% of civilian casualties were children; the Health Ministry reported that 315 children died due to Israeli action.
At that point, we could just move/merge the info to the section on casualties. -sche (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wlglunight93:, Nishidani thinks anything or anyone that isn't explicitly pro-Palestinian is pro-Israel. Haaretz is infact, a leftist Israeli newspaper that regularly criticizes Israeli policy, although not in the same way as an explicitly pro-Palestinian site like Electronic Intifada does (you probably understand what I mean) . Ynet is left-leaning, and is generally pretty well balanced. JPost is center-right, and unlike Haaretz which focuses on domestic policy, etc, JPost focuses more on foreign policy. Even JPost is starting to become more to the center (originally, JPost was pretty leftist). They've started to phase out using words like terrorists and started using words like militants. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I grew up when the word 'left' and 'right' had a meaning, but for three decades they've lost that distinction. Papers are either blind or not, nationalist or not. I find quite a few 'conservative' sources more 'leftist' than the so called left. So let's drop the simplified stereotypes.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
~300 children sounds reasonable (as in matches the data, not that it's reasonable to kill intentionally), considering that 33% of Gaza population is children under 15. It actually matches the IDF claim that about half of the casualties are militants. WarKosign (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I had flagged this problem about a month ago, saying that I could not find the original interview by Monica Awad to Al Jazeera saying that Israel had deliberately killed 250+ children. All I could find was that is that overall 250+ children had died. Someone added ElBalad as source and removed my dubious or better source needed tag. As far as I can see, El Balad is just repeating Middle East Monitor. Someone then added Ynet etc. without checking what it said. Kingsindian (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Does any of the sources say anything about crimes or IHL violations ? If not, this is not an alleged violation, so this information doesn't belong there. As for casualties - this is certainly casualties data, but it has been superseded by higher numbers later on. WarKosign (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

TL;DL. Comment: Haaretz is known for propagating Israel-bashing plot-lines (occasionally, with terrible/no fact checking: Gideon Levy is commonly mentioned). It is nick-named al-Balad, which is an Arabic translation of the Hebrew name. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Important question: does the article say how many children died while digging the tunnels? "At least 160". Also, how do we treat this type of source? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone put a line about that into the article at one point, but it was removed after discussion concluded that it was highly irrelevant and wp:undue. It is already present in both of the places it might actually belong, namely the two articles on the tunnels themselves (Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels and Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip); it does not belong in this article, which is about a specific conflict. -sche (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@-sche:, Did the Israelis not say they targeted tunnel destruction in this operation? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
"On 17 July, the operation was expanded to a ground invasion with the stated aim of destroying Gaza's tunnel system". Existence of the tunnels and their destruction is highly relevant to this article. How exactly they came to be is not. In the IHL violations sections only the violations that occured during the conflict are listed. If you can show that the children were digging the tunnels during the conflict, then it's relevant. Otherwise it belongs in an article discussing the tunnels or in an article discussing Hamas's abuse of the Palestinian people. WarKosign (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait. So Israel destroying tunnels and other weapons is 'first-paragraph important', but how the Palestinians were fabricating them can't be mentioned?? Not even in the Background section?? (small correction: some say "abuse" and "virgin sacrifice", others say "resistance" and "liberate Palestine from the Zionist entity" -- I'm not one to impose one view over another on Misplaced Pages. Both views have citations.) On topic -- I'm sure some people also want to know details about Iron Dome. e.g. how fucking expensive those rockets are... well, I hear costs went down a bit lately. Anyways --- this information IS relevant. At least the basic core information that any Wiki-reader would be interested in without reading a whole other article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
People may want to know more about the Iron Dome or the attack tunnels, and this is exactly why these articles exist and this article links to them. Both provide estimates for the cost and the number of children sacrificed to create them. WarKosign (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to how long Mashal has lived in exile

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, can you tell me where you see Yahoo making the point that Mashal has lived 37 years in exile? Secondly, you broke the 1RR, so think about discussing first instead of rushing to revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR means you are given one revert, not that no reverts can ever occur. Yahoo mentions that he lives in exile, here is a source for how long.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That said, the number cited in that 2014 article may be wrong. I believe Meshaal has lived in exile since 1967, which is supported by this source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You made reverts earlier. But it's good you have started to discuss the issue.
So I was right, and not a "liar" as you unacceptably called me because I disagreed with you, that the article doesn't make that point. Not either the original article in Yahoo that they refer to (Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL). Read about WP:SYNTHESIS. That he has lived in exile has no connection to the citations you added. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Meshaal, who has lived in exile for 37 years, has denied being involved in the 'details'" sounds very much like synthesis. It sounds as if his living in exile is related to him not being involved in the details, while neither his quote nor the article make this claim. There are sources for the denial, there are sources for exile but no sources for them being related. Why not "Meshaal, who's favorite pizza topping is ZZZZ, has denied ..." ?WarKosign (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In the same spirit, "On 20 August, a Hamas official in exile in Turkey, Saleh al-Arouri, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and the murder" - an exile is not mentioned at all in the sources. Even if there are sources for the exile, do they claim any relevance to him claiming Hamas's responsibility for the murder ? WarKosign (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo explicitly makes the point that he has headed Hamas' political wing from exile. If IRISZOOM was really concerned merely about the details of his exile, not whether it was attested to by the source, he would have amended the text to better reflect what the source does in fact say rather than deleting it completely. The obvious goal is to discredit Saleh al-Arouri based on Meshaal's propaganda, even though Meshaal also claims not to know anything about any Hamas terrorist attacks, ever. Finally, IRISZOOM believes all edits are reverts and thus one can only make one edit a day, a bizarre view very similar to that espoused by GGranddad, providing more evidence he may be a sockpuppet.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the goalpost. We were talking about if the article mentions how long Mashal has lived in exile. That he has lead the political movement in exile since 2004 is true, and is well-known by him being their highest leader, and doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and the latter is also true about Saleh al-Arouri.
No, you reverted JDiala and then me. So it was not normal edits. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not going to feed the troll by engaging with you any further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Iriszoom. I'd ask a third party. I always get IR wrong, and when in doubt ask a competent admin. If you are dead certain, then it should go to AE, since this page is harassed by poor editing which it can ill-afford.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean asking about the 1RR? --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani added sources for Saleh al-Arouri's exile. The questions remains - is the exile of either of Hamas's leaders important enough to mention? Is putting it in the same sentence with the claim they are making implies connection between the exile and the claim? WarKosign (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is important, since the range of contacts available to people in exile with their home networks (esp. in the intercepted world of communications) is restricted, as are their contacts with each other. And this, in an extremely factionalized world, means jumping to generic cause and effect reverse reasoning (Hamas member, ergo Hamas, ergo Hamas Arouri, ergo Meshaal) Kingsindian mentioned on my page an important transcript in Arabic discussing this, which we need a faithful translation on, as it might throw some light on the issue. The exile and the claim are mentioned together in sources, and there is no reason to separate them.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Killings in the West Bank

@-sche: I noticed that you moved the killings in the West Bank to the "Reactions" article. I do not think this is correct. The affair started in the West Bank with the kidnapping/murder of three teenagers etc. which is mentioned in detail in this article. And of course, West Bank is part of Palestine, just as Gaza is, with about the quarter of the people in Gaza having family in the West Bank. All throughout the conflict and even before there have been demonstrations there and the killings there are certainly notable and directly related. It should be present in this article, instead of simply as reactions like pro-Palestine or pro-Israel protests around the world. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different. Kingsindian (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The details of the West Bank killings are still present in this article, in #Reactions. The paragraph in the #Casualties section which had repeated the details was both redundant and IMO not well-placed, in that West Bank casualties seem (to me) to by definition not be "Israel-Gaza conflict casualties". (I still left an informative mention of them in the Casualties section with a link to the Reactions section.) How do RSes, and how does Israel, treat the killings — as part of the military conflict, or as part of regular containment of protests? Not all killings, even killings by parties which are involved in the conflict, are part of the conflict — hence the discussion above about whether or not to mention that Hamas shot people who were fighting over food handouts.
If the information on the West Bank killings is deemed necessary to include in the Casualties section, I think it should be removed from the Reactions section. It can't be both a part of the conflict and a reaction to the conflict, can it? -sche (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The food handouts issue is totally separate. The issue there was that it was a domestic matter involving police, and not an international matter involving military. As to RS about West Bank/Gaza, here are two, including an official PLO response one and two. Probably I can find more if I search. Kingsindian (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that it should not belong in "Reactions". I had initially put it in a separate section by itself and someone moved it to "Reactions" and somehow I never followed it up. Kingsindian (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The infobox says that belligerents of the conflict are Israel and Gaza Strip. Even if we include the west bank as a belligerent for this argument, controlling violent demonstrations is policing and not a military action. By Kingsindian's logic, casualties of a policing action are not casualties of the conflict. WarKosign (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I already said why that logic does not apply. This is not an internal police matter. West Bank is not Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a report by Human Rights Watch on the matter. Kingsindian (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. Comment: The West Bank is disputed territory. Some consider it "part of Palestine", some consider it "part of Israel", some consider it a place where Jews and Arabs can come together to play Yahtzee (Winner gets to shout "Yahtzee!"). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who consider the west bank a part of Israel aren't likely to condemn killing of Palestinian protesters, so for the issue of considering whether the killing of protesters is a policing action or a part of the conflict we must assume the west bank is not a part of Israel. WarKosign (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the many killings on the West Bank should be in a reactions section. The West Bank protests were against the war, and the same military fighting in Gaza, shot up the demonstrators. It is an Israeli POV that this is 'policing'. Most modern police do not put down demonstrations by shooting protestors reguarly, and the West Bank is policed by units forming part of a military institution. It is of course not an 'assumption' that the West Bank is part of Israel. It is not so under Israeli law, which applies, at its convenience, Jordanian law or Ottoman law there, and hasn't even formally annexed East Jerusalem. These are elementary facts, long exhaustively discussed here over a decade and should not be recycled as subjective opinions.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a terrible idea to use big words like 'I think', 'many' and 'regularly'. Less Osama Hamdan based mythology, more encyclopedic citation based content. Yes. Indeed. As for how to describe the results of clashes in the Israeli-Miltary administered parts of the West Bank (Area C?), Misplaced Pages should see what mainstream sources say rather than promote a wiki-user's favorite. “With blood and fire, we will redeem Palestine,”-peace-activists have died. Not in this example. But here, Molotov cocktail throwing de-facto-pro-peace militants supreme resulted in two casualties (said spokespersons for the shadow organization called "Palestinian medical officials" -- lazy reporters couldn't get a name or at least a job title?). I'd appreciate a source for the above "Israeli POV" statement. There's a lot of blue cheese dressing in a statement made on behalf of an entire democratic country (which had both Effi Eitam and Azmi Bishara as MKs if you can believe it). Find a source to make it Cheddar. Or better yet, avoid the cheese. Less calories. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Most international institutions consider the blockade to be a form of collective punishment and unlawful"

There is a very long list of references, I did not see any of them being some form of research comparing statements by the different international institutions. There are definitely "many" such institutions, but to wrote "most" you need a source that claims that.

BTW, is there a way to have the background diff-able ? At the moment it is very hard to tell what is being changed because of the <onlyinclude> tag. WarKosign (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

International institutions, within the context of this discussion, would imply organizations such as the UN, NGOs, the ICRC, the ICC, and human rights organizations. The opinion of these institutions is almost unanimous: the blockade is illegal under international law. Regardless, if you have an issue with the word "most" it can be changed to "many". JDiala (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's easily fixed but to do so only makes the ref list uglier. What you are questioning is 'most'. 50 international organizations have condemned the situation in Gaza. Change to read (adding the extra references:

Over the years, there is an "overwhelming consensus" shared by 50 organizations, among them some of the most respected institutions internationally, such as International Committee of the Red Cross Amnesty International, CARE International, several UN agencies, a UN fact-finding mission, many experts in international law and human rights organizations consider the blockade a form of collective punishment or illegal, and the European Quartet (UN, European Union, Russia and the United States) has repeatedly called for an immediate end to the blockade. Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are listing some very respectable institutions. Saying that they are "most" respective is a subjective statement. While I personally believe the statement is true, it lacks a source. "many" would be more technically correct and is supported by the fact there are many sources. I wonder how many of the same institutions consider rocket fire on civilian population illegal as well. WarKosign (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Judging by where you're from and your edit history, I am inclined to wonder whether or not the Israeli government is paying you to spout Israeli propaganda. I'm going to use your reasoning, just apply it the other way around. Find one international institution that doesn't believe that the blockade is illegal. And by blockade, I'm referring to the whole blockade, not just the naval blockade, so you cannot use the Palmer report.
Misplaced Pages represents the mainstream views. Not partisan, pro-Israel apologetics. The mainstream legal, academic and scholarly consensus of the international community is that the blockade of the Gaza strip is illegal under international law. Therefore, we will take care to explicitly mention that fact. JDiala (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I wish the government did pay somebody to correct the obvious pro-Palestinian bias in many pages. Comparing the number of Arabs with the number of Jews in the world, it's a miracle the article for Israel isn't called Zionist Entity. But enough soapboxing. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A silly comment. Arabs, certainly Palestinians, have close to zero presence in wikipedia's I/P articles, as opposed to Israelis. The suspicion is of course that the few non-Israeli/non-Arabs who do pitch in have problems with anti-semitism. The premise there is, that careful reading of Israeli newspapers and scholarship, and its use as RS is anti-semitic. The conflict here is quite simply an infra-Israeli/Jewish dispute, and that goyim find the Israeli/Jewish critical literature more comprehensible, more 'empirical' than the nationalist literature, which is all about solidarity and "us", from which, by definition, they are excluded.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: With all due respect, the entire world, bar the United States and Israel, have what you perceive to be, a pro-Palestinian bias. This is simply the reality of the situation. The facts that this article lays out may not conform to your preconceived ideological belief that Israel's actions are perfectly good and just, and that its defending itself against the evil Arabs. Again, let me reiterate my point: Misplaced Pages represents the mainstream views. And the mainstream view among practically all international institutions is that the blockade is illegal.
You have been doing this on numerous sections. You repeatedly complain about various things which you perceive to be "anti-Israel". If you have a particular viewpoint, you, by all means, have the right to bring it up. However, partisan, WP:SPA individuals who care more about having the article reflect their own person ideological views rather than attempting to abide by certain encyclopedic standards are not appreciated. JDiala (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign: This has been discussed here. The "most international institutions" is a paraphrase of Richard Falk first reference "overwhelming consensus". One can directly use Falk's phrase if needed. Kingsindian (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
50 International institutions does justify 'most', which is moderate actually because only Israel (as opposed to many Israeli observers and scholars) as an official government stance, naturally denies that international law is being violated there. Falk's phrasing is actually better, so I have adjusted my suggested version.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. 'UN agencies join in shared call for end to Israeli blockade of Gaza,' 14 June 2012
  2. 'Statement: Legal experts and human rights defenders demand international community end Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza,' Mondoweiss July 28, 2014
  3. Imogen Foulkes,'ICRC says Israel's Gaza blockade breaks law,' BBC News 14 June 2010.

Massive destruction in Beit Hanoun

Beit Hanoun is a small city north in Gaza with some 32 000 inhabitants. About 70% of homes were uninhabitable after the war. I think that the article should have more about this, and some pictures.--85.166.157.97 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Except for the fact that that the article provided by this IP address user only mentions Beit Hanoun briefly and quotes its mayor as the person making the totally unverifiable claim. Without providing any evidence and since logically, his claim would mean that (if the average house hold had 10 people living there) 2,000 homes were destroyed or suffered such levels of destruction that they are uninhabitable. I think the mayor's comments need a neutral source before being taken seriously.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement about 70% etc. is already present in the "Impact" section. Kingsindian (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Controlled?

The lead sentence of the article says "On 8 July 2014, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Protective Edge...in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip". What exactly does "Hamas controlled" mean? That's a vague statement. Is it governance? Hamas governs the Gaza strip; however, it hardly controls it. Israel has absolute control over the Gazans' freedom of movement (ie border crossings), the crossing of goods, the airspace, the population registry, the tax system, the coastline, overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade and, of course, is currently besieging the region. It is seriously disingenuous to state that Gaza is Hamas controlled. At best, it must be acknowledged that the situation is more complex than a single entity "controlling" the entire region; Hamas and Israel control it in different ways. After all, Israel is still considered the occupying power of Gaza by most international institutions and human rights organizations. JDiala (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because Israel controls aspects of Gaza such as airspace, borders (Israel doesn't control the Egypt/Gaza border), etc doesn't mean Hamas doesn't control Gaza. During the Afghanistan War, the US effectively had control over Afghanistan in the same respect as Israel does to Gaza, but there were parts that were considered Taliban controlled which is in the same respect as Hamas with Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with "Hamas-governed", if that is more precise. Kingsindian (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I thing governed is fine. WarKosign (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with 'governed' is that just recently there were some hard to follow unity chess-games between Hamas and Fatah. To avoid this confusion, which I'm sure even Palestinian "legislators" and "spokespersons" like Osama Hamdan or the shadowy "Palestinian medical officials" (hurray to shabby journalism for never getting a name or a job title even) can't follow, it IS best (and most certainly not "seriously disingenuous" -- what?!) to go with 'Hamas-controlled'. They control the strip itself, while Israel and Egypt apply a US-Quartet sanctioned blockade. That is a very basic and neutral summary of what reliable sources say. All the hubbub about what's exactly controlled by who (e.g. Hamas controls the media and local tax mechanism (Fatah controls the global one, which includes import taxes) and tunnel making and the public executions, etc.) belongs in a whiny section about the economics and how the "illegal" blockade prevents it from growing (that and the spending on 3km tunnels and air-drones (ffs!) to "resist" and "defend" and take back Palestine as imagined by Hamas -- rejecting past agreements and repeatedly attacking a country with a capable army while very few of your allies are willing to help out doesn't help either). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is little argument that Hamas is the elected government in the Gaza strip. As you can see there is argument regarding the degree of control it has. The purpose of this sentence in the lead is to say that the conflict is not between Israel and the Gazan people but between Israel and the authority that claims responsibility for what happens in Gaza (a.k.a. government), and for that "Hamas governed" is precise enough. It is indeed questionable how much control Hamas actually has. In some aspects it has less control than a typical government, being cut-off by the blockade and depending on Israel for infrastructures such as water and power supply; and in some aspects much more control than a typical government, being opaque in almost every regard and performing massive executions of opponents and protesters. I do not believe that every homeowner willingly agreed to store ammunition in their house, knowing that it makes the house a legitimate military target and puts the family at risk - but Hamas did it anyway. WarKosign (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Commendable judgement. I would beg to differ only with the statement:'massive executions of opponents and protesters'. However deplorable that kind of institutionalized thuggery, 'massive' is inappropriate. Clinically examining the period without partis pris, Hamas executed 25 Gazans, Israel has shot dead in what it calls 'riot control' a similar number (32 since June 13, but if you start from July 7, the number is approximately in the mid-twenties) of Palestinians it governs under military law in the occupied territories. Those wounded by IDF gunfire in the West Bank during the Gaza war number 1,397 which means the 'riot control' methods are similar to those that sparked the Al-Aqsa Intifada. And it too is 'opaque' in every regard to the circumstances of each of those deaths. A neutral bystander (not perhaps myself) would think the analogy precise, and perhaps draw similar conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There were more than 25 executed, at least 88 by my count during this conflict, and it is not the first time for Hamas. Arguably shooting and even killing violent protesters is more reasonable than executing hand-cuffed and hooded prisoners in cold blood. WarKosign (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@WarKosign, it is a misconception that Hamas is the "elected government of Gaza". They were not elected to govern Gaza. They were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council and won the most seats. They ultimately kicked out the rest of the Palestinian Legislative Council, so they are hardly the "legitimate" government in Gaza. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be meandering from the original course. If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can). It says the same thing without any issue of vagueness. Kingsindian (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories: