Misplaced Pages

Talk:War crimes in the Gaza War (2008–2009)

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 29 October 2009 (→libido-increasing chewing gum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:10, 29 October 2009 by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (→libido-increasing chewing gum)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War crimes in the Gaza War (2008–2009) 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
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 High‑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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: 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 not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
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

Template:SplitfromBannerShell

economist editorial

The cited source is a Leaders editorial. I dont object to it saying an "Economist editorial" rather than "an editorial in the Economist" but it is an editorial and it should be presented as such. nableezy - 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Messy article.

Reactions to the UNHRC report have a section but the report doesnt. Why? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I created a section and moved material into it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

some useful links

  1. the testimonies of the Col. Lane and prof. Newton
  1. criticism of UN Watch regarding witness registry
  1. JCPA criticism of the reliability of the witnesses, the original publication
  1. criticism from WSJ
  1. Hamas embraces the report, despite initial response.
  1. response of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner
  1. response from president of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya plus some Israeli officials
  1. B'Tselem director is not very happy with the report, as well as with the "failure to investigate the accusations of abuses during January's Operation Cast Lead"
  1. analyses of the B'Tselem casualties report - belongs to other place. --Sceptic from Ashdod 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. IMFA INITIAL RESPONSE TO REPORT --Sceptic from Ashdod 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council dropped its efforts to forward a report accusing Israel of possible war crimes to the Security Council, under pressure from the United States, diplomats said.

UN Watch questions credibility of Goldstone’s witnesses, demonstrated by police spokesman in the Gaza Strip Islam Shahwan.

The Palestinian Authority has come under heavy criticism for agreeing to defer the draft proposal at the UN Human Rights Council endorsing all recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission regarding Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. Under the title "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied," several Palestinian human rights organizations issued a statement condemning the PA's action, accusing its leaders of succumbing to US pressure.

Retired major general Jim Molan: The Goldstone report is an opinion by one group of people putting forward their judgments, with limited access to the facts, and reflecting their own prejudices. The difference in tone and attitude in the report when discussing Israeli and Hamas actions is surprising. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Move article?

I suggest a new name: 'Israeli responce to accusation of warcrime' or 'Israel point of view regarding accusations in general'. No joke. This article need rework. Sorry Sceptic. I see you putting in lot of effort but israels responces is causing undue weight compared to encyclopedical content. Not sure what to start but restructuring and removing excessive Israeli responces is a must or article might get tags. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the responses to Goldstone report, the contents is stable for quite a while, about 2 months. Actually, until recently it was merged into Gaza War article, and none of my prime opponents made such remarks. As I see it, all of the contents here has high encyclopedic value and you'll have to work hard to make changes to it. Btw, not all is Israeli response. E.g. read a para. on "Precisely wrong" report - a rebuttal was published by AP. Another example - whenever you see UN Watch - it has nothing to do with Israel, no more than Goldstone. Opinions from pro-Israeli NGOs like Monitor or JCPA are as valid as Israeli-critical NGOs like B'Tselem or Breaking the Silence and anyway does not necessarily reflect view of Israeli Government (and before you ask, Steinberg is not a consultant of PM - he was in the past before devoting himself to Monitor). When you have concrete proposals, we'll discuss them. --Sceptic from Ashdod 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was little ti harsh in my comment. Its the Goldstonereport part I thinking about. And maby its more of a structure problem than the mass of responces from Israeli side. Two things I suggest. First: Structure of the first part, UN.

  • The UN Human Rights Council mission
  • The UN Human Rights Council resolution
  • The UN fact-finding mission
  • Goldstone report presented with its findings

After that reactions from parts and other interests. Like most articles with a section named 'critic' on wharever subject article is about. As it is now history/reports/accusations is mixed with responces and contradicting reports. Article give a unstructured and 'not so easy to read' feeling. Accusation and responces make it jumpy and dramaturgic. Not so encyclopedical.

Second, The structure of the rest of the article. In detail about the alledged warcrimes:

The allegations from diferent sources against the belligerents should be inspired by this side International humanitarian law. By going from the diferent conventions, in a juridical view, if we can, we not only get a NPOV but a readable and hopfully educational value about human rights and less of accusation/response style.

We got time as it isnt a current event and we can make this article really good. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And a thoght is to split the article and have one for the Goldstonereport itself. We will see if this side can handle it. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Splitting Goldstone_report into separate article is fine (technically speaking I wouldn't do it myself but I know someone who can help). About the structure, I couldn't understand what was the first bullet and what's the difference with the 3rd.
Allegations per IHL - generally I agree, and that was a pattern I tried to follow (I guess I suceeded better with the Palestinian side). Again, we can work it out. State your reservations, one at a time, and we'll discuss it. --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sceptic, I've blocked you for 48 hours for saying "Opinions from pro-Israeli NGOs like Monitor....are as valid as Israeli-critical NGOs like B'Tselem". Oh wait, I'm not an admin. Nevermind. Carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks the almighty! Because I was just about to provide link to recent Monitor bulletin. If you read para. 495 in the final Goldstone report, you'll come across this: "...Their (Palestinian fighters) failure to distinguish themselves from the civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants...". Now this is a perversion of the IHL. Fighters and soldiers must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, otherwise they violate one of the provisions of the perfidy principle as outlined in Art. 37 of the Protocol I. I waited for someone to spot it and so far only Monitor did: "Moreover, the Commission denies the use of perfidy by Hamas (para. 495) ..., and incredibly claims that engaging in this action is not an IHL violation. Article 37 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions clearly prohibits the practice". I intend to include it - ignoring it would be highly unencyclopedical. --Sceptic from Ashdod 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My comment on this complex legal issue is that I don't think 'unencyclopedical' is a word yet. I shall start using it to help you out. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Complex? It's quite simple, Sean, and for you, my fellow Brit-risen, I'll write it in English - Goldstone tells you that military is not legally obliged to wear uniform. Interesting, isn't it? --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly impressed by hypocrisy of the shifting of positions on the legal status of 'fighters' and the obligations that follow as if they are a cynical matter of convenience. If it suits NGO Monitor, the MFA etc to argue that people are soldiers=non-civilians who must wear uniforms they will do so. If it suits them to argue that they are illegal combatants (civilians engaged in hostilities who are of course perfectly entitled to fight in bra and panties or dressed as Ronald McDonald without breaking IHL) they will do so. It makes no difference in practice. The people were killed because they're were regarded as 'terrorists' and therefore engaged in hostities by the IDF's legal team. Had they been captured they wouldn't have been given POW status because they aren't regarded as soldiers by the Israeli legal system. Of course Hamas are just as cynical in their approach. So, I'll just carry on ignoring NGO Monitor and listen to some complicated music from southern Senegal instead. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Instead of making ridiculous posts, you'd better reread recent ICRC publication. Maybe then you'll realize that a combatant must wear uniform; if he doesn't - he violates laws of war and becomes illegal combatant and these simple notions are universal (at least on Earth). --Sceptic from Ashdod 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Um..no need. I understand and remember these matters perfectly well. I also understand and remember the HCJ's position on these civilians engaged in hostilities that the IDF are fighting a war against perfectly well. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Even when you're shown actual misstatement of the Int-Law in the Goldstone report, the attention is shifted to Israeli HCJ. Well-done. Even though you're not interested, I can't help pasting from p. 22: "members of militias and volunteer corps other than the regular armed forces recognized as such in domestic law fulfil four requirements: (a) responsible command; (b) fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) carrying arms openly; and (d) operating in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Strictly speaking, however, these requirements constitute conditions for the post-capture entitlement of irregular armed forces to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status and are not constitutive elements of the armed forces of a party to a conflict. Thus, while members of irregular armed forces failing to fulfil the four requirements may not be entitled to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status after capture, it does not follow that any such person must necessarily be excluded from the category of armed forces and regarded as a civilian for the purposes of the conduct of hostilities. On the contrary, it would contradict the logic of the principle of distinction to place irregular armed forces under the more protective legal regime afforded to the civilian population merely because they fail to distinguish themselves from that population, to carry their arms openly, or to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Sorry to tell you, Sean, but you are the one that misbehaves. --Sceptic from Ashdod 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone report

There is too much noise in this article consisting of reactions to the report. We cover that more than we do the actual report. This shouldn't be a collection of editorials of people praising or condemning the report. Yes there has been a lot of reaction but we need to put that reaction in the proper context and that does not mean we include any and every source that has something to say. Let's try to focus on the substance of the issues instead of the background noise. nableezy - 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As you remember, the mission itself sparked a lot controversy even before it actually started its work. I guess it's inevitable. But I understand the concern, and I would support the idea raised above, to separate the Goldstone report in an entry of its own. Btw, I started looking at the Gaza War article and couldn't help noticed the mess in the preamble to Int-Law. Most of it should be, after serious clean-up, merged here and in the Goldstone report. Surprised you let it happen. Were you preoccupied with Eid al-Fitr? --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really, just stopped paying attention. We never really got a decent summary in place and a lot of what is in there now should be replaced. We (read you with a lil help from me) should really do that. nableezy - 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This won't be easy - many new people are suddenly involved there. Why don't we start with the more easy task - spin off the Goldstone report into separate entity? --Sceptic from Ashdod 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton vs. Astroturf

Hi, there has been some reverting going on recently, my view is that junk like "UN watch" doesn't need to be cited if we have Hillary Clinton saying the same thing. --Dailycare (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove the word 'junk' from your post if you want to talk like civilized person. --Sceptic from Ashdod 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor is entitled to the opinion that UN Watch is junk and he is entitled to use the word here. If you don't want to talk to him or interact with him because you personally find his views or manner uncivilized then don't. He can deal with other editors. It's not a big deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
For a view on what kind of sources these are, see the UN_Watch#Criticism ("Since 2001, UN Watch is a "fully integrated partner" of the American Jewish Committee"). "Eye on the UN" for it's part is a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute, so both of these "NGOs" are in fact instances that would be expected to be mobilised to attack any document even remotely critical of Israel and they shouldn't be used as they currently are in this article (see WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources). --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
and all the human-rights groups like B'tselem, Breaking the silence, Gisha (not to mention some Arab human-rights groups inside Israel and the NPA), HRW (background of its MidEast members is revealing), Oxfam, etc, etc are far left, so? shall we exclude them too? UN Watch is notable org. that was commended by Kofi Annan, so it stays.
What you don't understand is that the point UN Watch is making is completely different, so I'll separate it and keep it intact. Goldstone discussed the terms of his mission with the UNHRC president and got his verbal agreement to investigate both sides. They even convinced Cuba and some other states to proceed with the upgraded mandate. No one challenges these facts. The point is that all these agreements were informal and UNHRC did not change the resolution in its June session. Would you go to advocate that is not certified to look into your matter, but who supposedly is backed up by his boss to nevertheless take the job? --Sceptic from Ashdod 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether the mandate was formally, or only in practice, broadened isn't very important, IMO. The report did address also Hamas' violations, after all. --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, some think otherwise. After all, no one could have known in advance what the report would be. --Sceptic from Ashdod 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem's Montell

Not sure that the current material from B'Tselem's Jessica Montell in the Non-governmental organizations section faithfully captures her views on the report. Her blog piece in The Huffington Post might help. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-montell/the-goldstone-report-on-g_b_306500.html Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, her post in JPost is slightly different, but her key points are the same: 1) "Israel must conduct credible investigations into its own conduct"; 2) "This is not to say that the report has no faults" (and the whole para. there). So yes the wording can be improved to reflect more carefully what she says, but the contents would not change much. --Sceptic from Ashdod 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See..

..new article United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict although I'm not sure what revision Jalap used as a source as it has discrepancies with this article i.e. I noticed an update from a few days ago was missing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

okay, it was created Oct 2 which explains the differences. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a need for that article, taking into account that the fact-finding mission is already extensively discussed here? At the least, the articles should be linked to each other. --Dailycare (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The answer is yes, we need that article, since it has floated current article recently with tons of info linked only indirectly to int-law. What I would do - I'd merge the info here with the text there, place links and leave here summary only. Don't worry, I won't select - as it is now, including latest edits and corrections will go there as they are. I hope I'll do it before the weekend. --Sceptic from Ashdod 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
merge is complete (easier than i thought). i'm going to delete redundant contents, but if someone has reservations - go ahead, we'll discuss it. --Sceptic from Ashdod 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit worried that the Goldstone Report is now buried quite deep in the bowels of Misplaced Pages, it can still be found by typing "Goldstone report" in the search bar but that's about the only way, aside from jumping to Gaza War, Int.Law&GW and then to the "UNFFMOTGC" page. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Technically speaking, you can say the same about every entry, including the Gaza War - that unless you type it in the search or redirected from I-P conflict, you won't find it. Btw, whenever Gaza War will be reopen, we'll insert a link to the Goldstone report too. --Sceptic from Ashdod 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

libido-increasing chewing gum

I removing this part as nonsence, the police spokepersons credability is attacked in the line above in a more substantial way even if I disagree its of importanse for Goldstone Reports finding on the subject. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

the sentence is not readable.
your only way to remove highly valuable important info on the police subject as stated by UN Watch is to remove it together with the findings of the Goldstone report - and it would be kind of you if you ask Nableezy first. --Sceptic from Ashdod 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What, is libido-increasing chewing gum part highly valuable important info?Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Human-rights generalizations

The UN Human Rights Council Amnesty International Human Rights Watch are *cough* quite notable in the article. The letter on the other hand can stay into its own sectionMr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

'In order to protect soldiers from charges for possible war crime charges...' This part dont really belong there either- Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Categories: