Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Intro too long

There is a lot of redudant information but also some that should go somewhere else.

This my proposed text. Any deletions would be moved (if not redundant) into the text, and of course my propossal would be wikilinked and sourced as necessary. The operative principle is WP:LEAD.

(I recognize that there is controversy on the title, but we can easily remove that from this proposed version if that is the decision, so please make your comments about the content not the title stuff which has two sections already.)

Proposal

The December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, began with an Israeli air strike named Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎) by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) (after a line in a children's song for Hanukkah) which began on December 27, 2008 at 11:30 am local time (9:30 am UTC) against Hamas-controlled targets in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli operation had been reportedly in the planning for over six months, from the approximate time as the temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas was signed. Beginning around this time, plans were started to do an attack on Hamas targets if necessary. After a process initiated in mid-November 2008, an nearly a two month long process involving the highest levels of government, the Israeli cabinet unanimously voted in favor of the strike.

The stated aim of the airstrikes is to neutralize the Hamas militiamen which had been launching rocket attacks at Israeli territory in recent years, and to destroy the infrastructure of power and governance that Hamas had been building since winning the Gaza elections. The airstrikes, mark a significant change in Israeli strategy in that they were launched in full daylight as previous attacks in Gaza have largely been nighttime operations. Airstrikes hit all of Gaza's main towns. A large number of Hamas-operated security installations and infrastructure were hit. In addition there were attacks on the Al Aqsa TV station and a Science building at the Islamic University of Gaza; both were identified by Israel as Hamas-controlled.

There have been international criticism and support. Criticism in general focus on concerns over civilian casualties, and the use of air power in such a small, built-up area. There has also been concern over the general humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. Support has focused on the retaliatory and defensive nature of the attacks, defending Israel's right to strike against a hostile Hamas after sustained rocket attacks, that have resulted in significant property damage and mostly civilian casualties.

The UN relief agency in Gaza says 56 Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli fire so far. The head of the emergency services in Gaza said that 312 Palestinians had been killed in all, and more than 1,400 others wounded. The Israeli authorities have not reported any casualties.

Discussion (intro)

  • Any omissions of important information are unintentional, so don't read into it. A lot of what I did was shorten phrasing and eliminate information that belongs somewhere else in the article. I also eliminated timeline information, that belongs in the article, not the intro. In general a low level of detail is required in the lead. If you feel strongly something must be said in the lead, please read WP:LEAD before expressing it, the answer as to why it was not included is there in all probability. This is not a vote but a discussion motivated by quality issues with the article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would only say that the part about the line in childrens Hanukkah song being the source of the name is unncessary, but besides that I think it looks good Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite. Assuming factual accuracy and appropriate sourcing I wholeheartedly support this rewrite, and will happily accept it as is. However ...
The phrase "Hamas-controlled targets in the Gaza Strip" doesn't quite make sense. For practical purposes the whole of Gaza and everything in it is Hamas controlled. How about "Hamas related targets in the Gaza Strip which they control".
Substitute "neutralize the Hamas militiamen which had been launching rocket attacks" with "degrade the Hamas capacity to launch rocket attacks". Formally, the purpose is to reduce the attacks, not to neutralize militiamen. I accept that in practice the attacks are also intended as punishment and deterrence, and all casualties will increase their efficaciousness. However, that is not the formal objective.
The repetition of the phrases "Hamas-operated" and "Hamas-controlled" conveys emphasis, but not meaning. Hamas is exercising effective government. No other group or party operates or controls security installations without Hamas agreement, if at all. What we really need is some concise phrasing to distinguish Hamas as a party, as a military entity, as a provider of services like schools/hospitals and as a government.
Delete "a hostile" from "a hostile Hamas", it is subjective.
Delete "significant" from "resulted in significant property damage". Significant compared to what? Gaza? It is probably less than road accidents, and best omitted or replaced with “some”.
I am unaware of any Israeli military casualties resulting from Hamas rocket attacks. Unless we can identify at least one delete "mostly" from "mostly civilian casualties".
The last sentence "The Israeli authorities have not reported any casualties." is ambiguous. Does this mean casualties Israelis suffered themselves, or caused to Palestinians?
--Milezmilez (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of apparently excessive amount of background history?

Without going all the way back to 1967, was there any particular benefit to be gained from the following huge cut-and-paste from a separate article unrelated to the near-history of this /specific/ event? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes&diff=260714520&oldid=260713567
A brief note back to the start of the ceasefire (June 2008) and slightly greater in-fill for December 2008 would appear to be a sensible maximum for context as was apparently the consensus opinion prior to that edit. Harami2000 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No please. The situation is much more complex than a ceasefire and some rockets. It's a long tension between Hamas and Israel since the day of Hamas elections win. --Darwish07 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on that, of course, but I can see no need for a mass, /verbatim/ copy-paste of years of background history from Gaza–Israel_conflict when the "Background" section already leads with clickable links to the relevant higher-level information;
>>Main articles: 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict and Blockade of the Gaza Strip
>>See also: List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008
A mass copy-paste on that scale for what is a single timeframed article on Wikipedia is contrary to the idea of subarticles, and in theory /this/ article is a subarticle. Or would you propose a merge instead? Harami2000 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried to shorten the Background by removing some part of it.--Seyyed(t-c) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Seyyed. The scope of that additional text is still pretty much the whole of the leader text from Gaza–Israel_conflict which suggests a "merge up" rather than a subarticle.
The question is still /why/ is that wholesale copy-paste of several years of history needed here when it is already explained in the other clearly-linked article in order to save duplication of effort? Harami2000 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I will tighten up the first several graphs as well, this is an article about airstrikes we don't need to know how documents were submitted for approval and votes were made in cabinet -- obviously an Israeli military operation was approved by the Israeli gov't. RomaC (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is obvious--Milezmilez (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Naval Campaign?

I think a section titled "naval campaign" should be added. There is ample amount of reliable sources by now, reporting both weapons used and targets hit by the Israeli Navy. I would have done do myself, but I am new here, which means, I am blocked. The IDF spokesperson reported that the Israeli Navy is taking active part in the fighting since yesterday, see http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm. Israeli Haaretz reported that the targets hit by the Israeli Navy were, among others, Ismail Haniyeh's office, and some Hamas' patrol boats. The video posted on Haaretz's site shows the use of surface-to-surface missile as well as Typhoon weapon system. The video also shows a Volvo Patrol Boat being hit. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html --Omrim (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is super verified. Can you do a paragraph with sources so we can post it? If no me someone will get to it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well with this proposal , finally some consensus Hah!
What should be added also is the fact that the israeli navy has , under the eyes of the press
blocked and intentionally rammed a humanitarian aid ship to Gaza in the international waters
which is a severe violation of international law and marine conventions!
It's all over al-jazeera btw .

Regards
Cowmadness (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am prepearing now a small section on the naval issues so you can post it.--Omrim (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: Naval Operations On December 29 the IDF spokesperson confirmed for the first time that, apart from maintaining the naval blockade on Gaza, the Israeli Navy is taking an active part in the operation. [1] A video taken by the Israeli Navy and published in several news sites [2] showed the Israeli Navy attacking the Gaza coast line, using both Typhoon Weapon System and Surface-to-Surface Missiles. According to Haaretz, among the targets hit by the Israeli Navy were Ismayil Haniah's offices, several command and control centers used by the Hamas, and a Hamas' Patrol Boat.[3] On December 30, several sources reported Palestinians accusations of Israeli Navy vessel deliberately ramming a humanitarian aid ship on course from Cyprus to Gaza, while in international water. Israeli officials dismissed these allegations, asserting that the ramming was not intended, that it was in fact the aid ship fault as it crossed the bow of the Israeli vessel, and that the aid ship was also suspected in aiding Hamas' military efforts. [4] [5] --Omrim (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have created the section. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someone add wikilinks to "Typhoon Weapon System" and "Surface-to-Surface" in the Naval Operations section? Thanks. --Omrim (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done Thingg⊕⊗ 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Reactions page

Reactions page mentions Ayatollah Khamenei's quotation, but fails to mention that Hamas's funding ties to Iran. This needs addressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.193.245 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is addressed in Hamas which is linked prominently in this article, and we could probably put this in the Background,but not near the quote. In general, when quoting, you just want to put the quote without any commentary.--Cerejota (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Political motivations

This paragraph seems like pure speculation. There is no indication that the Israeli officials quoted by Reuters were involved in the planning and they were quite likely speculating themselves as this is not the official line. It seems more in line with typical conspiracy theories of this nature e.g. The US invaded Iraq for oil, or for Dick Cheney's personal gain. While many news stories discuss this as a possible motive, it may be no more than a cynical hypothesis, and I therefore think that this should be deleted unless there is an official source that can put this beyond the realm of conspiracies. Wikieditorpro (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think editorials should be used when the campaign is only in its 4th day. Nableezy (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If there are dubious references statements/references, then you should tag them as such. If they you feel they need removing then you should try to gain some consensus first before doing so. But it would be naive to think that wars do not have Political motivations (of course this is true for both Israel and Hamas), so if you have some doubts about one Reuters article, removing the entire paragraph is probably not the correct answer. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
People should discuss and seek consensus before placing opinions even if published in reliable sources. Factual information is different. Speculative synthesis affects the narrative. However in this case the many sources seems to support verifiability, in other words, that this is a widely held opinion. Wikipedia is precisely about collecting widely held opinion, and hence removal might be premature. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed about the "planning" portion. However, whether or not the senior Israeli officials quote were spouting the "official line" is not only irrelevant, it is dangerous in that it implies only official state media can make comments during a war, not even "senior officials" who were obviously empowered to talk to prominent western media. Also, as Cerejota points out, there are 'many sources'. The claim that it is an editorial is clearly false, Reuters is a respected news agency, the article is written by a named senior reporter, and the article quoted senior Israeli officials. Therefore, I have re-added this subsection, but to the "background" rather than "planning" section. I have also renamed it to "Possible political motivations", even though there as yet appears to be no reliable source denying political motivations, and several indicating that there were.Facts707 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
There are times when opinions are appropriate. Whether Israel should have attacked, what kind of force they should have used etc, are all a matter of opinion. However what the motivation was is a matter of fact and is not subject to 'opinion.' It is either true or false. Any claims other than the official line need solid evidence otherwise it is at best speculation and at worst completely false conspiracy theories which do not belong on in this article. Wikieditorpro (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the opening statement about how there were many editorials about how the US invaded for oil, or for Bush and Cheneys personal interests is a valid one. If we go into the motivations of people who have never stated what there motivations are, and without any real evidence, and depending on an editorial piece that is merely speculative, I think we do a disservice to the article. Keep in mind that this is the 4th day of this campaign, and I personally doubt that, specifically referring to the bbc piece on this subject, there is a single piece of factual information in it. That piece at least is not a report, it is an editorial hypothesizing on what the motivations could be. I dont think it belongs in an encyclopedia, at least this early into the campaign. Nableezy (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Let us remember the operation happened after the truce ended and a spike in missile attacks which threatened major Israeli cities. This is the only 'obvious reason' for the attacks. Anything else is speculation, regardless of how many sources there are. Wikipedia is about facts, and like Nableezy said it's still too early to determine if there are - as a matter of fact - any ulterior motives here. Additionally, government officials that speak anonymously often do it to express their own opinions and ideas. So let us avoid trying to read the minds of the Israeli government and stick to the facts. Wikieditorpro (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IDF Warned Gaza of Bombings...?

Do you think there is a way we could include this in the article?

Israel, which has also allowed limited humanitarian supplies into the territory, is attacking Hamas-run organizations, homes of activists and security posts — all scattered in densely populated areas. Gazans say most strikes come without warning.

However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_life_under_fire

Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? This has been covered since long before you made the above post. E.g. see [1] where it is already mentioned a full 6 hours before your post. Perhaps it would help if you actually read the article? Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
ah, I wrote this about a day ago and forgot to post it. I've been focusing on the more controversial parts of this article, no need to be a dick about it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Propose severe cutback of "Background" section

This is an article about an airstrikes on Gaza, but before the sections on the airstrikes there are three other sections, including 1,075 words on "Background," with disputed and messy content. Propose this be cut to a single paragraph (retain links to 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict and Blockade of the Gaza Strip and List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008 articles). RomaC (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It should at least be broken down into sections. The far past is overtaking the recent past. The introduction to the article is also overly long. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
@RomaC: Heh, heh... of course I agree but was waiting to see whether you'd manage to trim that back as noted in my "Addition of apparently excessive amount of background history?" section, above. Thanks again for volunteering but seems like we're still lumbered with pretty much the entire intro for Israel-Gaza conflict in this article. As there was no strong, /justified/ support for including the whole of another higher-level article here, I'll remove the scope of that section copy-pasted by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes&diff=260714520&oldid=260713567 to trim back to what was the previous, brief consensus "Background" history to the current situation. Adding another line or two might be justified, but reverting that unilateral addition seems like a sensible move in the context of /this/ article's scope in the first instance.
(retain links to 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict and Blockade of the Gaza Strip and List of Qassam rocket attacks and List of Qassam rocket attacks in Israel in 2008 articles), as noted. Harami2000 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

The article is tagged as being "not neutral". Why is this the case? In which way is it not neutral, and to which party it is biased? Great Gall (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a highly debated and current event, some edits may be biased. -- Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sure they are - which sources are mainly used: those from medical personnal in Gaza or from newspapers in Israel and the United States? Great Gall (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suggest you'd see the references list and judge for yourself. Mainly it's from international news agencies, but their sources aren't always 100% known too, IMHO. -- Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

How long is this war supposed to take? Any information on that yet? What does Barak mean with "to the bitter end", exactly: is IDF expecting many losses on their side? I'll have a look at the sources now. Great Gall (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removals by User:Nomaed

Washington Post lead story

Nomead just removed the Washington Post's headline story entitled:

Nomead says that this story wasn't true. But Wikipedia isn't about "truth" but rather it is about verifiability and the Washington Post is currently headlining this story and the Washington Post is clearly reputable and it is verifiable. To say that it isn't notable is ridiculous. Israel is going to press on with its attack and rejects the idea of a truce.

Israeli defense minister Barak

Nomead also removed the related and very widely reported quote by Barak that Israel will continue the "war to the bitter end".

It has clearly been featured in over 1700 news stories according to Google (as of right now, this figure will change over time):

To keep this statement out of the article is not appropriate because over 1000 articles considered it to be newsworthy. And it is clearly important enough to be in the lead. --John Bahrain (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

John, I said that this article that you linked to, had no mention of any truce being offered to Israel. I went over all of the 4 pages of the article. I don't know what did they mean by this article's title, but it's simply wrong in the context of Israel rejecting truce with Hamas, because Hamas themselves keep saying in every opportunity that they will not surrender and will not stop fighting and etc. I was about to raise this issue in the discussion, but I'm glad you did that before me.
Israel might reject truce in order to complete their military goals, that is true. But again, no truce was offered, so I am not sure this speculation should be in the Wiki article.
About Ehud Barak's statement, I said that it isn't relevat as it is, out of context, in the overview of the article. I clearly stated that it should have a more suitable place in the article.
-- Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I will deal with the first objection in this comment...
The Washington Post article contents begin with quotes from international figures calling for a ceasefire (i.e. truce):
In advance of the Paris session, the European Commission called for "an immediate halt to military hostilities" in order to spare Gaza's civilian population, while demanding that Hamas also stop firing its rockets into Israel. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday had also called for a ceasefire.
Then the article goes on to quote Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit about his rejection of a ceasefire:
Though the pace of bombing appeared to slow on Tuesday, Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit told Israel Radio that at this point "there is no room for a ceasefire," according to news reports from the region.
Would you consider it more accurate to say that Israel is refusing a ceasefire than a truce as the word used in the article contents is "ceasefire" rather than the related word "truce" that is used in the article title? --John Bahrain (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks good now, IMHO. The way it was phrased earlier (when I removed that part), it gave the feeling as if Hamas has offered Israel a truce, and was rejected. As it's phrased now, it looks quite correct and reflecting to what really happened (and always happens): 3rd parties say the fighting sides should stop the violence, and the fighting side usually reject (or sometimes acknowledge). I have no objections whatsoever now. --Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to reflect that it was Ban Ki-Moon's call for a ceasefire that Israel rejected. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yupp, I saw. Good work on the phrasing. --Boris "Nomæd" Aranovič (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Change in Wording

Right above the second section, it says "were fired from Gaza into Israel, one accidentally striking a northern Gaza house". I am pretty sure that a rocket hitting a house is not an accident but a succesful shot. I think accidentaly should just be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.91.34 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamas is firing at Israel. So to hit a house inside Gaza would be unintended (therefore accidental). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Civilian deaths are their calling card and it's what they do to deceive public opinion. Historically, they have purposefully done their rocket launching out of civilian areas so that when the Israelis respond they can yell about killing civilians. It is possible that Hamas targeted that house to claim that the Israelis killed them. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Valid point. Plus, this might seem a little off, but it's common for Hamas to kill non-supporters under the pretense of "accident", or "IDF fire." Just this year they killed, what, 300 Gaza Christians...and burned how many churches? Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You can see in the article of the Second Intifada in its own section, that more than 500 Palestinians were killed by Palestinians during the 2nd Intifada alone. Not to mention Pallywood and Al Dura and etc. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
First it is not possible that Hamas tried to fire a crude homemade rocket to try to frame the Israelis. Second, Pallywood is a contentious term, thirdly, asserting that the Al Durrah killing was a staged event is even more so, and finally none of this has anything at all to do with the topic of discussion. The source says: "One accidentally struck a northern Gaza house" so that really should be the end of the discussion. Nableezy (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't have anything to do with the original post, and that's why it's threaded as an supportive response to what Wikifan said. About the contentious subjects - never said they aren't, nevertheless I merely stated my opinion of the matter by observations of both sides of the coin. Anyhow, it's irrelevant, so let's drop it. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Exiled Hamas leader is calling for a truce according to Haaretz

Khaled Meshal, the exiled Hamas political leader is calling for a truce according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz:

Khaled Meshal, the Damascus-based head of Hamas' political bureau, has been calling for a cease-fire for two days now. However, communications with the organization's leadership in Gaza are hampered because all its leaders have gone underground for fear of Israeli assassination attempts, while Israel's air strikes have disrupted the Strip's communications networks. Paradoxically, the same measures that have hampered Hamas' military response are also impeding efforts to end the fighting.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051024.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is included in the article then there must be an emphasis on EXILED, meaning he has literally no influence in the government that we know of. Also, we should also add some line stating how there is always an exiled, disgruntled, or even member of the government who demands a truce when fighting starts. Not in that exact context (clearly biased). It's notable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source as to him having no influence. Any emphasis added that is not in the source would be OR. We can write, 'exiled Hamas spiritual leader Khaled Meshal . . .' but beyond that I can't see how one can justify adding any further emphasis to exiled or to 'there is always an exiled, disgruntled, or even member of the government who demands a truce when fighting starts.' Nableezy (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, do you have a source that describes his degree of influence? We can't just throw in any relative of the war. If that were the case, it would fair to include opinions from retired Israeli officials, past Prime Ministers/Presidents, etc...70.181.154.29 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to have a source that describes his influence, I don't think we should be adding 'a highly influential leader of the movement' into the article either. I think we should be reflecting what the sources say, which is that 'Damascus-based head of Hamas' says such and such. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
should read 'Damascus-based head of Hamas' political bureau' not 'Damascus-based head of Hamas' Nableezy (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added an AFP article with Mashaal's ceasefire statement. The AFP article describes him as "exiled leader". I should point out to Wikifan12345, that Meshaal is exiled for the simple reason that Israel would launch a cruise missile at his head if he set foot in the Palestinian territories. He is not in any sense "disgruntled". Sanguinalis (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that exact person was disgruntled, I was merely giving possible character traits. Comprehension is key. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Naval involvement

With all of this overexuberant talkpage editing, you have neglected to edit the article. Somehow, I wake up in New York to find that a navy blockade of a relief ship that included a supposed deliberate ramming incident has gone unmentioned, even though it happened a bunch of hours ago. So surprised was I that it was missing.

Additionally, now that the naval involvement in this "airstrike" has been confirmed, let's change the title to December 2008 Gaza Strip battle or something of that nature, because it's clearly no longer just an airstrike. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I nevertheless agree with your assertion.--Omrim (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I can see the discussion -- but rather than discussing our discussion, let's act. How controversial can it be to rename an article that began discussing airstrikes and what has now become airstrikes + naval attacks? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, but as you can see, it has been a pretty contentious discussion, because some want the name to be Operation Cast Lead. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it should be a discussion between '2008 battle' and 'cast iron', not '2008 airstrike' and 'iron.' DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 22:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Jewish.

Is what this is...Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do. Not. Feed. Troll. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Physical interventions vs verbal reactions

We have a huge page and short summary section about verbal reactions from politicians around the world, but nothing about direct physical interventions, either attempted or successful. For this reason i've started a section on the documented attempted physical intervention by the Free Gaza Movement. Whether or not the Free Gaza Movement's attempted intervention is good or bad is irrelevant for wikipedians in our roles as editors. What is important is that compared to the long list of politicians saying things without actually intervening physically, it's clearly notable that one (or maybe more) groups, including a present and a past member of national parliaments, journalists and surgeons, are attempting to intervene.

If there are going to be any more direct physical interventions, then eventually this section can go off to a separate article leaving a summary here, but for the moment, there's no sign of any other intervention apart from a lot of blabla or else street demonstrations and we have no idea if there will be other peace missions. (Comment: given all the blabla internationally, are there really only 16 journalists/members of parliament/surgeons/human rights activists willing to intervene directly?)

This raises the question: we have almost no documentation of the notable demonstrations by citizens of various countries in the world. Where should that go? It's as notable socio-politically as statements from politicians, since in principle, politicians just represent citizens, not replace them, but demos don't have the same direct effect as international peace/aid missions entering Gaza Strip directly. Anyway, my question is: where should stuff about demonstrations go? Boud (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

i see that someone shifted this to "naval operations". i'm not so convinced that this is the right section - the stated aim of the Free Gaza Movement was to intervene on land, not just by sea. However, let's see how things develop and see what fits in the longer term. Maybe "naval operations" is right. In any case, the present version has lost the whole point of precise referencing compared to the earlier version. There's no point listing a huge number of references at the end of a paragraph which lists several different claims and counterclaims of incidents. Superscripts[137] do not take up much space inside of a paragraph and they make it much easier for people to decide if the references match the text or not. i'm restoring the old version, with the CNN and YNET refs integrated. Note that Ken Penhaul is not yet considered by the en.wikipedia community to be notable - his link is red. However, Caoimhe Butterly and the other named passengers of the boat (except for the Cypriot member of parliament) do have entries. That means that those people are notable independently of this particular event. Their presence in the text is more justified in terms of notability that that of Ken Penhaul. See also WP:BIAS. Boud (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprising Hamas and sending leaflets *days before the attack* ?!

There's an inconsistency in the article. On the Planning section it's said:

"According to the IDF and Israeli government, days before the airstrike, leaflets and recording briefs were sent through Palestinian radio broadcasts."

Putting this in the planning section gives the impression that this happened before and throughout the whole war. This does not happen. Reporters began reporting this info only on the 30th of December. It's misleading to generalize this fact for the whole war by putting it in such a general section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwish07 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't understand your point. Planning implies preparation, not actual war. This entire conflict was devised many months/weeks ago, obviously they intended on warning the Gazan's citizens about a battle. If anything the "days befoe the airstrike" needs to be changed or reverted because according to the source it does not say when or how long the warnings occured. It could have been for weeks or for hours. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the "days before the airstrike" statement was too general that it gives the impression that Arab Gazans were warned before even the war had started. That was not the case since the IDF took the Gaza strip by surprise. Once you find the reference, we'll try to put this in the most accurate and neutral way. Thanks --Darwish07 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the misleading "days before the airstrike" statement because of above mentioned reasons and because nothing close to that statement was mentioned in the Associated Press referenced news. I also removed the sentence from the un-suitable pre-war events " Planning" section to " December 30", where the chronological flow of war events are stated. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the cited AP article says that leaflets, radio messages, and phone calls were made to warn civilians of the attack, but does not say how far in advance of the attacks the warnings occurred (days? minutes?). I'm going to delete the "days in advance" phrase. | Loadmaster (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Detailed Map?

The press is releasing some detailed maps showing the positions and severity of attacks, perhaps someone could establish this and upload? Would improve the article quite a bit methinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.57.158 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just came in here to ask about it. I wanted to collect the locations inside southern Israel that have been shelled and create a map with these locations shown on it. There are 2 problems though: (1) I need to find a free/GPL/etc. map (most likely will be found inside Wikipedia), and (2) I have no idea about locations inside Gaza that have been targeted by the IDF and how to place them on a map, so I hope someone can help with that. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 20:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One-way or two-way conflict?

An important point that has come up, particularly vis-a-vis the name of the article, is whether this is just a one-way conflict or a two-way conflict. What do people think? (Yes, I know this is going to lend to some soapboxing, but let's try to keep that at bay.) -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless you are suggesting (and I don't think you are) that the 4 Israelis killed and the 31 wounded are a result of "friendly fire", I can't see how can it be "one sided". The fact that the Palestinians have overwhelmingly more casualties, doesn't make it one sided. There are two sides fighting here inflicting damage upon each other. Many wars (not all, not even the most) have clear "winners" and "losers" in terms of casualties (as for myself, I see only losers in wars) - that fact doesn't preclude them from being categorized as "wars".--Omrim (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The answer to that question is "yes and no". In terms of fact, no of course it isn't one way (and Omrim, one way != one sided). Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for some time, and Israel is now firing rockets at Gaza. Two sides each firing rockets and bombs at each other isn't a one way conflict even if one side is more powerful. However from the point of view (ie _perspective_, not POV in the wikijargon sense) of this article, the "fighting" is one sided. Why? Not because Wikipedia favours one side or the other, but because this article is specifically about the Israeli response to Hamas rockets. There's even a proposal above to rename the article after the IDF operation codename. This article specifically covers the recent, non-routine Israeli action while the longer-term rocket fire from Hamas is covered in its own article. Cynical (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What about the rockets that have killed people in Israel? Yes, overwhelming force. Except now the gorund combat is coming: Israel will win unless Hamas has a hidden Low Orbit Ion Cannon we don't know about, but it will be much less one-sided. Such is the nature of asynchronous warfare. BTW, any two-bit amateur war historian knows that bodycounts are not a way to measure conflicts. Politics are. And this conflict is not one-sided XOR one-way at all. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

are there reliable sources that the 4 people killed in IL were really civilians? it is well known that in case of big operations of the IL military, reservists are called up which might include people up to 55 years and also women.--Severino (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

All Israelis Killed were already named. One was a career soldier, and all the others civilians killed as a result of Qassam rockets an Grad missiles hitting southern communities. BTW, even Israeli media regards reservists as "soldiers" rather than "civilians" when counting casualties. So civilian is never a "reservist" even in Israel.--Omrim (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Omrin: Are you sure about that? I remember there was years a go a bombing were all the casualties were off-duty reservists, and Israel claimed them as civilians because they were not in service or in uniform. I mean this might have changed, but we don't know. Is not thta I don't trust you, is that I could understand why others might not without evidence: it is an extraordinary claim, as no other State I know off does this, and Israel is already in some hot water in playing the number games for counting victims of shock as casualties in casualty counts. You see my point?--Cerejota (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I see your point. What is an "off-duty" reservist? All Israelis which sereved in combat or combat-supportive units (during their mandatory military service) perform a reserve duty once a year (which lasts anywere between 10 to 30 days). They are still civilians the rest of the time. They are soldiers once on the reserve duty. I am not aware of the incident you are reffering to (but it sounds weird, I must admit). But FOR SURE, reservists are treated as soildiers when on duty for all purposes. I know that because I used to be one when living in Israel (25 days a year, thank you). Does that mean that if I am killed now, during my work on my doctoral dissertation, I am a soldier rather than a civilian since I would (for sure) be called on a reserve duty when going back to Israel? --Omrim (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK then I misunderstood your point, I thought you meant off-duty reservists counted as soldiers - which would have been odd.
A reservist is part of the military power of a nation, and hence legitimate military targets in case of war (ie you are attacking trained personnel that can be called into action). In your case it would depend, are you subject to immidiate recall? In the USA there is something called the "inactive reserve" which are all former commisioned officiers, certain highly trained technical non-commisioned officiers (ie nuclear weapons), and recently released personnel - those I wouldn't consider legitimate targets, as they are essentially subjected to a draft and have severed any regular voluntary linkages to the reserve.
Ethically, however, it is impossible, except by targeted assasination (in itself illegal under the laws of warfare), to distinguish from a civilian that is a reservist and one who isn't. So the abstract principle of rservists as legitimate combatants does conflict with the practicality of hitting them without intentional civilian harm.
But a reservist who has to go one month out of the year to train and does so? Yes. I mean no ill will to you personally, mind you, and certainly hope you have a long and productive life as a PhD (in what field). But you made a choice to not refuse. It is not the enemies of Israel fault that Israel has a Spartan military recruitment policy (although, in all justice, its the only way to gurantee its own existence).
BTW, a friend of mine did her service, and she is rather proud of a scar she got, even if it is ridiculous how (I am sure you'll appreciate how funny this is), she was learning marksmanship, and after firing slinged her rifle and burned her tight with the barrel (she is rather short)! Back in Puerto Rico it caused much fun. --Cerejota (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are right about the apparent ambiguity of the status of reservists, but as a doctoral candidate in LAW (even if not international and humanitarian law) I tend to disagree that they are legitimate targets when not on duty. ALL reservists in Israel are ALWAYS on immediate call (but it very rarely happens - as far as I'm aware through my friend in Israel only a few got such a call now, while most had their reserve duty scheduled anyway). If under that assumption we are legitimate tragets, that makes about half of the male Israeli citizens (bus drivers, lawyers, investment bankers, Falafel stands owners... well... you got the point...) legitimate targets. How can anyone tell them to be such when not on duty? by statistically assume that if we kill 2 Israeli bus drivers one of them is probably a potential reservist? What about all Israeli youth? They all join the military at 18. Does that make them legitimate targets?--Omrim (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of alleged-admin abuses HERE!

I know some of use have had issues with an admin. For those who are unaware of this problem, take the time to browse through the first archive, so you can become informed. For everyone else, here is the link to the "discussion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Interim_naming_of_December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes

I think it's more than important that we all get this cleared up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you all fired-up over? Who is this admin you keep talking about, and what are his/her abuses? -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota isn't an admin??? Hahah ok lol. The whole name change didn't exactly "bothered" me, but this whole debacle...ugh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why did you think I am an admin? I am puzzled... I didn't say so, nor do I claim so in my user page. I am an old wikipedian (in age and usage), t'is all. Well, re-reading the whole thing, it does seem like you where bothered, but I will take your word for it. As to the debacle, well, if you argue, I am going to argue back, and I can be wordy, call it a personality flaw... I am a proud geek. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding? Perhaps we can try to move forward now? --Cerejota (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Wikifan, I had already linked to that way before you did... See: Talk:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes#Operation Cast Lead Discussion.--Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

casualties: Ma'an reports 375 dead, 1720 wounded as of "09:30 30 December"

i prepared the following text/reference: On December 30, Ma'an News Agency reported 375 deaths and more than 1720 wounded, "hundreds" of them seriously wounded.[6] but it's not so different from the "Palestinian officials'" and UN figures, and (unfortunately) these are probably not going to stabilise any time soon (all references on the death/wounded toll are going to quickly become outdated) so i'll leave it to others to decide when/if to update the Casualties section and the introduction.

Hmmm. Does anyone know if there is an http://www.gazabodycount.org website like http://wwww.iraqbodycount.org ? The latter has a vast underestimate, but it's still useful at providing a lower limit. Even Bush was forced to (eventually) acknowledge the lower limit. Boud (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, who can we trust for accurate casualty figures? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Women automatically "civilians"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please unify the place of this debate and discuss it in its original section:#Palestinain civiilian casualty formulation --Darwish07 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

When recording the civilian deaths, the aricle uses a BBC article which states:

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes said his latest information was that about 320 Palestinians had been killed and 1,400 injured. "Sixty-two of those killed, we believe... are civilian casualties," he told a news conference. "That simply encompasses those who are women and children. It does not include any civilian casualties who are men - even though we know that there have been some civilian men killed as well."

This man automatically assumes that all women a civilians. However, women are also involved in terrorist activity on behalf of Hamas. How can John Holmes' statement be reliable here. It is just his own assumption? On the other hand, there may be more civilian deaths as he counts men automatically as being militans? Chesdovi (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, see #Palestinain civiilian casualty formulation, it is not presented as fact, but rather attributed to the UN. I personally am in favor of not saying civilian at all, as most news sites are now reporting it as women and children without any mention of civilian, see: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/29/news/ML-Gaza-Life-Under-Fire.php, or http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7804218.stm. Nableezy (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this article[2] might be helpful for understanding the casualty figures. Just for our benefit here, not necessarily the article itself. I hope that helps. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Lipsum....useless words?

The ending line in the second paragraph seems unnecessary. "The attacks have attracted both support and criticism." It seems like we're stating the obvious. This is an encyclopedia page, not "December 2008 Gaza Strip Report For Dummies". Every single conflict in history has drawn both support and criticism. If the attacks didn't attract both support and criticism, we wouldn't have a "Reactions" section. Just my take on it, let me know what you think. Didn't want to remove it before I got your opinions. Thanks!Coreywalters06 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks to Chhe

For clarifying when the ceasefire was first broken. I read toady in the FT that "It was, after all, Israel that dealt the ceasefire its first blow when it killed six Hamas militants in a November 4 operation designed to destroy a tunnel." It seems that Hamas first broken it on June 23, 2008. Chesdovi (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is an oped, and does not necessarily reflect an objective perspective. When including opinion pieces, they must be described as such, and not passed off as certified facts. This whole war is so complex and controversial that it would be unfair to either side to say who started what. Though it's a fact that Hamas DID break the truce, just like they broke virtually every other one before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out the IHT source that Chhe used. (Currently ref #28). It is not linked. I doubt that piece was an oped. Chesdovi (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The idea that we can even try to establish who's fault is it is ridiculous. During the six months of the "ceasefire" rockets were fired into Israel routinely, only in smaller numbers than usuall. On the other hand, Isreal repeatedly carried what it called small scale "preemptive" operations. We should simply state both sides' view of the issue (bascilly each side blaming the other) and that is it! Anything else is nothing but "creative reality". --Omrim (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Omrim: not only that, that view is what most sources are saying in their narrative of the current conflict. In fact, they are pretty much saying the entire truce was a farce, and that Israel simply was the smarter of the two and hit first to hit twice (I would have done the same thing!). I mean, Hamas is on record saying they wouldn't renew the truce. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources confirming this - [3] being an example. It seems that this was the first major event that was a violation of the ceasefire - from what I understand the rocket fire that was coming from the Gaza Strip prior to that was not being fired by Hamas, but by other organisations in the Strip. Amjra 06:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this sources (verification?) is saying that Hamas had it coming for building a tunnel. In the doctrine of ceasefires, any hostile action, not just direct attack can be taken as a violation. However, as I said, most sources are saying that Israel and Hamas by mid-November where already preparing for war. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

F-15s are also being used

The jet shown here [4] is an F-15. Currently the article only mentions F-16s. Can someone please make the necessary changes? --Omrim (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, mentioning the military hardware is good enough for us geeky hardware fetishists, and certainly belongs in the article, but do we really have to mention it in the intro? It makes it too long and detail, where "Planes and helicopters" would be better and "Air attacks" would best. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the chopper shown at 1:17 is a AH-1 Cobra, and currnetly only AH-64 Apache is mentioned. We either should eliminate the names of planes being used by the IAF and replace it with something more general like "warplanes and attack helicopters" or be more accurate. I am in favor of the first option. I agree with Cerejota on this. --Omrim (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree only if we change "Qassam rockets" to "homemade rockets", otherwise to be fair we should include detailed and wikified information on the weapons both sides are using. Sources mention F-16 and Apache if there are others properly sourced they could be added. Figuring what type of plane is involved by watching a video is original research. RomaC (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really original research? If military vehicles and airships are objectively recognizable, even though someone like me (or you) would not see a difference between two similar helicopter gunships, then a published photo is no different, and in fact even more reliable, than published words. Of course, the photo could really be from another operation on another date in another country, but then we will be travelling on a very dark road in our cynacism towards verifiability in reporting. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it sounds shocking, but for how long have you edited? Yes, requirements on WP:OR tend to be strict, precisely because its the best way to stop "inclusivity tunnels" (ie we might end up saying "Boeing F-15E Strike Eagles all weather strike fighters carrying Joint Direct Attack Munition equipped Mk-84 2,000 low-drag general-purpose bombs armed with M904 mechanical nose fuses and M905 retarded action tail fuses attacked the Headquaters of Hamas in Gaza City" all of it common knowledge and correct, but highly frustrating, as simply saying "The Hamas HQ in Gaza City was bombe by IAF jet aircraft." would have been enough). If the sources are not in general pointing to it as great info to have, and use it simply as filler, then what purpose it serves?
Furthermore verifiability, not truth, in other words it might be true, but it can't be included until its verified. Granted in this case you might have a good common knowledge argument for inclusion, but my point is wider...
Does precise knowledge of what military hardware was used be important to typical readers ten year from now? This isn't F-15 Eagle, where info on combat uses should go, or Israeli Air Force, where info on its equipment might go. This is about an attack that in ten years will be buried as a sub-article of the war between Hamas and Israel after Hamas defeated the PLO in the Palestinian civil war.
I am a geek, and as such somewhat of a freak of military hardware/history (In fact, more than three years ago I created the Tula Arms Plant article, my first article in Wikipedia under this account.) It is an F-15, no doubt. I like knowing it is. I obssess over finding out if indeed it was the M905 fuse that was used in the JDAMed Mick 84. But I know that guys like me don't need to be spoon fed this info, we are not typical readers, we will dig it out of their appropriate article. The typical reader gives three craps about what jet was used, they just care jets were used. You follow?
I have no hard objections, but I think one needs to really do the ten year test when writing articles. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Heron UAVs are also being used: [5]. Flayer (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

People removing citations without cause.

Some guy removed the citation for this article:

According to the IDF and Israeli government, days before the airstrike, leaflets and recording briefs were sent through Palestinian radio broadcasts warning of an impending attack on Gaza and urged citizens to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants.[citation needed]

It was AP and was published less than 24 hours ago. I don't know how did it but this unnecessary and clearly unfaithful editing is really bothering me. Is there a program I can download that will make it easier for me to return to my past edits? If I wait too long, for example, I can't redo or retrieve my edit because the article has been edited too many times. Ugh!

Please don't remove the above statement because a lack of cite, I'll find it soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi wikifan. I removed the citation cause the info wasn't there when I checked the reference, thus added a "[citation needed]" tag. Here's the [diff]. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ofcourse I didn't remove your sentence, that would have been irresponsible. You'll find the reference you're searching for in the above comment diff. It still does not include such leaflets info. I'm sure it was there the time you edited the page though, WP:FAITH ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's fucking weird. The article's title is completely different from the one last night and the information is updated/different. There was a long paragraph detailing Israel's warning towards Gazan's of the impending strike, communicated through leaflets and radio broadcasts. It was there I swear. Wtf! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about no need to remove, but unnecessary and clearly unfaithful editing is the type of drama we can live without: removal of unverified sources isn't a big crime, specially if the text remains with {{fact}}. In fact, even Jimbo Wales himself recommends that if there is no source/verifiability, you remove and ask questions later. That's really why we have the {{fact}} template (I remember when it started).

In the future, if you see a sourced removed, you can change the it like this {{fact|date=Month Year|user=UserName}}. This way, editors know who to contact for sourcing (so they can help), and you can easily find the citations using the browser's "Find" by looking at the entire page in the editor. One thing I have done in the past is create a subpage in my own userspace where I keep key text as it appeared in a source, the URL and the phrasing in the page. That way I can track changes better.

BTW the source for the above (including the missing paragraph) is here: Israeli airstrikes kill dozens of Gaza civilians - AP via Google News

"However, Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants."

(Not to throw salt in the wound, but this article convinced me of how good and appropriate the current title was)

I hope this is an example why I asked you to calm down and to not look into things and motives. People are not generally evil, not even those who disagree with you at one point or in worldview. --Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 needs to chill out a bit and use standard indentation levels when replying ;-). I agree. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed the statement. I think it's very notable but I don't know how to get the article again since yahoo updated the AP. Errr.... Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Read above: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwiDL_nGeC63bi_l8-3JB2WVc1xwD95CLD880 has the info. --Cerejota (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This is odd. I checked the link again and it's the same url. But on the quote that was removed, there was completely different link. Could someone have swapped the links in good faith? Hmmm...here is the actual link, please make sure no one removes it this time:
Israeli forces offered a general warning by dropping leaflets and recording brief announcements that interrupt radio broadcasts. They also reached other homes by telephone, telling Gaza residents to flee their homes if they were hiding weapons or militants. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_life_under_fire Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said and debated in the #Surprising Hamas and sending leaflets *days before the attack* ?! subsection, I removed it from the too general "Planning" section to "December 30" article subsection. Read my arguments there. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the same sentence is added with more neutral tone on the "December 30" subsection. The WP:NPOV bits was adding that Gazans claimed that this info was not true and they did not receive warnings. This is cited from the same reference too. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Statement in the "Planning" section is removed now. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"December 2008"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please unify article title debates and discussions to their specific section:#Requested move --Darwish07 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a high possibility that this campaign will continue after the new year. What shall we do with the title (the Dec 2008 part)? 125.162.59.198 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss any article naming issues there on the #Requested_move subsection, and only there. Thanks! --Darwish07 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Six Israelis - Five Civilians

CNN writes that six Israelis have been killed.[6] Meaning two more than what the article currently states. However, does a death resulting from an operation undertaken because of sustained injuries from rocket fire count as casualty? Just want to be sure so I can update. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. A person who dies from his wounds after 48 hours and attempts of rescue is as casualty as someone who dies in the same instant that the rocket hits the area. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for confirmation. I'll update. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This report is absolutely wrong. 4 Israelis have been killed, 3 of them civilians. Flayer (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Karlos Latuff drawing

Regarding the Latuff drawing under "Public relations campaign and media coverage" - I strongly believe this cartoon should be removed. It only seems to bias the reader ("oh, those poor Palestinians"), especially given the lack of any images "from the other side". Latuff's drawings are strongly anti-semitic, with many comparing Israeli and American leaders to Nazis, etc. I see no reason to use any of his drawings, except, perhaps, in an article discussing propaganda. okedem (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this cartoon clearly has an emotional anti-Israel agenda. It says nothing about the constant rocket fire that Hamas has exposed Israel to, nor about the fact that the palestinians are living off passive funding from EU while at the same time attacking Israel. Why do we in EU always have to pay for the arabs so they can go without jobs, both in EU and Israel? 87.59.78.191 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Please try to refrain from comments which are not directly related to the article, okay? Discussions here can quickly deteriorate into heated debates having nothing to do with the actual article, and that's always a shame.
Also - why not register? It's easier to remember who said what, and helps us have more meaningful discussions. okedem (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe it would be a good idea to expand the article with a discussion on what influence the financial support from EU has had on the palestinians ability to produce these rockets they constantly fire at Israel? The reader must surely ask about the origin of all these rockets which seem to be the direct reason for this air strike? If they are homemade, how do they produce them, if not where are they produced then and what do they cost? Now regarding the picture, my point is: 1) It gives the reader no information on anything, 2) It's specifically designed to produce an emotional response, 3) The author is clearly anti-Israel. Why not use a photo instead, in fact two would be better for neutrality: one showing Israeli bombs hitting Gaza, the other showing a rocket hitting an Israely city? I have considered registering but I don't think I'm competent enough to edit the articles directly, so I use the talk page instead. Maybe later when I've learned it better :) -T.R. 87.59.78.191 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree; the image does not accomplish the goal of illustrating the information presented in the section. -- tariqabjotu 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides, if you noticed, it has nothing to do with the current conflict, having been drawn back in 2007. I guess someone just looked for any old heart-breaking poster. okedem (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, User:Pieter_Kuiper added it again, so I had to remove it. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This image is very much to the point these days. It shows Israeli planes bombing buildings, and it shows a plausible reaction by a Palestinian woman. It is quite neutrally descriptive. Of course there are lots of that the image does not show. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The image is useless, i see no reason why it would be included in this article on the current airstrikes as mentioned above it was created long before this current round of bloodshed. Im sure theres a free source image of the recent events that would fit the bill and be more useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, we are using cartoons? Really? I mean, Really? Unless a section on the importance of propaganda cartoons in this war emerges from a verifiable notability, they are out. Out, I said. However, accusing Latuff of anti-semitism? Rabidly anti-Zionist, perhaps, but calling him anti-semitic is making the word mean nothing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper tries to push Latuff's images everywhere possible. I think we should advise him that this is Wikipedia and not Latuff's fan club. DrorK (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

okedem, calling criticism of Israeli policy and actions "anti-semitic" is highly offensive to me and I think to many other people here. Please try to stop that. Thanks RomaC (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, 'antisemitic' is a meaningless word of abuse that is most often (ab)used to mean "criticising Israel". Every time jewish or pro-Israel people(which I consider myself too) use this word falsely it degrades their own cause and makes them look hypocritical. Not to forget, semitic people include arabs too so it really makes no sense to use it at all since it is an ambiguous word. Sometimes it is used by Isreal against EU nations which is outrageous since many Europeans risked their lives(especially in my country Denmark) to help save jews during WWII and would gladly do it again, however we don't like being spit in the face even if it's our friends. So please stop using this word at random. IF someone absolutely must use this word, use it accurately such as when referring to those that hate the Jewish people. Not what jewish people do or not, their religion, politics, economy or country. It's especially important in this article... T.R. 87.59.78.191 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with RomaC, if we start callign any and all criticism of Israel by non-jews "antisemitism" we are going to go deep into troll territory.--Cerejota (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Try to look at a gallery of drawings. They go way beyond any criticism of Israel, and deep into antisemitic territory, using the same old Jewish "characteristics" and imagery as used by all previous antisemitic propagandists. Don't turn this into some straw men thing, as if I called "any and all criticism of Israel", "antisemitic". This guy might have valid criticism, but he uses antisemitic motifs to display it. (Although Arabs are a semitic people, the word "antisemitism" has come to be used with regards to Jews alone.) Don't agree? Fine, don't. This discussion is irrelevant here anyway. okedem (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

International Protests

Surely under international reactions, protests should be recognised, whether they are for or against the raids. These have been widely reported and have in some cases pressured governments (Egypt) into action.

I added a list, but it was removed. What is the consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


This article has some details

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4016850/Gaza-attacks-Israeli-strikes-spark-protests-across-world.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed there should be a paragraph about it in the reaction section. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

November 5, 2008 Border Incident

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hello,

Please change the following statement in the Background section:

Following this, violations of the cease-fire agreement were made by both sides, with the most serious violation occuring on November 5, 2008 when Israel carried out a raid into the Gaza Strip in which troops killed six Hamas militants[35].

To:

Following this, violations of the cease-fire agreement were made by both sides. A notable disruption occurred on November 5, 2008 when Israeli troops, who had entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel that Hamas allegedly planned to use to capture Israeli soldiers, came under fire. In the resulting violence six Palestinian militants were killed.

References:

Israel-Hamas violence disrupts Gaza truce

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

The original statement does not convey all significant views published by reliable news sources NPOV. Further, it is factually incorrect in that only one militant was killed by the troops, with the rest being killed in an airstrike.

Couchcommander (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done By another user but am to lazy to look up who. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm the problem sentence was still there a minute ago so i have changed "most serious violation" to major eruption of violence which the sources say for the time being unless someone wants to add the whole thing. I also removed the sentence about Human rights watch saying Gaza is still occupied, that may be relevant somewhere but not under the 5th of november incident. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 31

Has the bombing of Gaza by the IDF stopped? Is it time to change the title of this article to "Airstrikes against Israel"? Please excuse my sarcasm, but of the 140 words added by Wiki editors covering the events of December 31, none document attacks by Israel. Is this the Wiki we want? RomaC (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what has happened:
IAF bombs Gaza mosque
ministers approved the mobilization of 2,500 army reservists, expanding on an earlier call-up of 6,500 soldiers for the garrison on the Gaza border, officials said.
The air force and navy bombed dozens of targets in Gaza, including smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, and 40 Palestinians were killed, including at least five civilians.
--John Bahrain (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
RomaC: then add it yourself. We should expect a neutral article, we should not expect neutral editors, but we should expect that we all assume good faith. However, is that people are removing content? The diffs don't show that... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed the section on todays incidents is totally biased along with much of the article. When i watched the news this morning they were saying that more rockets had been launched than the day before, so i dont understand why this is not mentioned. It is impossible to assume good faith in such cases, but atleast theirs a warning tag on the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I have shortened the section on rockets before reading your comment. There was a lot of details in what I removed, but they weren't useful details especially when no one was killed, so I removed most of them except the general overview aspect. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So I take it that as long the rockets "don't kill" they are not a part of the Hamas military efforts? Interesting--Omrim (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF. Note that I didn't remove the description of the number of rockets and I also added (it appears erroneously) that they killed one IDF soldier. I left also that they struck a school. What I removed was the description of each city hit by name which was long and didn't really add any useful information (the large majority of people reading this article do not know each small city that is near Gaza thus listing then by name is pretty unnecessary.) For your sake, I also added in a mention of Meretz's opinion, but I removed it since it didn't appear to fit. Feel free to add it back. --John Bahrain (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Does any one have any idea how many rockets were fired from Gaza today by HAMAS, that information is important as well rather than just the actual incidents where they actually hit targets in Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Name?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please unify article title debates and discussions to their formal section, #Requested move. This point has been opened and archived before on #"December 2008", #December 31, #2009, and in here.

Will this article be renamed if it carries over into 2009?-Kieran4 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

the title will have to change yes. I dont think just calling it Gaza Strip Airstrikes is very accurate considering we are dealing with an ongoing conflict between two sides one firing rockets and the other using airstrikes. The title makes it sound like this is just about ISraels actions when it should be covering both.
I dont mind if it just adds 2009 to the title for the time being (once it is midnight there) but if theres big developments in the coming days such as Israeli troops entering Gaza then the title needs a major change. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photos

Can someone please add photos of the Gaza strip, and remove the ones of the Israeli aircraft. Suprisingly enough, this article is about the massacre in Gaza, not about Israel's aircraft inventory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.127.249 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about airstrikes on Gaza, last time i checked most airstrikes were conducted by aircraft. However there should be an image of the suffering of civilians in Gaza following the attacks and perhaps an image of a rocket that hit Israel for balance. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Its interesting that the images on this article are totally biased in favour of Israel but alot of the text content is the opposite and biased against Israel.. Atleast thats a kind of "balance" i guess :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't we have a conversation where the word "bias" doesn't come up??? They're pictures of aircraft. How does that represent bias???
Still, the pictures look ridiculous. They're not even in battle. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I imagine we don't have any pictures of Gaza in the article because free images of the situation are hard to find. -- tariqabjotu 18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
When the article is so bias i find it hard not to use the term. I agree its going to be far harder to find some free image of Gaza but just two pictures of aircraft as you say is ridiculous and im not accusing anyone of an attempt of POV (on the issue of images) just found it interesting the difference between the images and the content. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This free image is much more to the point than what looks like advertising images of weapons manufacturers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Weren't you already explained several times that this image has nothing to do with the current operation/war/airstrikes, and that posting a cartoon of an antisemitic pro-Palestinian controversial "artist" doesn't belong here? Thanks. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

misleading citation

footnote 104 is given to back up the statement that "40 Palestinians were killed, including 5 civilians" yet the article states "at least 5 civilians were killed" the tone makes a big difference on indicating the combatant status of the other casualties... which is not specifically stated by the article. Either this should be changed to say "at least" or another source should be used to specify who these people were. ...it really matters! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.49.237 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I will fix this now. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Casuality figures and Jaakabo revert

This concerns this edit which I reverted [7]. The Yahoo story on which the Palestinian reported casualty figures are based upon is this one:

"Hamas says some 200 uniformed members of Hamas security forces have been killed, and the U.N. says at least 60 Palestinian civilians have died."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Please do not change the 200 number to three hundred unless you have a source. Please note that in the info box, the civilian casualties are stated separately. It is true that these contradict, but that doesn't mean we can accurately infer which way they are wrong. It may be that there is another category of casualties that don't fall into either of these two existing categories. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

5 daughters killed in lead

I am not sure that the line "In Gaza City, 5 daughters from the same family were killed in an Israeli airstrike.[24]" belongs in the lead. There have been a number of stories of entire families being killed, but this can be included in the casualties section. Thoughts? Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. To be honest i think the opening paragraph goes into too much detail about the initial attack and would rather see that in its own section so the introduction can give a more general overview of the ongoing conflict. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. If someone wants to readd "In Gaza City, 5 daughters from the same family were killed in an Israeli airstrike.[7]" to the correct days developments then they can but it doesnt need to be in the intro paragraphs. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Response

The Egyptian response to the situation is being grossly mischaracterized. It is sourced to a piece at a blog, www.israelpolitik.org. This is not a RS, and while yes, Egypt has said that they warned Hamas that if they continued to launch rockets into Israel that this would provoke such a response, but that is not all that has been said. [8]; Mubarak condemned Israel's "savage aggression," said Israel's "blood-stained hands are stirring up feelings of enormous anger" and called for an immediate cease-fire. The wording as it currently exists shows Egypt laying blame and responsibility for this only at Hamas. I think a more accurate and properly sourced version would read as such: Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak said "We warned [Hamas] repeatedly that rejecting the truce would push Israel to aggression against Gaza."[9] He also condemned Israel's "savage aggression," and further said Israel's "blood-stained hands are stirring up feelings of enormous anger" while calling for an immediate ceasefire. [10] Nableezy (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and i support such a change being made. Blogs are certainly not Reliable sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Done Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please unify article title debates and discussions to their formal section, #Requested move. This point has been opened and archived before on #"December 2008", #December 31, #Name?, and in here. There's no WP:DEADLINE and we're not seeking immediate accuracy. Wikipedia is a work in progress --Darwish07 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi and happy new year 2009 is here, and thats my point. The title is December 2008 Gaza Strip air strikes, and the operation and conflict are still active, and the title should change to something else like December 2008/January 2009 Gaza Strip air strikes. If the conflict escalates into tanks and soldier fight, then "air strike should also change to something else. :-)

Having skimmed over the extensive discussion above, I think this is just one more reason to change the article title to "Operation Cast Lead."
Yes, and it sounds a lot more "encyclopedian" aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.231.11 (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undertaken as a retaliation....

"Claimed to be undertaken as a retaliation against frequent Palestinian Qassam rocket and mortar fire on Israel's southern communities and civilians, the attacks have attracted both support and criticism."

How is this a neutral view when it is the view put forward by Israel? There are reports of Israeli government having undertaken this operation to gain in the polls of the forthcoming elections or to topple the elected Hamas government. This line needs to be edited if Wikipedia is anyway neutral. And to say the sentence links to fox, is this an acceptable neutral standard for Wikipedia?Enigmie (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, why do you think Israel has done what it has done? OperationOverlord (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant as is yours. One of Wikipedia's policy is neutrality and there is no neutrality in quoting the Israeli government from fox news. This needs editing.Enigmie (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Enigmie (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC). —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Enigmie (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)] comment added by Enigmie (talkEnigmie (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) • contribs) 08:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the bait ;)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kebabish1 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is accurate as it only states what the Israeli government "claimed" not their actual goals.

71.163.54.239 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what's on fox news is reliable. It may have a conservative tone, but it is the same information you will find anywhere else. They don't just make shit up. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel broke the ceasefire

So...is the almost nill mentioning of Israel breaking the ceasefire through its non-withdrawl, and more importantly its attacks on Hamas officials, deliberate or just intentionally being ignored? Sorry, but "pre-emptive defence" when no attack was about to take place is not an excuse to ignore the information and removing the fact Israel broke the ceasefire from this wikipedia article. 60.230.218.136 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

There seems to be some error with your notes. Please review reliable sources. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, you should read the NYTimes which makes clear that the ceasefire was not upheld by either party:
There can be no justification for Hamas’s attacks or its virulent rejectionism. But others must also take responsibility for the current mess. Hamas never fully observed the cease-fire that went into effect on June 19 and Israel never really lived up to its commitment to ease its punishing embargo on Gaza. When the cease-fire ran out, no one, including the Bush administration, made a serious effort to get it extended.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/opinion/30tue1.html
This aspect of the incident is also covered in the article by the NYTimes on December 28 which I linked to earlier.
--John Bahrain (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Heyo John,
  1. There was never a cease fire. It was a "tahdia" - an agreement to a temporary lull, a lowering of the activity, not a cease fire.
  2. As there was never a stop to rocket and mortar attacks, the source is mistaken about it's understanding of the tahdia agreement. The agreement was that when rockets are launched, Israel and Egypt close the passages, which is exactly what happened.
  3. The source is clearly false about efforts to extend the tahdia as well. Egypt made a clear note that they are pissed at Hamas for rejecting their efforts to extend it (was quite notable in the media).
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a [http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e017.htm source with some relevant input.
During that time there was also a significant increase in the amount of goods delivered to the Gaza Strip through the crossings. However, when the terrorist organizations began a policy of continuous rocket and mortar shell attacks against Israel , accompanied by other forms of terrorism, the lull arrangement was eroded to the point where it remained only on paper as its first six months drew to a close.
Added paragraph for easier access. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the Ceasefire or Truce is an an Issue. Hamas declared the End of the Six-Month Truce on December 17th, 2008 See the following URL: [8] ITBlair (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro condition

I get the spirit, but I think the English is a bit convoluted and it wouldn't be neutral to equate the opinion of a bellingerent (massacre), with a central fact (the operation name). However, this opinion is from a central figure, and the closest we have to an official opinion by one of the belligerents, so it stays. (BTW, can we get reliable sourcing on what if anything Hamas is callign thier response?)

What about (we source afterwards):


Can we do this? In the interest of moving forward? I think it is a fair intro.--Cerejota (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it goes into too much fine detail on the Israeli operation, which would not be the title of the article, but I'm not sure why the intro needs to be hashed out now. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"the English is a bit convoluted" - that's why i put "something like" :). "this opinion is from a central figure, and the closest we have to an official opinion" - that's why i chose it. If the Gaza Strip de facto government or Gaza Strip society in general converge on the same or another term (hypothetically speaking, the term "Operation Cast Lead" in Arabic might be widely used in the Gaza Strip, given my limited knowledge, though i guess i would be surprised) and we had a WP:RS to that term, then we could use that.
  • easy correction: The 3 references in the present version would need to be added, of course.
  • harder correction: If we say that the conflict "started with ... Operation..." then we reverse the previous POV to now suggest that Israel just decided to attack for no reason at all. IMHO we need something like "intensified with ..." or "flared up with ...", so that we don't have either the claim that "Gaza Strip started first and Israel reacted" nor "Israel started first and Gaza Strip reacted mildly and then Israel reacted dramatically". Although it's true that claims of both of these exist, both are controversial and need to be NPOVed, making them less compact to describe than uncontroversial facts.
  • another hard correction: i've shifted the mention of Hamas, it seems to me that ideally we should include either both Kadima and Hamas, or neither. However, it's a fact that the Israeli government has constantly said it is only attacking the Gaza Strip de facto government, referring to "Hamas" rather than "de facto government", so it can be put in as an NPOV-ed POV.
Maybe:


How about this? (i've put the refs in non-rendered format since this the full refs are on the article page, not this talk page.) The idea is that at least at this introductory point, we avoid any attempts to cite sources who claim "they started first!" That can be properly NPOVed later on if people are willing to NPOV all POVs, not just those matching involuntary systemic bias. Boud (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC) minor change Boud (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks okay, but -- still -- I don't see why this needs to be hashed out now. The intro has nothing to do with the title. -- tariqabjotu 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to reach consensus, or at least a temporary one, in order to correct the completely irrelevant an anachronistic title we now have. I agree with you in the abstract, but in the concrete, I like to be flexible in order to be inclusive. Of course, this doesn't mean that the debate stops, just that it moves to another phase. ;)--Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty green to this wiki-editing business, sorry if I'm fucking something up. I really think the intro to this article needs to be changed. Its convuluted, and goes between very general statments then into very specific statements and numbers. I think the entire 2nd paragraph should be dropped, and the third paragraph should be noted as explicitly the current situation as of Jan 1. The lines:

"The United Nations has reported more than 350 Palestinians were killed,[5] including at least 62 women and children in the first two days of strikes and that over 1,400 were injured.[16][8] Most of the deaths have been members of the Hamas' security forces,[17][18] including Tawfik Jaber, the chief of Hamas police in Gaza.[19] A United Nations relief agency has said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire and on the brink of catastrophe.[20]"

should be dropped, and a link to the general Israel Palestinian conflict inserted. Why do we list only Palestinian casualities in the intro? Casualities should be put in their own section, maybe aftermath or something simular. Thats what other conflict articles seem to do. Just my two cents, we're supposed to discuss these things before editing the article right? I was going to edit it myself, but with all the angry labels at the top I grew concerned...Chrisofgenesis (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename it to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict until it is called a war by reliable sources. Guy0307 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title - this is no longer a "strike", it's a two-sided conflict

I think it should be changed to something like "December 2008 Conflict Between Israel and Hamas" John Hyams (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Two sides to this. okedem (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion + decision-making process above at #Requested_move, not here. Boud (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
-
To my fellow editors: whoever knows how to do this procedure, please do. Thanks, John Hyams (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
hi John, i think you have misunderstood. Deciding exactly what to change the title to requires a discussion + decision-making process in order to arrive at a consensus on the new title. It's not just a question of the technical operation. You have as much right as anyone else to participate in this process. Click on #Requested_move and read carefully and give your recommendation and reason for it. Boud (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Someone has already done this. John Hyams (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to add to article: Some Israeli citizens are euphoric about air strikes

Here are one aspect of the recent conflict that we are not covering yet in this article. There is real jubilation on the part of Israeli civilians and troops as a result of the air strikes.

I am unsure which section this should go in, but it is pretty surreal:

"In a muddy field overlooking the smoke-blackened Gaza Strip skyline on Tuesday, young soldiers from an Israeli tank unit linked arms with euphoric civilians and joined them in the hora, a circular dance, anticipation of a possible ground invasion of the Palestinian territory."
Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/58734.html

I am also unsure where to add the following:

"Below the choppers, a dozen Israeli spectators perched on a hilltop watched with anticipation. A minute went by and the first Apache fired a Hellfire missile, which went rumbling into the Palestinian side of the border. A few seconds later the crowd broke into cheers at the resulting sight: somewhere between the Jibalya refugee camp and the outskirts of Gaza city a ball of heavy black smoke was rising."
"Itay Avni, 32, who lives in the nearby Kibbutz of Nir-Am (population 400) is overjoyed at the Israeli assault on Gaza. He was among the crowd watching the Apaches launch their missiles. "Yesterday more then a hundred people from all around were here on this hilltop enjoying to the scene of dozens of aerial raids on Hamas military targets inside the Gaza strip," he says. "If I had opened an ice-cream stand here I would have made a lot money."
Source:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868858,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


I think the "Involved parties" reactions section should be converted to prose, and this piece of information added. -- tariqabjotu 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a paragraph on general reaction from the population of Israel and the population of Gaza / Palestine would be helpful but i dont think it should go into such specific incidents. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you taken time to view other sources? or did you just look for those making the "case" for your quasi-racist assertion?
How about looking at opeds in Israeli newspapers which are covered with both support and criticism of the operation? How about mentioning the demonstrations by left-wing Israelis infront of the ministry of defence? Of course, there are Israeli citizens gloating, there are those who believe the operation to be repugnant, and while the overwhelming majority probably support the action they are not "euphoric". Again, this is an attempt to categorize one of the most politicaly and culturaly diverse popolations in the world (the Israeli one) as being homogeneous in its approach to one of the most complicated conflicts in the history of mankind. How about Israeli Arabs (also Israeli citizens)? Do you think they are "euphoric"?. How about the Druze? What about Israeli Jews voters of Meretz? Should we try to cross section the entire Israeli society and establish each section's view? Please stop this nonsense. --Omrim (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the article should say what the majority of public opinion in both Israel and Palestine is, a brief mention of the far left / far right views on the issue from both sides would be ok but the majority should be the focus. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
More research results:
  1. "Public support for an attack has been growing in Israel, where a recent opinion poll showed that 20% of voters supported reoccupying Gaza, 27% wanted a return to assassinations and 18% wanted a short military strike."
  2. Police halt Israeli Arab rally against Gaza op, arrest 2 at T.A. protest
  3. 64% of Israelis favor expanding the attack to include a ground assault
  4. Likud activists stage support rally near Defense Ministry headquarters: "We want to give the IDF the feeling that Israelis are united in their support of the armed forces"
  5. Meretz supports the air stikes but warns against incursion into Gaza
--John Bahrain (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, obviously not everyone is reacting this way. But a survey of public reaction (including this and protests around the world) should have a place in the article. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Well, John, don't your recent research results show my exact point?--Omrim (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a big difference between supporting the military action and those dancing around in the streets celebrating the slaughter of civilians. There needs to be a general reaction of the Israeli / Palestinian population using the sources you listed John. But we dont need to just mention the extremes on either side, it should be majority opinion that is mostly covered in such a section. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I question the motivations of this inclusion. If we were to include something this extreme, then it would be fair to mention how Palestinian's commonly dance in the streets, often rejoining when one convicted murderer is being released in a prison exchange. Remember last year, when some guy who killed like 3 Israeli children in their homes was swapped for the body of a dead soldier? The entire city celebrated together....Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the motivation of this inclusion is to show the "Barbaric nature" of the Israeli society. This is quite clear. This inclusion looks and smells like POV. However, given the fact that it's going to be included whatever we say, we should balance it with some other facts.--Omrim (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with that ridiculous portrayal of Israeli society and military (which, compared to their theocratic neighbors, is quite civil and efficient), including something so controversial into an article that's already being pumped with POV is not responsible nor relevant. For the time being, I say we focus on the actual operation and truly verifiable facts before drifting off into opinion waters. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree to j. bahrain, his proposal is well sourced. omrim, where are the voices in israel (beside palestinians and druzes with israeli citizenship) who oppose operation cast lead? any sources?--Severino (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's well sourced, but only one of the sources connect well with Bahrain's agenda. He's pushing a clearly biased belief that their is some radical "euphoric" mentality stirring around Israeli soldiers regarding the recent attacks, but the secondary sources provided simply demonstrate and all-around support for the operation, not a dancing cultish celebration with guns shooting in the air and heavy grunting. Lol. A topic so extreme should be accepted through a cordial consensus and understanding. This article cannot afford any more POV pushing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting tired. How about these for starters? This is something I compiled in about two minutes of title browsing. And I don't see any point adding dozens more sources in Hebrew since you can't read them.

1. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051317.html 2. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051563.html 3. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647728,00.html 4. http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20081231_Gaza_Letter_to_Mazuz.asp 5. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050470.html Again, your idea is quasi-racist, since it ascribes Israelis with "hidden" motives (such as the joy of killing Arabs). This is ridiculous.--Omrim (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Severino, what's wrong with the opinions of the Druze? They DO SERVE IN THE IDF! Or is the problem only relates to ISRAELI JEWS? Hmmmm.. I wonder what's that starting to sound like?--Omrim (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

first, to your sources: 1 and 4 are comments from exponents of the tiny peace camp; 3 (oz) takes a stand only against a ground operation and accuses the other side having provocated the operation; 2 mentions an antiwar demonstration but also that those want to "distinguish it from the rightist vocal demonstration"; 5 is about an antiwar demonstration,ok.i would also mention this kind of reactions/opinions along with "the other ones".

the druzes on the israeli occupied golan do not serve in the israeli military; the other with israeli citizenship do, but not all of them. you asked me whats wrong with their opinion. nothing, but its curious that, when it comes about demonstrating the diversity and critical faculty of the israeli society, the non jewish minorities are suddenly in a prominent place.--Severino (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. First, if you read the entire discussion you have probably noticed that my opposition is not to the argument that the great majority of Israelis support the operation, but rather to the fact that they are not all "euphoric" about it. I think my sources make it clear. (ex: Oz also described the poor situation of the Gazans, but you conveniently failed to read it). Second, what do you mean by saying "tiny peace camp": based on what analysis did you make that conclusion? These opinions are published in the third most read newspaper in Israel. Third, your effort to distinguish every part of every article only proves my point: even you have to work hard only to show that at least some are "euphoric". There dozens other opeds in Hebrew saying similar stuff. Should I translate them all so you can "distinguish" all of them? Fourth, the 1 soldier killed so far was a Druze [11]. In sum, I fail to see how can we conveniently and objectively argue that Israelis are "euphoric". Unfortunately I can't counter argue your last sentence as it implies to inequality suffered by most non-Jewish minorities in Israel. This is – I ashamed to admit as an Israeli citizen – probably true. --Omrim (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to read this [12] - It is for sure biased on-sided article, but probably the best I have seen yet to express Israeli majority view on the issue. Most Israelis think the operation is just. They may be wrong, but they are not euphoric.--Omrim (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

the original proposal was, to mention that SOME israelis are euphoric and indeed there are some. i won't object mentioning that there are other attitudes too. --Severino (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, no really... thank you for allowing the "other" Israeli voices (THE MAJORITY OF THEM) into the article as well. The term "Euphoric" has nothing to do with facts. It is an adjective used by ONE journalist. Why not use "cheerful", "happy", "joyful" or any other similar adjective that will serve your cause. It has no factual value (but a huge political and PR value). You and I, and all other users discussing this, know that the motivation to put it in the article is all about POV. Please stop pretending it is not. At least spell it out. --Omrim (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't speculate about other user's motivations. if you would really mind about POV, neutrality and so on in middle east articles on wikipedia, you would have A LOT to do in this and other articles. --Severino (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

what i mean, is that if you would really care about NPOV, you also had to get involved with it when it's to the disadvantage for another side.--Severino (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which I did several times. look for my name in the discussion. --Omrim (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Odense (Denmark) Shooting Incident

Some reports have been made that two Israelis were lightly wounded in a shooting incident in a shopping mall in the Denamrk Town of Odense. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs assumes that the shooting is connected to the Gaza operation. see [13] [14] Should we add it to the public reaction section/main article? After all we do cover international peaceful demonstrations. What about not so peaceful kinds of protesets? Thoughts? --Omrim (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm well i would want more than just speculation about it being linked before it gets a mention. A mention of the British embassy in Iran being stormed might also be valid as some say its connected. [15] Not sure what happened though, i would of expected alot more media coverage of this on British news channels but i didnt see it at all, only on their website. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You're right. The Odense issue is now unfolding. Let us see how it develops. --Omrim (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the only thing confirmed yet is that the shooter had dark hair and moustache. There have been reports of a gang of youths harassing the store(that employed the Israelis) recently. My best guess is that the gang is one of the numerous groups of young muslims known in Odense for doing lots of crime and harassing white citizens. It's possible they discovered that the two were Israelis and in the light of the current conflict, take it out on them. But it could just be a coincidence, we will probably know the real story soon, until then this is what there is: http://news.tv2.dk/article.php/id-19457833.html. Happy New Year! :) T.R. 87.59.78.191 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: The man has turned himself in and he is of middle-eastern descent, either palestinian or lebanese depending on the reporter. There was reports of several individuals partying in Odense(lots of muslims live in ghettos there, living off welfare) because of the shootings, they presented themselves hooded to the camera. This was in TV-avisen kl. 18:30 this evening, maybe someone can link it. So this event *is* connected to Operation Cast Lead after all..(more details to follow as they come) http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/krimi/article.php/id-19475094.html T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately my Danish skills are a bit, well, non-existent. How about finding a reliable source that we can all understand, or better yet, preparing a short paragraph describing the issue so we can debate whether to include it. Thanks. --Omrim (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Danish TV2 nyhederne *is* a reliable source like BBC and is one of the two national state owned channels in Denmark. Since this is happening in Denmark, I'm not sure there are sources in english language but I can look. Anyway, I don't think this event deserved more mention in the article than one or two lines. Internationally it's a very minor thing though the Israelians may have a very different opinion. http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Europe\20090101\EU-Denmark-Shooting.xml&cat=world&subcat=europe&pageid=1 T.R. 87.59.101.51 (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Dignity Incident

The Following lines must be removed from the dignity incident section:

Immediately after the incident the aid ship turned back. The Israeli naval ship offered to assist the passengers of the aid ship, who declined the offer. Israeli ships then escorted the damaged ship until it exited Israeli territorial waters.

Reason:

  • Violation of Neutral Point of View:
The notion that the israeli navy offered aid to dignity but who declined it , is being portrayed as fact , which it is NOT!
It's obviously a claim of the israeli navy nothing more , that does Not at all prove that they Did offer any aid.
At best faith it should be written as: "The Israeli Navy Claimed...bla bla" , in order to emphasize that's a one-sided representation .

  • Lack of Verifiability:
The Media to which the reference is being made to support this alleged fact is an israeli media , which means
That bias should be expected , and under no circumstances should it be valid to take it for granted unless an
independent media which is not taking part in the conflict verifies the claim.Cowmadness (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see with the lines is the assertions that the damaged ship was in Israeli territorial waters, see http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail for a CNN piece saying the incident occurred in 'international waters about 90 miles off Gaza.' I don't think we can summarily reject a source becuase it is Israeli, or Palestinian. The CNN piece also attributes a person to the claim that the boat refused assistance, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. Also, this source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-gaza-aid-ship) states that the boat was escorted into Cypriot territorial waters, but not out of Israeli waters. I think the lines can be constructed in this way:
According to Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor, the Dignity refused assistance after the incident, and was escorted to Cypriot territorial waters.
With the citations. That a problem?Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The guardian also attributes to Palmor both that the boat refused assistance and that it was escorted to Cypriot waters. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Since there are contradicting sources: YNET [16] vs. The Guardian [17] (and possibly others), I included both versions. Best Tkalisky (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright , I can see now that the current dignity incident section has come closer to objectivity.
Just one more time to avoid misunderstanding or ill intentioned to cherry pick my words , if data is to be included from
a media that is part of one side or the other then always state , who proposed the claim
btw , that troll image was ultra ridiculous if not offensive , i think it only shows the silliness of that of who posted it.
Regards
Cowmadness (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible ground incursion

Australia's ABC is saying that Hamas have said the IDF were involved in a brief ground incursion into Gaza near Khan Younis yesterday, in a possible buildup to a full scale invasion. Whether or not these claims are true, they have been made, they should be included as claims in the article. I'd log in and do it myself, but would like feedback on where to put them. 125.239.126.162 (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that "invasion" is the right term to use for a full scale ground troops operation. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Lets see what sources say for a full-scale operation. Their custom is to call anything big "invasion". And some small stuff too, like the Invasion of Grenada which involved much less troops than what this baby will. Coincidentally, here we have another example of an Operation which is a redirect. In this case Operation Urgent Fury is a redirect. This actually remind me of something... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cast Lead table

the Strength part contain that Hamas have 20,000 militants (total), it need some one to add what guns they have , Klashinkovs and local made rockets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.241.138 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I had added this but RomaC removed it stating that "not a reliable source, also if we are going to list total Hamas firepower we should list total IDF firepower". See above Infobox: Strength. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with RomaC on this. Besides, the Hamas has a lot more than "home made" rockets. Many of the rockets used in this conflict are actually standadized Iranian made katyusha rockets and Grad missiles. They are hardly "local made". Trying to establish total power of each side is impossible. --Omrim (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty number

I've just checked ten articles about different Hamas suicide bombings (see List of Hamas suicide attacks), and without fail the numbers of killed and wounded are always given in the first paragraph. In this article, it's down in the third paragraph. Why is it different here?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an ongoing conflict and the numbers listed in the 3rd paragraph are talking about the deaths from the first two days of the conflict which is described in paragraph two. Huge changes to the article are needed, but i dont see a big problem with the death toll coming after the explanation of what happened in the opening strikes. Although id prefer a more general introduction and the detail about the first days conflict placed in its own section, BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
For example War in Afghanistan (2001-present) or Iraq War dont list the deaths in the first paragraph rather than a specific incident like a suicide bombing or attack. This is the problem with the article title.... It shouldnt be gaza strip airstrikes, this is meant to be about the ongoing conflict. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


You're talking about wars that have gone on for years, which isn't really a good analogy. A better one would be the Bombing of Dresden in World War II, which took place over three days. There the casualty numbers are also given in the first paragraph. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Because categorizing this operation (which, tragic as it may be, has military objectives, and in which most Palestinian casualties are combatants) the same as suicide attacks (in which the objective is killing as many civilians as possible) is appalling.--Omrim (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Who said anything about categorising this bombing (where there is little or no risk to the bombers) with suicide bombings? Do you mean to say the USAAF and RAF set out to kill as many civilians as possible in Dresden? They insisted it was a military and industrial target. I don't agree with your categorisation of policemen as "combatants". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree the casualty figures should be in the first graph I put them there they keep slipping. Also yes, there is increasing media discussion about the initial classification of killed or injured government employees as non-civilian. We should watch this. RomaC (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Casualty figures do not belong in the lede in new and ongoing conflicts. A suicide attack is a discrete event with (generally) a clear-cut number of casualties. Sometimes a person dies from his wounds and then the numbers are changed. Past wars are over and the counts are stable. But in a current event like this it is best to leave the numbers out of the lede and put them in the casualty section so we do not have to keep revising the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New title

Ah, but this ongoing unpleasantness had now moved into 1009. Should not the title be changed to reflect this? --Tomtom9041 (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more references

Amnesty International said that . "It is utterly unacceptable for Israel to continue to purposefully deprive 1.5 million people of food and other basic necessities. Such a policy cannot be justified on any security or other grounds and must end immediately," said Amnesty International. "Israel must allow international humanitarian and human rights workers immediate and safe access to Gaza." [18] Amnesty International reiterates its call for an end to reckless and unlawful Israeli attacks against densely populated residential areas which have killed more than 300 Palestinians since 27 December, including scores of unarmed civilians and police personnel not taking part in the hostilities, and injured several hundred others.

  • I added material from the above source in the section on December 29th. Thanks for that. Tiamuttalk 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


Tiamut-sorry to interrupt, I added all the above AI verbatim to the article under International organizations...--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama’s silence on Gaza irks Arabs On the fourth day of Israeli air strikes in Gaza, the US President-elect has yet to take a position, though he spoke out after militants’ attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed policy statements on the US economy. “He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” said Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman. “Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent(on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. [19]

Gaza children traumatised as Israeli bombs rain down We are scared... that we can die at any moment,” said 11-year-old Mohammed Ayyad, still terrified hours after a massive Israeli bombardment of Hamas government buildings next to his house in Gaza. His six-year-old brother Ahmad “peed his pants. We were all scared because the planes are in the sky all the time and we could die at any moment.” Schools in Gaza have been closed since the Israeli strikes began on Saturday and children have passed the time examining the damage caused by the raids. Near Ayyad’s home, a group of children milled around rubble that used to be Hamas government buildings. One shrugged off the danger of being outside as the Israeli warplanes continued their sorties overhead. [20]

Robert Fisk (The Independent's award-winning Middle East correspondent)[21] said that These are realities. The chances of war, however, may be less easier to calculate. If Israel indefinitely continues its billion dollar blitz on Gaza – and we all know who is paying for that – there will, at some stage, be an individual massacre; a school will be hit, a hospital or a pre-natal clinic or just an apartment packed with civilians.

Dawn editorial [ http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/world/israeli+savagery+--rs ](30 December 2008) stated that The Muslim world is powerless, while there is no countervailing power to tear up the carte blanche which America has given to Israel for its massacre of the Palestinian people and for holding on to the occupied territories in violation of UN declarations and the agreements to which Israel and America are a party.

‘It is simply disgusting when the people actually being attacked in Gaza are utterly defenceless, basically starving,’ says Canadian environmentalist Ingmar Lee. [22] ‘If there is any shame left in the international community, it should denounce Israel unanimously and insist its withdrawal from all of Palestine. What can something like this lead to? Palestinians are naturally going to react in the same way as anyone who wakes up to find themselves among splattered body parts of their children and families. They will have one single objective for the rest of their lives.’ [23]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizentimes (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to start discussed the traumatized Gazan children, we should also discuss the Israeli kids, in places like Sderot, who have spent the last 8 years under rocket fire, running for their lives every few hours, when the Qassam rockets rained down. okedem (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Both should be discussed, using reliable sources. In fact, we badly need a section on the impact on civilians on both sides of the border. Tiamuttalk 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, okedem, your tone is not at all constructive. There is a section on the trauma effects on children in the Qassam rocket attacks article:The Qassam rocket attacks have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both children and adults, with an estimated 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD. RomaC (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC, first off, you pointing me to some other article proves my point.
But my reply was to the quotes above, which seem to serve a purpose of inclining the reader towards one side. My comment is honest - if you want quotes about traumatized Gazan kids, we'll have quotes about traumatized Israeli kids. okedem (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
okedem, you want information on the trauma to Israeli kids as a result of Qassam rocket attacks, that's in the article on Qassam rocket attacks. RomaC (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to decide if we want to stick to the chronology, the facts, or do we start adding quotes and opinions to the day-by-day sections. I believe we shouldn't. For example, Amnesty's opinion can be detailed under "Reactions", along with countries and other organizations. Placing their opinions under one day's heading it peculiar - do they think the attacks should stop on Dec. 29, but are okay with them on Dec. 31? It's their general opinion of the operation, and so belongs elsewhere. okedem (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Amnesty International, while obviously sincere in their quest for tranquility, is heavily biased (almost slandering) when it comes to Israel topics. If we are to include their opinion, it must be emphasized that it is AN OPINION and not passed off as fact or even professional opinion (i.e, Prime Ministers). Their beliefs are akin to a zionist zealot groups, so if we are to include AI, thenwe are obligated to include the opinions of pro-Israel charities as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, why is trauma to Israeli kids as a result of Qassam rocket attacks should only be in the article on Qassam rocket attacks ? This is a real question. What about the kids traumatized by the 351 rockets fired since the operation began?--Omrim (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama Slience

Obama’s silence on Gaza irks Arabs On the fourth day of Israeli air strikes in Gaza, the US President-elect has yet to take a position, though he spoke out after militants’ attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed policy statements on the US economy. “He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” said Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman. “Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent(on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizentimes (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm whilst im sure he enjoys being able to stay out of this for political reasons, he is simply following correct protocol. There is currently only one president of the United States and that is George W Bush. There doesnt need to be a mention of Obama really until the handover takes place then there could be a whole section on the new administrations response (if the war is still going on by then) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
bs.. it's clear he supported israel almost unconditionally in campaign. Leladax (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Why mention Obama at all, or any world leader who is not involved? Why the U.S. President and not the President of Chad? Lets not be biased to what the U.S. reaction is while forgetting that the world still goes on outside of the United States.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
THe US has alot more influence on the situation than Chad does. Ofcourse theres a whole article for the international response from countries where the president of chads view can be included as well. But actions by the European Union and the United States on this matter may lead to some form of development and there for worthy of a mention. Agreed on not mentioning Obama tho BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The US is not the be all end all, and by the way, I was only using Chad as a reference, how about France? Is that better, or perhaps India, or China? No need to mention any world leader who is not involved, regardless of potential influence.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Attribution/Humanitarian aid

Okedem has added some info on humanitarian aid that was allowed to enter the Gaza Strip. His sources are all Israeli and I have tried to include mention of that at the beginning of each of the sentences he added, in keeping with the idea that we attribute information to their sources. We have a number of sentences that begin with "Palestinian sources report" or something like that. When the sources are the Israeli government or media only, I think that fact should be noted. Okedem keeps deleting my additions in this regard. Feedback from others would be welcome. Tiamuttalk 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While all claims must be sourced, user:Tiamut has begun adding attribution (in the text) when dealing when an Israeli paper (Yediot Ahronot) writing about aid entering Gaza. We use these sources throughout the article, without such attribution, and I see no reason for it here. Yedioth is a free paper, and is not "Israeli sources". We rarely use the format "According to...", and it makes little sense - everything we say is sourced to some media outlet, and if the reader wants to know which one - that's what the footnote is for. Also, contrary to Tiamut's claim, we don't do the same thing for Palestinian sources (only two instances of "Palestinian sources" in the article). okedem (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with okedem - there seems to be some game playing going on, where very selectively, any piece of information which portrays Israel in a positive light, such as the supplying of humanitarian aid, is prefaced with "according to Israeli sources" - even though a 10 second search reveals multiple non-Israeli sources reporting the same thing. NoCal100 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not doing it selectively. I attribute almost every statement I add to its speaker, in case you have not noticed. I think this is preferable when dealing with controversial subjects, since it belies the need to arbitrate over what should be said in Wikipedia's netural voice. In any case, since you say there are other sources, would you mind providing them here? That way, this discussion on this particular point could be rendered moot. Otherwise, I'd like to hear the opinions of other non-partisan actors on the issue. Your views are well known. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You most certainly are doing it selectively - take a look at just your most recent edit, regarding fuel supplies, which you have not qualified as 'According to MSNBC'. You also have no problem sourcing things to Israeli newspapers without qualifying them in such a way, when the information portrays Israel in a negative light - such as here. I have provided the other sources for every claim you've qualified in this false and misleading way - feel free to check out the citations in the article. You are encouraged to stop playing this game. NoCal100 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
(Sigh, a huge one). The first link you give shows my edit as attributing the statement to UN officials. I didn't see the need to add "MSNBC says that..." before "UN officials" since it is attributed to the UN officials. Also MSNBC is an American news organization, not an Israeli or Palestinian one with a dog in the fight so to speak, and so specifying its nationality is not really relevant here.
The second link you provide proves aboslutely nothing. I added the Ynet source as a complement to the Al-Jazeera one. Why would I change the text to read "Ynet says", when Al-Jazeera says it too? Further, for the info on the attack on a school, I attribute it to "Palestinian sources" because that's why Ynet says. I suppose I could have written "Israeli media reported that Palestinian sources said..." but that would be a bit wordy no?
Please stop trying to accuse me of doing things I am not actually doing and which require a reat amount of bad faith speculation on your part.
Now I notice that someone added a link to the IMEMC to support the claim on humanitarian deliveries. However, the IMEMC cites their source for this info as the Israeli military. So again, the only sources we have indicating humanitarian aid deliveries were made are Israeli media and political sources. Can anyone provide something different? If not, I'm going to have to insist that we say who is reporting this information, per WP:ATT. Tiamuttalk 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with Tiamut's edits there. I agree with him that we should attribute every statement to its speaker. Media outlets rarely lie or make mistakes when quoting respected officials, so when newspaper X reports that the UN/Israel said something, then we should write "according to UN/Israel...", omitting "newspaper X." But when the newspaper doesn't name its sources, or when it uses questionable sources ("some palestinian guy told our reporter that..."), we should use "according to newspaper x." Simple? Offliner (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/12/2901.htm
  2. ^ http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html
  3. ^ http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051000.html
  4. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.israel.airstrikes/index.html
  5. ^ http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1051227.html
  6. ^ "Jets target Rafah tunnels; 375 now dead, 1,720 injured". Ma'an News Agency. 2008-12-30. Retrieved "2008-12-31T00:50+02". {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east
  8. ^ http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-VyeIdvnRafeEqA-PUiwImwDafA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_War_(2008–2009)/Archive_2&oldid=1084068957"