Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Discrepancies in the PCHR list of fatalities

I am about to start new section here. I have no idea whether to incorporate it in the article. It is based mostly on original research. Due to differences in the spelling of Arabic names, it is feasible I missed someone who actually is listed. I encourage Arab speaking participants to recheck my findings in the Arab-language data and report their findings. Before I start publishing discrepancies in the PCHR list, a question to the participants: if during cast lead, a t had hit the IDF headquarters, killing say Major General Eliezer Stern, former Chief Commander of the Manpower Directorate, would he be counted as civilian or military casualty? And if the rocket killed him, during the operation, in his house sleeping on a weekend?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC) The following refers to [198] source of the article, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Case study #1. Number 231, Salem Ahmed Salem Abu Shamla. Described as jobless, civilian. However, he was presumably executed by Hamas, apparently due to his Fatah affiliation. See #9 below. http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=35455. Just to put things in the proper context, other names of the executed were not found.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Case study #2. Number 583, Mohammed Abed Hassan Barbakh. Described as 19, jobless, civilian. However, in the link below he is described as a commander in the military branch of the National Resistance Brigades (DFLP): 'Before noon on Sunday an airstrike killed the DFLP senior leader, Muhammed Abed Barbakh, his father Abed and his two brothers Mahdi and Yousef, also his nephew Musa Yousef was killed when missiles struck the home in the An-Nahdah neighborhood. Barbakh was a commander in the military branch of the National Resistance Brigades (DFLP).' http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_29247.shtml. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Case study #3. Number 959, Amir Yousif Mahmoud al-Mansi. Described as Engineer/member of the Civil Defense, civilian. However, according to ICT below, The IDF killed Amir Yusuf Mansi, who was the commander of Hamas rocket cells operating in the Gaza City area. http://www.ict.org.il/NewsCommentaries/Commentaries/tabid/69/Articlsid/603/currentpage/1/Default.aspx. According to Haaretz, 'Amir Mansi, the commander of Hamas' rocket-launching program in the Gaza City area who was killed by the Israel Defense Forces on Saturday, fired mortars himself after junior Hamas operatives refused to go outside, fearing an Israeli strike.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054245.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Case study #4. According to the link below, 3 senior Hamas operatives were killed during the second day of ground invasion, January 5th. However, checking name-by-name on adjacent dates produced only one result in PCHR report. 'Housam Hamdan and Mohammed Hilou -- both senior members of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades -- were killed in an airstrike in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza, Hamas sources said. Hamas sources said Israeli forces in Jabalya killed Mohammed Shalpokh, a member of Hamas commando forces which Israel blames for launching rockets from northern Gaza.' The latter identified as Number 565. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/04/israel.gaza/index.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but none of this can go in the article. You would need to find a reliable source making these claims. We also do already say that the PCHR civilian list contains Hamas members killed in noncombat situations. The first one I dont know about, in fact I have no idea about the particulars of any. But I've been dealing with work issues all night, so dont plan on checking further into this, but do keep in mind that if you start a section saying it is based mostly on original research it almost certainly does not belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know OR generally is not encouraged. While PCHR guided by International Law guidelines, armed groups and news agencies in Gaza and Ramallah disagree. Here is cross reference of PCHR list with Al Qassam, Ma'an and other Palestinian reliable sources. So far no fewer that 152 resistors/warrior shaheed identified among PCHR civilian casualties. There might be political rather then legal reasons for classification dispensaries in reliable sources though. Some things just get Lost in translation :) AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Nableezy, as I said, I understand the general policy. Moreover, I wrote myself that currently I can't think of a way to install it properly in the article. However, I will ask you a question, for the sake of small talk between friends: what reliable source do you need to open this http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf, then go to line, say, 231, and to see with your own eyes the man is counted as a civilian casualty, while Maan news agency claims the man was executed by Hamas?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I implore you to try to understand that outside Israel there is a difference between membership of an organisation and what someone was doing at the time of death. It is what someone was doing at the time of death that defines legality and non-combatant status outside Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: if during cast lead, a rocket had hit the IDF headquarters, killing say Major General Eliezer Stern, former Chief Commander of the Manpower Directorate, would he be counted as civilian or military casualty? And if the rocket killed him, during the operation, in his house sleeping on a weekend? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do me a favor, would you? Read cases #1, 3, 4, and tell me what do those cases have with what you are asking from me? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat words of AgadaUrbanit: I know OR generally is not encouraged. But at least I wanted to share the findings here. I ask Sean and others to pay attention: some cases describe those who were reported as killed but could not be found. Other cases are dealing with the killed occupation and civilian/military status.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Case study #6. Number 412, Nizar Abdul Kader Mohammed Rayan. PCHR states that he is University Professor. Regardless of the fact that he was not involved directly in the warfare and is considered civilian casualty, he was, according to Al-Jazeera, one of the most senior Hamas officials. 'Nizar Rayyan is the most senior Hamas official killed since Israel unleashed its massive bombardment on Gaza seven days ago'. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911133527449783.html. Not to include this data is a half-truth, isn't it?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case study #7. On 9.1.2009 forces targeted Batarek Abu Amshav, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative. Abu Amshav, 22 from Beit Hanoun, is responsible for planting explosives against IDF forces, and for daily rocket fire on to Sderot and the surrounding communities of the Gaza Strip. Hamas operative Muhammed Nagad, 26 from Jibaliya, was also targeted during the operation. http://dover.idf.il/NR/exeres/FEDAD40D-9AEB-453E-9665-6FD68BD0FE14.htm. Both were not found. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case study #8. On 3/1/2009 A senior commander of Hamas' armed wing, Abu Zakaria al-Jamal was killed. He was commander of Gaza City's rocket-launching squads. In another air strike, Jamal Mamduch, commander of the Gaza City battalion, was killed. First absent, second found - #479. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my answer to Sceptic Ashdod's question:

I must say that my general feeling is that if a person is a member of an organization that is in war with some other organization, then he (or she) must be a legitimate target at any point of time during the conflict. Say that IDF would have sent a group of soldiers into Gaza, killing some combatants and then gone back sleeping somewhere in Israel, perhaps far behind the lines, and then become killed by rockets, it would be combatant casualties. If someone in Gaza engage in battle, then he must be considered to be part of the combatants and a legal target. If combatants only are combatants 8-17 each working day and non-combatants the rest of the time, it would surely make it hard for the israelis to fight and I have never heard of such ideas in other wars. If they don't use uniforms, as claimed by the IDF, it becomes even worse. So any person that is part of an armed force is a legitimate target, those giving orders should then also be included. I don't know anything more to write in order to explain my reasoning now.--KMA "HF" N (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now in here you try and make the case, that 'some'(or specifically the names that you have posted) civilian were part of Hamas military wing, and thus are viable targets. You were asked a RS(and it shouldn't be all that hard to gather). I would say that the case was already made for you, with Israel's rationale that if they are associated with Hamas, they are 'legal' targets. What else are you looking for, state your proposal please. Cryptonio (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue with IDF's legal targetting approach is, if Hamas is hiding in your home, you are a legal target, if you are a family member of a Hamas gunmen, you are legal target at your home. So are you sure an IDF officer's home is a legal target, so bombing it would be legal. Or if an IDF officer hide in a civillian home, bombing the home by Hamas would be alright. Kasaalan (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

can you try sending this claims to PCHR mailbox so maybe they put an answer to the claims. By the way it is necessary to point out if the target is a member of arm wing of Hamas, or political wing. Because Gaza Strip is ruled by Hamas political wing, and if you target all Hamas members the number gets really high, and if you consider anyone the votes for Hamas then 45 percent of the population is a legal target. You should also reversely think, so if you put Hamas political wing as legal target, then all the Israeli government politicians should be considered as a legal target, since they send the army to strike Gaza, and they are responsible for the high number of civilian casualties. If you expand the legal target approach like this, then you reach a conclusion like Hamas, who tries to whitewash suicidal bombing in crowds. Hamas or IDF is not any better than each other, yet IDF has a denser civilian and children kills. Kasaalan (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point.

Personally, as someone who supported the Israeli, Irish, Algerian, Kosovar, Chechynian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Slovenian wars for independence (mixed feelings about the Palesinian one though)- I believe that a non-uniformed 'partisan' should be able to walk up to a senior military officer's friend's personal home, ring the doorbell, and then shoot him in the doorsteps. I would consider that to be a perfectly legitimate act of war.

Interestingly, a member of the American Jewish Congress with whom I recently talked to said the same thing about Hamas v. the IDF: "Fighter verses fighter is fine, that's not terrorism- that's just plain war." The Squicks (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, yet if you involve the families that is not true. Can you walk to an officer's neighbour while he visits them, kill the officer and his neighbours or family and call that a war. IDF shoots Hamas gunmen with tanks while they hiding even in civillian buildings. Just try reading Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF to get my point. Kasaalan (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio, Kasaalan and everyone else: all those cases I presented (and I am afraid you didn't read them) were not to address the legality of targeting them. This was to show, to what extent is PCHR fatalities list is, eh, imperfect. For example, it includes apparently one Fatah member who was executed by Hamas (case #1); it describes someone who was apparently engaged in the battle as civilian (case #3); it does not include militants killed (case #4, 7, 8) and so on. And no, I do not want to, and do not have to, make inquires with the PCHR. Still, as I said, I do encourage Arab-speaking participants to reexamine my cases. One more thing. All the deaths in my cases were documented in RSes I provided. The PCHR list I provided. I will wait for some RS that will bring all these cases together. Meanwhile, just take a look. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To Kasaalan. to claim that Hamas has separate political and military wings is, excuse me, nonsense. The notion that Hamas's military, political, and social "wings" are distinct from one another is belied by ample evidence. In fact, the records show, Hamas meets in the mosques and hospitals it maintains to plan terror attacks, buries caches of arms and explosives under its own schoolyard playgrounds, and transfers and launders funds for terrorist activity through local charity committees. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=265. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not all that distinct if they carry the Hamas 'brand'. That because they carry the Hamas 'brand'(for copyright infringement purposes i suppose) is the reason why the political and social wings of Hamas are/were targeted. But what happens to the personel who is only in it for the salary and has not planned or is planning in taking part of the actual fighting? when they are killed, were they pushed by Israel's rationale to fight and die without actually fighting?. Maybe the IDF does not buries caches of weapons and volatile explosives under playground, but i'm sure it does worse things. stop this nonsense. Cryptonio (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject, ah? Pointing finger towards IDF, which, you are sure, does worse things. With that I can't argue. But there is one sentence, how did you put it? 'what happens to the personel who is only in it for the salary'? Like Eichmann maybe? Nothing personal, just following orders. Yeh, why not. Blame it on the IDF that all the personel below were working in police for salary on days and sending rockets on Sderot at night just for fun. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm . Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject? I addressed your last para. Anywho. You give one example of perhaps someone living a double life. That's fine, what is not fine is to take that one example and say that every single male in gaza was a Hamas operative, as is the case being made by Israel. Were those names that you have posted involved in actual fighting when they got killed or simple 'party affiliation' was key for being targeted. Only one of those case studies that you provided(and I am sure that if there was more like it, you would have posted it here) shows one of those men actually firing rockets while being killed. The others, simple party affiliation for that it matters to us. But if you are looking for discrepancies, look no further in the numbers of children killed giving by the Palestinian and the TOTAL number of civilian casualties given by Israel. Now, of course I am sure you have something up your sleeve for those Hamas children. Cryptonio (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you neglected all the cases where the militants killed are not found on PCHR list. As for the children, the answer is yes and no. Yes I do have something up my sleeve. And no, it will not convince you in anything. Do you know that militants in PCHR list include two 16 and five 17 years old (no, they are not included in the chidren's count)? It is interesting to look at the distribution between males and females. Up to 11, the casualty's numbers of girls and boys are more or less the same. Total count of children younger than 16 shows some incline to boys. What about 16-17? 11 girls and 68 boys. The same about fatalities above 18: about 115 females, about 490 males out of total 900+ civilian casualties. I know, it will bring us back to your post. Nevermind. Did you like case #6? University Professor? It is truth btw. But somewhat one-sided. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"you neglected all the cases where the militants killed are not found on PCHR list" You mean names on the Israeli list as militants but not militants under the PCHR list? If that so, I didn't neglected anything. You would then show proof that they were firing missles, but I only say one case of that nature. Again, that some of these men were part of perhaps one of the largest employer in gaza(if not the largest) is not surprising.

Looking at children per families, will sort of validate these numbers. More children (together) than adult women, and if you add children and women it will total the same number of men casualties. Which is the same case with Israeli numbers. Children under 16 plus women will give you 128, which is almost half of the 300 total civilian deaths according to the IDF. Seems like both methods look accurate yet the total number differ greatly. A university professor being asked about his expertise? not surprising. Are you impress with IDF lawyers not answering question because of fears that they might be responsible 'internationally' about the actions of commanders in the field? totally related to lawyers of Bush and co. Cryptonio (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(indent)
I suggest you guys read this, where I demonstrate that some editors here really don't understand how a legitimate military target is defined in IHL.
According to HRW, a Hamas fighter is a legitimate target, whether he's shooting someone right now or not. HRW also says it is legitimate to target the home or office of a Hamas commander.
I was told that the ICRC defines it in some other way, but have yet to see the ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this talk page is not the article. Thanks anyways. Cryptonio (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF Military Investigations

Someone added the following to the casualties section: 'The IDF "conceded that Palestinian civilians died because of mistakes in intelligence and targeting, but said the military did not find any case in which an Israeli soldier deliberately shot a civilian'. First, based on our previous discussios, I think it does not belong here. Maybe in disputed figures or anywhere else. The report itself is very interesting stuff, and most of its findings were reprinted in JPost and Arutz 7 News. Maybe it even deserves a subsection of its own. To mention just this sentence is taking things out of context. Here are some excerpts:

1. The IDF made several "intelligence and operational mistakes" during Operation Cast Lead that cost civilian lives, but overall operated in accordance with international law and in an ethical and professional way, Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Dan Harel said on Wednesday. The overall conclusion was that the army operated in accordance with international laws and made great efforts to minimize civilian casualties, Harel said.

2. The probes also uncovered a number of cases in which the IDF made mistakes in the midst of the fighting that led to the deaths of several dozen innocent Palestinians. Among the "intelligence and operational mistakes" was the bombing on January 6 of the Dawiya family home in the Zeitoun neighborhood in southern Gaza City, in which 21 people were reported killed. The probe, conducted by former Golani Brigade commander Col. Tamir Yidai, discovered that an intelligence mistake led the air force to target the wrong building.

3. While there are still some 70 teams probing various IDF units, Harel said that to date the military had not found a single incident in which an Israeli soldier purposely aimed and fired at innocent civilians. far fewer Palestinians were killed by an IDF mortar attack against a Hamas terrorist cell near a UN compound in Jabalya on January 6 than was originally reported. Palestinians claimed that more than 40 people were killed. The army investigation revealed that 12-17 people were killed and that at least five of them were Hamas terrorists who had fired mortars at IDF troops. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710758789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh operated a command and control center inside Shifa Hospital in downtown Gaza City throughout Operation Cast Lead. Senior Hamas commanders also set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center. An IDF investigation, conducted by Col. Erez Katz, focused on the targeting of health facilities, vehicles and medical teams. The probe discovered that out of seven medical personnel claimed to have been killed by the IDF, five were Hamas operatives, including a nephew of the Hamas health minister. Two were civilians. The probe also uncovered a number of cases during which Hamas used ambulances to transport operatives. Testimony by a Gazan medical worker and obtained by the IDF revealed how Hamas forced the Red Crescent to hand over medic and nurse uniforms for its operatives. the UN vehicle was used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

5. Perhaps the most controversial investigation was that conducted by Colonel Tamir Yedai into incidents in which civilians were killed. In the case of a bombing which killed senior Hamas terrorist Nazar Rian and fifteen other civilians, the IDF concluded that it had warned the residents of all houses in the area to leave, and that the air force had even carried out warning fire before the bombing. The IDF had not known that the civilians were present at the time of the bombing.The IDF Spokesperson's Unit emphasized that these experts' investigations are not a substitute for the main operational IDF investigation of the entire operation, which is continuing at various levels and which will be concluded by June. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130986

The report itself: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm. Recommended. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence. In Israel's estimation only 295 civilians died. In israel's view, that is an acceptable range of collateral damage and to say the reasons why they died(intelligence breakdown/aim as a bit off that day) is not to actually admit any wrongdoing. Specially when it also says that it didn't find not even one occasion where a soldier shot a civilian, 'unwarranted'?!. We don't have to include half-witted remarks of wrongdoing or absolution by Israel's side specially when they dispute casualties. Cryptonio (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in chess this !? means a questionable but apparently formidable move that requires further study. Where did I get that man! 'unwarranted'??? Those 295 were unwarranted, yet they only died because of mistakes. Cryptonio (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Emotions for a chessplayer are usually unhelpful. Chill out and think. Not all but some died of operative mistakes. Most died because Hamas and its leaders wanted them to die. It was Rayan's choice not to evacuate himself and his entire family, 'cause he wanted to become martyr (btw, the house where he stayed was not targeted because he was there, but because it served as weapons' storage). It was Hamas who chose to exploit civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shielding. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf . When you manufacture rockets in your basement and launch them from you backyard, we can only wonder how come the collateral damage is that low. If it were Russian or Turkish Army, 3 weeks' death toll would have been not 1500 but 15000 or 150000 dead. And I don't think NATO with their bombings in 1999 could have done better.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not a chess player, I am a human being who plays chess. and to be a great chess player(as i am) you must be a good human being(you do the math).

Yae yae bud, I continued the line of thought in my head. It says 295 civilian fatalities. Does any of them(probably most of them) include the ones living next to a house that got targeted? You would consider them as being collateral damage of course. The operative fatalities were due not because they were intended targets, but because you know intelligence and the likes were dumbfounded etc. Now, this is me thinking here, thanks for telling me otherwise i wouldn't have gotten the memo, what is Israel's rationale for including fatalities that happened because people were next door to a targeted house, as "combatants" or the horror, as "non-civilian" casualties? That's whats bugging me. Because israel says, that with ample warning time, if they so choose to target a building with civilian in them, if the civilian failed to 'heed' the calls, then they became 'voluntary human shields' and no longer counted as "civilian" casualties. heck, under those 'guidelines' I'm surprise that there were almost 300 civilians casualties period.

But here is the straightforward question of the moment. Out of the 300, you said not all of them died by operational means. And none of them died because of 'unwarranted' israeli fire. Now, there is no category like "causalities due to Hamas shooting them" so we assume that all of these casualties were due to Israeli fire. So the question is, how did the rest died? Say 100 died because of malfunctioning equipment(I know how hard is to get replacement parts from the US) how did the rest died?(as per Israel count though, not your own "unfeasible" reasoning). Cryptonio (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A deep sigh and shrugging shoulder. I can tell you how Nizar Rayan's family died. I can tell you how daughters of Dr. Abu El-Eish got killed. http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/02/04/idf-investigation-results-dr-abu-el-eish-residence-4-feb-2009-1708-ist/. I might find and tell you more. But you know what? I'll tell you something different. Apropos math. When making statistics over PCHR list, I came more than once through the names of infants, couple of month dead. Do you think we the Israelis are proud or happy that they got killed? No. And I inderstand and in a certain way share your compassion towards those who got killed. What I am trying to do here is to put their deaths in a perspective as it is seen from Ashdod. Ashdod is placed just about 40 km from Gaza. Hamas there pledged in its charter to fight Zionist entity to the end (a very interesting document, refers to Elders of Zion btw) and throughout 20 years of its existence they 'achieved' a lot. So, if just for a minute, you'll take a look on the bigger picture, and not just on unfortunate and tragic victims, it will suffice for me for today. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite something for you to bring the doctor's family. The IDF thought that the daughters on the rooftop were spotters for militiants that were taking command from the house next door. Can you blame that on intelligence? not quite because is not like the soldiers are seeing one thing and people back home are telling them another. Misguided weapon? it was well guided towards the house, so no mistake of that kind there. So under what kind of mistake would you file their deaths?

No I am not saying that, in Israel's march to their destiny, they stop and take great pride every time an infant dies. That is not what I am saying. And to tell you the truth, because I am of not much worth in the bigger picture, you may very well feel more compassion for the dead than I do, and that is fine with me. What bugs me a great deal, is why when killing is easy, and business is good all around the world, does Israel feels it needs to justify its actions(and then spin them) to the world. why think that the world is easily misguided? easily deceived? Everybody says Israel has the right to defend itself, everybody believes that as well. But for some reason, not everybody believes that Israel is doing everything it can do, to avoid these senseless wars, to avoid feeding war-hungry hawks like Hamas, terrorist in your view, to avoid giving them a voice. This is the sticking point, why not sit down and say "We share your dream of homeland, because we too had a dream like that one day". Why not finally put all of this discussion to an end, and freaking agree, and make it happen, to a Palestinian state, with its own army like Israel has. It is more than obvious that Israel does not want for this to happen. Take a look at the current PM's views. "Financial partnership"? Economical relationship? WTH?. I am not a cynic. I am not going to care about Palestinians since I won't care about Israelis. this is not about choosing sides. if a case is brought to me, through public opinion, and you ask me to make up my mind, this is what happens. I am not arguing against Israel, I am not hearing just anti-israel arguments. I am simply against blindly giving my full support to Israel no matter what Israel does. i can't. I am not a cynic. I have to look at this and understand it, and the way i understand it, is not too far from how the majority does. ask anyone here who is not an Israeli, does Israel has the power to make the dream of a Palestinian Homeland possible? don't be afraid and ask the freaking question. Cryptonio (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid, you know why? My family is at stake here. As long as Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Homeland is, eh, impossible. Don't blame Israel: Hamas, the elected government of PA, rejected the Saudi initiative. http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2009/01/08/time-to-test-the-arab-peace-offer/. Even according to the Prisoners initiative, that is so popular as a proof of Hamas best intentions, Khaled Meshal told reporters in Damascus that Hamas agrees to a Palestinian state on pre 67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty, without settlements, but WITHOUT RECOGNIZING Israel. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-21-3751705046_x.htm. Salah al-Bardawil, a Hamas legislator, told Reuters: We said we accept a state in 1967, but we did not say we accept two states. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=middleeast&pagewanted=all. Dr. Ahmed Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian parliament, stated that the Jews are cancer, and they and the Americans should be destroyed to the last person. http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html. Dr. Al Astal, Hamas senior and member of PA parliament, made clear that annihilation of Jews is a matter for our time, Holocaust is still to come. http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/03/jonathan-dahoahhalevi-calls-for-genocide/index.shtml. Hamas cleric Sheikh Muhsin Abu Ita stated on the Al Aqsa channel that the annihilation of the Jews is a wonderful blessing. http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD208708. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody has a right to my opinion.

With all due respect to everyone, especially to Sceptic since his fear is perfectly justified in my view, the soapboxing should end here. The Squicks (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, Squicks, we were merely having a friendly conversation, weren't we?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then continue it on a Chan website. Or a LiveJournal. Or (...) The Squicks (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes friendly conversation.

That is what I call a cop out. You mean to tell me, that Israel, objected to Hamas objection at recognizing Israel? What is Israel looking for? recognition from the side who is asking for the same thing? Furthermore, that Hamas won't recognize Israel is not the same as saying the rest of the Palestinians won't either, specially when Hamas is not the main party at the negotiating table. So all those remarks on Hamas, at war with Israel, is not to prove the point that is the PALESTINIANS the one who don't want a homeland. come on?. I've yet to read, the approval of Israel to move back to 1967 borders, do you have anything on that? that may be a bigger point to deal with than Hamas refusal to state the obvious, let alone recognize anything. And if is statements what you bringing, don't you think that there are a ton of statements out there from Hamas saying they would recognize Israel? But even before Hamas came to the picture, you mean to tell me Arafat wasn't ready to recognize Israel, Abbas was not willing to more than just simply recognizing Israel? Hamas is what's been holding all of this back for all of this years? I don't know about that.

"Gideon Samet worried that Israel is "missing a window of opportunity" because the "prisoners' document" was "brushed aside by Jerusalem as a feeble trick." Gideon Levy urged that the hudna offer "should have sparked a wave of positive reactions from Jerusalem, just like the 'prisoners' document.' But Jerusalem's ear as usual is blocked to any sound that might advance the peace process." What the Israelis are offering is merely "a plan to perpetuate the occupation, only under conditions more convenient for Israel. Moreover, at the end of the convergence plan, if it is ever executed, even more settlers will live in the occupied territories than live there now." [1]

"Thursday, January 29, 2009

France summons Israeli ambassador over warning shots; US envoy calls to bolster Gaza truce PARIS/OCCUPIED-AL-QUDS: Hamas would recognise Israel if it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, a French Jewish writer said this week after meeting the exiled leader of the Palestinian Islamist movement, Khaled Meshaal.

“He told me that Hamas was prepared to recognise Israel on the lines of June 4, 1967. He told me so several times,” Marek Halter told AFP on Monday.

The date refers to Palestinian demands for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, captured in the 1967 war." [2]

And of course after the latest 'rumble' you can't expect conciliatory remarks from Hamas or any Palestinian for that matter. Perhaps Israel sees itself as the winners, and thus time appears to be on their side. There is no hurry they say. I think there is a meeting coming up soon. Let's see what happens, as in if anything different happens. Cryptonio (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To Squicks, Instead of reprimanding, why won't you tell us your opinion on the IDF investigations and links I provided. Can they contribute to the article? How? where? Same question to Cryptonio. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the report itself, and I added some stuff about it to Al-Fakhura school incident‎. As for here, I do not see anything particularly notable about it purely as a whole. After all, why wouldn't Israel state that everything it did was in according with international law. The Squicks (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way to start. But then, I have to ask you a question. If you found that the report is helpful on Al-Fakhura school incident‎, maybe it can contribute some insight to other issues as well, like Nizar Rayan, WP, Hamas operating from hospital and made use of medical and UN staff, etc.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Civilians as belligerents

Resolved

I'd be interested in reviewing the reasoning for this change. Could someone please direct me to the discussion where the civilians of the Gaza strip were agreed upon as belligerents? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip was agreed upon. It doesnt say "the civilians of the Gaza Strip". Like it doesnt say "the civilians of Israel". Search the archives, you'll find it. Nableezy (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,

It's very difficult to collaborate when it feels as though you are making every effort possible to not collaborate. I'm concerned that the Israeli military is cited on one side, but a locality which includes 1.5 million civilians is cited on the other. You've stated that past consensus exists and I'm willing to accept this statement and review past reasoning for this consensus to consider re-evaluating my perspective on what seems to be an error. I'd appreciate it if you link to past discussions so that the content of said consensus could be evaluated.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have to search for it just like you, and as I was just awoken by a call for work, I'm going back to sleep, not going through the archives. Nableezy (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you want it to say 'principally Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades' instead of 'principally Hamas' thats fine, but we say Israel (IDF) on the other side, not just the IDF. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I can see where the current structures works well enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF efforts to reduce civil death

This is to balance the phsycological warfare section.

Former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp (fought in Afghanistan with British Forces in 2003): "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." http://www.bicom.org.uk/videos/bbc-news--military-analysis.

I will remind those were calls and sms 15 minutes prior the attack, a knock on the roof tactics and humanitarian breaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

the Shin Bet security service actually telephoned residents of specific buildings and apartment blocks, giving them up to 15 minutes to leave the area. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3885990

The Israel Defense Forces has unveiled a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack. Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences. The IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes. The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052260.html

The IDF took active measures to reduce civilian casualties, including the extensive use of leaflets and phone messages warning Palestinians to leave the area or to avoid potential targets. Civilian warnings also included the Israeli Air Force (IAF) "knocking" actions -- shots fired to alert building inhabitants of an imminent attack. While the efficacy of these measures is questionable given the military situation, the IDF did attempt to mitigate the effect of its actions on civilians. The IAF attacked a broad set of targets within Gaza, including leadership, infrastructure, smuggling tunnels, military facilities, roads, and rocket and mortar launch sites. These targets were not concentrated in designated military zones or areas, but often located near, next to, and within facilities that are normally civilian in purpose. There is good evidence that Hamas and other organizations made a conscious decision to place these targets in civilian areas. Israel chose to attack these targets and accepted the risk of collateral damage. But it did so with some substantial measure of accuracy. According to the IAF, 80 percent of the bombs used by the IAF were precision weapons, and 99 percent of the air strikes hit their targets. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3034

Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...you must pivot from this

"In a practice codenamed roof knocking, the IDF issued warning calls prior to airstrikes on civilian buildings. Typically, Israeli intelligence officers contacted residents of a building in which they suspected storage of military assets and told them that they had ten minutes to leave. Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[97][98][99][100][101]"

Maybe due to late hour, I overlooked the sentence in the article. Still, there is a place to elaborate more on IDF efforts to reduce casualties: harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd; 15 min. to leave the area; extensive use of leaflets and phone messages.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus the actual Roof knocking article. Plus the Propaganda and Psychological section has nothing to do with casualties. Cryptonio (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

'Other calls warned people that they had just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house'. I am not happy with this sentence. Maybe in some instancies it was minutes. According to links I provided, general practice was 10-15 minute. Side note, I had 45 sec. to enter safe room. Propaganda and Psychological section leaves negative impression on the IDF practices. I have to insert something positive. Concerning the leaflets, there were several types. One is: To the residents of the Gaza Strip. The IDF will act against any movements and elements conducting terrorist activities against the residents of the State of Israel. The IDF will hit and destroy any building or site containing ammunition and weapons. As of the publication of this announcement, anyone having ammunition and/or weapons in his home is risking his life and must leave the place for the safety of his own life and that of his family. You have been warned. IDF Command. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/IDF_warns_Gaza_population_7-Jan-2009.htm. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054539.html. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The problem is the Roof knocking article gets lost, it is almost invisible. I failed to see it. On the contrary, negative aspects of IDF practices are seen right away. What I would like to see eventually is a section on these or at least a clear link to the separate article. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You may find this helpful [3]

Oh the irony! look where it is...www.psyway.org :) Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How the subject is dealt with in the article is a result of a long discussion on the matter. We'll walk you through it, but there is ample evidence that Israel looks at those leaflets and phone calls in a different way. about time someone got a clue. proposals are king here though as you may already know. Cryptonio (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this, and I even saw somewhere that the translation was inaccurate. Nevermind. Did you see another version of the leaflet I inserted?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched first hand testimonies about the IDF calls to cellphones on TV, yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real. So that cannot be considered as a mere good will to reduce civillian count, but a more advanced psychological warfare tactic. Also you should all know if Palestinians leave their homes or Gaza, Israel never allows them to get back to their property again. "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." The sentence fully sounded as a joke to me, is he even an expert on the history of warfare or a Colonel. Is he working for IDF how can he know that for sure at the time he speaks during the heat of the battle.

"Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.

Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks." No, we are not all Hamas now

What a cover up, sounds like a real IDF officer. So leafleting and phoning everyone in the area for evacuating their only homes and land in the world, and not letting them back in if they leave Gaza once, is not a part of psychological and cold warfare but an act of good will according to the Colonel. Kasaalan (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For a real balance against a Colonel I present a Jewish Member of Parliament

"Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism Tzipi Livni's Father was a Terrorist" Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland. During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

He accused the Israeli government of seeking "conquest" and added: "They are not simply war criminals, they are fools." YouTube - Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism : UK Jewish MP SIR Gerald Kaufman

I will try to find a full translation for the video, because lots of info missing in this summary. Kasaalan (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, Kasaalan. I heard this man. The problem is, he says merely words, without providing substantial evidence (let's stick to the operation).

Kemp, on the contrary, bases his case on evidencies you provided. Your problem is that you jump into conclusions. The info that most of the calls didn't result in actual strike is already in the article. So, the negative side is there. I am entitled to provide another side. Including the other leaflets and so on.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of terrorism, Arab terrorism in Palestine goes back to 1920s. Do you want to go that far or should we try to focus on the article?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

British MPs accuses Israel

BRITISH MPs yesterday lined up to give their strongest condemnation yet of Israel's actions in Gaza, branding Ehud Olmert's government "mass murderers" and calling for the country to face sanctions. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, faced cross-party demands for Israel's ambassador to be expelled from London and for Britain to recall its representative from Tel Aviv.

The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish.

Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."

He suggested the British government would have taken a more strident tone if it had been Hamas who had "slaughtered 900 Israelis". Cross-party fury of MPs at Israel

Again I am asking Do Kemp is an expert on the history of war. No he is not, so he is not capable of using such pretentious words anyway according to academic standards. Kemp on the contrary bases his case on false claims, because his claims proves nothing, that he haven't bothered to show any source to the claims anyway. Did he showed us any examination on how much Palestinians got fake text messages even though their home did not get hit. No. Then what, all we have is his prejudged claims in the heat of the battle, where he cannot check the info anyway, but talks like he is in command of IDF himself. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also if you heard the speech and you have good will why didn't you add the speech to the International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page since he is a former labour minister, and a jew member of parliament. Article is very clear, the source is extremely Israeli sided, has no expertise in the military of history, his proofs are not real proofs containing logical fallacy. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched first hand testimonies about the IDF calls to cellphones on TV, yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real. So that cannot be considered as a mere good will to reduce civillian count, but a more advanced psychological warfare tactic.

Please read WP:OR. Kasaalan, to be frank, you don't seem to understand anything about Wikipedia. :/ The Squicks (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no original research, they already have proof on the cellphone texting by IDF, I just added I watched first hand testimonies on TV on the same basis, Also read on wikipedia that only 23 cases of the texted homes got attacked, again by a reference. So is it more likely to be texting 80 percent false warnings to be considered as psychological warfare, or good will. Or can you explain, how a colonel's words on an area which we don't have a clue if he has any expertise, we can consider Israel as world's most advanced army on civillian casualty prevention. So can you possibly explain, which of these sentences contain any original research. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are taking several unrelated events and them artificially making a synthesis that is your opinion-- that of a gigantic evil conspiracy by the Israelis. Please, please read WP:OR. Exactly what you are doing is proscribed in there. The Squicks (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing in discussion page in this tone, because I cannot call all the efforts here as neutral, but more likely IDF sided opinions. I cannot and wont add any opinion piece to the main article likewise. Yet that doesn't mean I wont raise any objection to the IDF sided views, should be added in the article, without counter sources that are objecting them. Near all my sourced I provided, are eligible to be added as reliable references to the main article, so talking according to them, is not synthesis at all. I have already read original research fully months ago, and I will read again because you asked, but can you really read the sources I provided, that is your decision. Kasaalan (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To Squicks. In my view, elaborations I provided, including a small contribution from Times by Kasaalan, is eligible. Your opinion?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR won't quench his thirst. Kassalan, I don't think Sceptic has shown us any proposal yet(and there is no hurry either). So you can't totally be against something that is not up and running yet. Cryptonio (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I asked above, I am asking again does Colonel Kemp is an expert on the history of war, if he is not how can we present his words as reality. "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." this is one of the boldest and pretentious claim that can be said on the issue among the ones I have came up with so far, that contradicts with the real world outcomes of the strike, one of the biggest civilian casualty numbers recently done. So even proposing this is being a bit sided, if it is not balanced by contradictory opinions. British MP made a very strong statement about Israel, its foundation, and its government against the colonel's whitewashing claims. Colonel's words are merely claims by the way since he showed no proof at all. So claim against claim, and there should be an extent to being POV, and that sentence even pushes that line. I cannot stand by against a whitewash like this, while Sceptic admitted that he heard the MP, yet did not even bothered to mention his words anywhere, while taking Colonel's words fully. So this is exactly not being neutral to the case, or balancing it. The MPs words not only about this case, it is related to all the discussions above, yet knowing the statement and not sharing this info, is what I cannot call as being neutral. So I am alright with the colonel's words to be added, yes merely words of his opinion and no proof at all, yet since he is advisor to the related issues for Britain Parliament, we should also include the words' of the former British Labour Minister, and Jewish MP Sir Gerald Kaufman no matter what. Since Colonel tries to whitewash IDF as one of the neatest army on history for preventing civilian casualty, let MP accuse them as mass murders, if we all try to be neutral to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple. Colonel Richard Kemp served in a military for almost 30 years, fought in both Iraq wars, was a Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. The man has military expirience and I guess forces under his command didn't gave in-advance warnings and humanitarian breaks to civilians. Next, he is no way affiliated to Jews or Israel, he runs a neutral private security operation in London. The man is competent, and if he provides an insight that you don't like doesn't mean he is payed by IDF.

Neutrality of Sir Gerald Bernard Kaufman is disputed though. He became notorious in his anti-Israeli actions in 2002, saying similar words during Jenin 'massacre'. It turned out later that despite initial reports, 50 and not 500 were killed, most of them militants. So, in my view, you can bring whoever you like to accuse IDF of mass murder, as long as we distinguish between someone who is competent and neutral and someone who is biased politician. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all that is not an answer to my question, being a colonel for some years and in the army for 30 years does not make a person "an expert on military history". If he talks about history of military, that is something else. A 30 year taxi driver has no expertise in "history of taxis" or "history of transportation" for example, or we would have to call every taxi driver as history of taxi or history of transportation expert.

I don't have very deep knowledge on Jenin, but even if your claims on Jenin are true, you don't call where 50 people have been killed a massacre, what will you call as massacre I should ask first.

Also, if you claim Colonel Ken is competent to talk about military actions, Member of Parliement and former labour minister is more than competent to call Israeli goverment as mass murderers, since a colonel is not a high rank in military, yet a minister is like an army commander in politics, and government ruling. With years of political career in politics and goverment, Sir Gerald Kaufman, as an orthodox jew and a holocaust victim, has every right and competency to call Israel as he thinks, and as an editor, it is your duty to reflect this fact in the article, not to hide it to yourself. This is not a personal preference, you have no right to say a colonel is capable and MP/former minister is not. Kasaalan (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided about whether ot not Kaufman's words are usable in this context, but it must be pointed out that he is a former Jew- he used to be a Jew. Calling him "Jewish" is not accurate. Of course, I don't personally give a damn what his religion is: Being a Minister of the British Government at one point gives him weight. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you watched the video fully. Thanks for the info, if he is former Jew we should mention it like that, I will search about that issue too. I will also try to find a full translation of the text first. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way the colonel's words are word famous since near every IDF supporter quoted it, and Israel even tried to justify their actions quoting the words in UN council as far as I recall. Kasaalan (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings here. But for NPOV balance, I would support adding both Kaufman and Kemp's statments together [so long as neither is given unfair, better treatement than the other].

he is former Jew we should mention it like that Wouldn't it be best to just sidestep the issue entirely? Mention his name and his rank in the British system. We can leave his religion out of it. Just because someone has a certain religion, that does not make him any more (or less) reliable as a witness! The Squicks (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well he mentions her Jewish grandmother on the speech, so if he does not believe in Jewish religion maybe we should mention it maybe not, but as a race he is Hebrew or Jewish so he might be considered as Jewish, maybe we should take opinion by more knowledgable users on the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see why him not being Jewish affects whether or not his opinion is more valid or less vaild. This is silly. The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He is Jewish and former Zionist, btw. Again, you can bring whoever you like, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, whoever. All their sayings are irrelevant to my point. From Israeli narrative, IDF went to lengths to spare lives of civilians in Gaza, and colonel Kemp (not a private) explains exactly how. This subject is not covered in the article, only Palestinian narrative, claiming that it did more damage than help. Kemp is not the central issue to this section, I provided more on the same includng The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I will come up with concrete proposal laer.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcript of the talk

Also first of all we should fully transcript the talk.

BBC Interviews Col. Richard Kemp on Civilian Casualties Resulting from Israel’s War on Hamas January 9, 09

Transcript provided by Jock Falkson

“I think Israel has very little choice other than to carry on with its military operations until it reaches the conclusion it needs which is to stop Hamas from firing rockets at its people in its territory.

“It has set out on this operation to do that and the civilian and military deaths on all sides of course are absolutely tragic. But Israel doesn’t have any choice apart from defending its own people.

“Until such arrangements are in place, not just for Hamas to accept that they must stop attacking Israel territory, but also that any such agreement is enforced. Until those arrangements (are enforced) Israel has no choice but to completely dominate the area.

“I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.

“When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible – I would accept that.

“However, Hamas, the enemy they have been fighting, has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah, to fight among the people, to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield.

“Hamas factor in the uses of the population as a major part of their defensive plan. So even though as I say, Israel, the IDF, has taken enormous steps - and I can tell you about some of those if you’re interested - to reduce civilian casualties, it is impossible, it is impossible to stop that happening when the enemy has been using civilians as a human shield.

Interviewer: (“But what about) the criticism of UN eyewitnesses who talk about a house where people were advised to move for safety and 24 hours later it was bombed by Israel?”

“Well of course I can’t really comment on the detail of that – I don’t have any of the facts available on that. And I have no doubt that any allegations like that will be looked into very seriously by Israel.

“Of course, the Israel Army operates under a strict code of conduct and are answerable to the Israeli government and the Israeli courts. And if it turned out that there was a deliberate crime committed I have no doubt that the people would be held to account. They would be answerable to an Israeli court.

“But of course, it’s not just a matter of the IDF trying to prevent casualties in a situation where the enemy is using them as a shield, but it’s also ... war itself.

“The whole nature of war, any military commander will tell you this, war is chaos. War is full of mistakes. There’s friction all over the place and if you just take for example the way we operate in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we operate – our British forces operate in Afghanistan and in Iraq - there have been innumerable mistakes by the British, the American and by all the forces. These things do happen, it’s a real tragedy but it’s just what happens when you go to war.” Source

Maybe helps. All of his claims are easily falsifiable by other parties' proofs, as I told before all of the 1200 cases where PCHR took to the Israeli courts by the year 2003, non of the IDF personnel found to be guilty. There are strict reports by HRW and other human right organizations, on the non-transparent investigations of Israel. When the reporters asks about UN eyewitnesses, he claims he doesn't know, then he says he is sure, Israeli government will punish them if they are guilty. What a trust on IDF and Israel, without a doubt. But hold Hamas fully responsible of the civilan casualties, because IDF defends its own people, deaths are inevitable, and Hamas is using civillian as human shields. What a great logic. So why Israel don't let civillians go out of Gaza till the operation ends, and then let them come back. So at least don't tell me Colonel is anti-Israel by any means currently. Kasaalan (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope Kasaalan does not interpet me moving this transcript itself to its own section as an insult to him. I only did it for ease of reading. The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry sub sectioning helps ease of editing and reading, I won't be easily offended like that. Kasaalan (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that if someone says something good about X you have to add something bad about X in order to be neutral is absurd.
Kaufmann doesn't have any military qualification whatsoever as far as I can see.
You're trying too hard. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaufman has the high political qualification to accuse Israeli government, as mass murderers. Also colonel has no expertise in military history whatsoever. Moreover as you read the transcript you can easily see he takes the situation as 1 sided and that is limited to IDF view only. So presenting him as a 3rd party is not logical in any way. Also except some limited cases, his claims and thoughts only covers his personal thoughts, he showed no proof, actually also as his vague thoughts like "I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation", "Well of course I can’t really comment on the detail of that – I don’t have any of the facts available on that", "When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible – I would accept that" and "And if it turned out that there was a deliberate crime committed I have no doubt that the people would be held to account", simply shows that he doesn't have the knowledge for the situation requires at the time of speaking, and he is only reflecting his perceptions and personal thoughts, and near no facts at all. Kasaalan (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Sir Gerald Kaufman might be a shadow minister instead an actual minister, so I will search on that matter too. Kasaalan (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "high political qualification"? What qualification does it take to be a politician other than lack of morals and a taste for corruption? Seriously, all you need to be a successful politician is to be a good talker and a good deal-maker. It doesn't give you any particular insight into world affairs, unless these happen to be related to something specific you came about in your work. This goes for politicians the world over, not specifically Kaufman.

It seems to me the only qualifications Kaufman has relevant to this discussion is being an anti-Zionist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That we discuss actions by the IDF that in their opinion are intended to save lives, is not being rejected, but that we bring Kemp or senior adviser to the Queen into the mix, is umm, not feasible. There is no section titled "Israel efforts to reduce civil deaths" in the article, and I don't see how one will be able to creep in. Cryptonio (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of images

There is a discussion on the use of images in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict - including this one - at Talk:Qassam rocket#Osher Twito picture that might interest editors of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Transcript

Youtube video and full text of the speech

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I was brought up as an orthodox Jew and a Zionist. On a shelf in our kitchen, there was a tin box for the Jewish National Fund, into which we put coins to help the pioneers building a Jewish presence in Palestine.

I first went to Israel in 1961 and I have been there since more times than I can count. I had family in Israel and have friends in Israel. One of them fought in the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and was wounded in two of them. The tie clip that I am wearing is made from a campaign decoration awarded to him, which he presented to me.

I have known most of the Prime Ministers of Israel, starting with the founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir was my friend, as was Yigal Allon, Deputy Prime Minister, who, as a general, won the Negev for Israel in the 1948 war of independence.

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.

On Sky News a few days ago, the spokeswoman for the Israeli army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of, at that time, 800 Palestinians—the total is now 1,000. She replied instantly that 500 of them were militants.

That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose that the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.

The Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asserts that her Government will have no dealings with Hamas, because they are terrorists. Tzipi Livni's father was Eitan Livni, chief operations officer of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, who organised the blowing-up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 victims were killed, including four Jews.

Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism. Jewish terrorists hanged two British sergeants and booby-trapped their corpses. Irgun, together with the terrorist Stern Gang, massacred 254 Palestinians in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin. Today, the current Israeli Government indicate that they would be willing, in circumstances acceptable to them, to negotiate with the Palestinian President Abbas of Fatah. It is too late for that. They could have negotiated with Fatahs previous leader, Yasser Arafat, who was a friend of mine. Instead, they besieged him in a bunker in Ramallah, where I visited him. Because of the failings of Fatah since Arafat's death, Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006. Hamas is a deeply nasty organisation, but it was democratically elected, and it is the only game in town. The boycotting of Hamas, including by our Government, has been a culpable error, from which dreadful consequences have followed.

The great Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, with whom I campaigned for peace on many platforms, said: You make peace by talking to your enemies.

However many Palestinians the Israelis murder in Gaza, they cannot solve this existential problem by military means. Whenever and however the fighting ends, there will still be 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and 2.5 million more on the west bank. They are treated like dirt by the Israelis, with hundreds of road blocks and with the ghastly denizens of the illegal Jewish settlements harassing them as well. The time will come, not so long from now, when they will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel.

It is time for our Government to make clear to the Israeli Government that their conduct and policies are unacceptable, and to impose a total arms ban on Israel. It is time for peace, but real peace, not the solution by conquest which is the Israelis real goal but which it is impossible for them to achieve. They are not simply war criminals; they are fools. Source: House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jan 2009[4] Youtube Video

Full transcript, Kaufman also criticizes and accuses Hamas, yet minimal as expected since the civilian death toll is 60-230 times in favor of the Israel currently. [If 4 Israeli civilian and 236-926 palestinian civilian are dead] Kasaalan (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let us rely on numbers. 1. In WWII, strategic aerial bombardment claimed the lives of over 60,000 British civilians and between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians, while American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians (how many American civilians got killed in WWII?). 2. In 9/11, there were 2,974 fatalities. In the aftermath, the Bush administration announced a war on terrorism. Estimates of deaths caused by the invasion to Afghanistan from 2001 to the end of 2008 range from 7,760 to 18,000. The majority of these deaths caused by US and coalition troops. In December 2005 President Bush said there were estimates of 30,000 Iraqi dead. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the intention, Kasaalan, that counts, not the fatalities' numbers. Israel makes efforts to reduce casualties on both sides. Hamas and other terrorist organizations make effort to increase casualties on both sides, so that pure guys like you, Kaufman and Annie Lennox would sympathize their cause.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that intuition would say that they are of limited worth, overly fancy and ornate soapboxes such as these displayed in Hyères, France actually raise the price of the soap themselves drastically.

US knew Japan will surrender yet they used atomic bomb, it was a crime of Humanity, so if Israel is in the league of US or Britain or South Africa in war crimes, does that make Israel clean. Also if you will compare Bush made a war over 3 k death, killed 8-18 k people, Israeli killed a thousand for how many people.

How can you even try compare the result of years long wars' death casualty numbers, especially the 50 year old random bombing technology numbers, with a single 2 weeks of operation.

Also if Hamas is terrorist by killing innocent of 4 at recent events, does that make IDF 200 times more terrorist. Overthe years Hamas shed a lot of civilian blood, that is why I am against them, yet IDF shed even more blood of the innocent, that is also why I am against them too. Because we are talking about civilians here, not Hamas militants or IDF army troops. I am no way near sympathizing Hamas, neither Kaufman does, but that doesn't prevent me telling Israel supported Hamas against Fatah over the years to separate Palestinian Resistance Organisations. So should IDF also bomb Israeli politicians and military for that matter.

IDF has top rate civillian death ratio, so it is not believable they made a high effort on preventing this, that is only mere probaganda, because in the end all that matters is the bodies you bury. Also since we have no intention-meter, don't come with vague arguments like Israel has good intention, beause if we begin about claims, we should also include zionist arguments of parliament members that contains wiping of whole Palestinian territory with atomic bombs with everyone lives on it. Kasaalan (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF has top rate civillian death ratio? Boy, even if we take PCHR fatalities for granted, you should look around you and try to understand what world do you live in. Russia-Chechnya war is a good place to start. And wiping Palestine with A-bomb? Do enlighten us, so I could attach this one to my small collection (it includes proof Israelis are responsible for tsunami, but this ...). Finally (and I hope Squicks and others will excuse me for soapboxing here, simply can't stand the urge), Hamas are terrorists not because they kill X and injure Y. It is because they do everything in their power to sow terror, by suicide terror attacks on civilians (and on the crossings to Gaza btw), by rockets, by rhetorics (try their charter once), by their education and brainwashing children (go see Pioneers of Tomorrow). It is really a pity we don't have intention-meter, cause you won't appreciate this small 'propaganda' video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&feature=related. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So now Russia come to IDF's defense, right, I cannot justify neither Chechnya armed men's civillian killings nor Russian Army's, like I cannot whitewash neither Hamas nor IDF, IDF and Hamas is not different by any means, only difference is that IDF kills and wounds more than Hamas, suicide bombing and over bombing a city is not different, only air bombing kills more, they both kill civillians and children. I don't know did you even watched videos about Israeli checkpoints, but as Kaufman points out, they treat Palestinians like dirt. Also if you are so sensitive about civillian lives, can you also call Livni's father as a terrorist too, like Menachem Begin(wanted poster), along with other Irgun members., since he is the mastermind behind the hotel bombing which leads 90 people killing, as Kaufman pointed out, "Tzipi Livnis father was Eitan Livni, chief operations officer of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, who organised the blowing-up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 victims were killed, including four Jews.", I have posters for lots of founders of Israel by British army labelled as terrorists. All of the claims of Kaufman has historical facts that doesn't even leave space for discussion. Photographs of the Irgun in action Kasaalan (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My final response, no matter what. Fullay aware it will produce no effect, I nevertheless is providing some stuff to be read. 1. Kaufman, as well as Chomsky and Finkelstein, tend to tell half-truths, beware. Read this to have some more insight into terrorism in Palestine before 1948.

“Jews stole Arab land.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b5

“The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b6

“The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel as part of a terror campaign against civilians.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b8

2. Terrorists they were, but there is a difference. Here is an excerpt from Dershowitz I find appropriate.

…Although it was not the policy of the Haganah to encourage the flight of local Arabs, that certainly seems to have been the policy of the Irgun (Etzel), the paramilitary wing of the revisionist movement headed by Menachem Begin, and Lechi (or the Stern gang) headed by Yitzhak Shamir. On April 9, 1948, paramilitary units fought a difficult battle for control of Deir Yassin, an important Arab village on the way to Jerusalem. The battle was fierce, with Etzel and Lechi forces losing more than a quarter of their fighters… Most of the villagers eventually fled. [W]hen [the fighting] was over, 100 to 110 Arabs were dead… [including] children and old people… The Haganah and the Jewish Agency, the official organs of the state-to-be, immediately condemned the massacre and those who had participated in it. A formal note of apology and explanation was sent to King Abdullah. Indeed, the Deir Yassin massacre certainly contributed to the controversial decision by David Ben-Gurion - Israel’s first prime minister - to disarm, by force, these paramilitary groups in June 1948.

Deir Yassin stands out in the history of Arab–Jewish conflict in Palestine precisely because it was so unusual and so out of character for the Jews. No single Arab massacre of Jews has that status, because there are too many to list. Yet every Arab schoolchild and propagandist knows of and speaks of Deir Yassin, while few ever mention Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Hadassah Hospital, Safad, and the many other well-planned Arab massacres of Jews to come, except when extremists proudly take credit for them. The Arabs retaliated for the Deir Yassin massacre not by attacking those responsible for perpetrating it - Etzel or Lechi military targets – but rather by deliberately committing a far more premeditated massacre of their own. In a well-planned attack four days after Deir Yassin, Arab forces ambushed a civilian convoy of doctors, nurses, medical school professors, and patients headed toward the Hadassah hospital to treat the sick, murdering seventy of them. To assure there were no survivors, the Arab attackers doused the buses and cars containing the medical personnel with gasoline, “setting them alight.” No apologies or excuses were offered for this carefully planned massacre of medical noncombatants. Israeli forces did not retaliate for the Hadassah massacre by targeting Arab civilians. They went after those armed murderers who had perpetrated the massacre. Deir Yassin remained an isolated although tragic and inexcusable blemish on Israeli paramilitary actions in defense of its civilian population, while the deliberate targeting of civilians remained, and still remains, the policy of Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as of many Arab governments. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my final response because Kaufman's words reflect reality, and can be provable anytime.

1 So if you will begin calling people terrorists, the founders of the Israel state may be called as such. But terror is a vague term and I never like to use it anyway. I cannot find much difference between Irgun, Stern and Hamas, but Hamas is even more desperate and weak against a stronger enemy, kills more civillians but still not comparable to the killings of IDF. Small Wars of Britain[5] "It was 48 years ago, on Jan. 4, 1948, when Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all-Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children. [6]" not much different from Hamas in action right. Or is there really a difference that I have been missing.

2 You talk as if there were no other massacres committed by support of Israel but Deir Yassin because even Sabra and Shatila massacre aren't that far in the history. Also let me remind you what happens when you try to testimony against war criminals like Ariel Sharon. "Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist commander at the time of the massacre never stood trial and held a post of a minister in Lebanese government in the 1990s. He was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut on January 24, 2002; some speculated he was preparing to testify in the Belgian war-crimes tribunal investigating the massacre, though others doubted he intended to testify at all."

3 But your logic also interesting just read King David Hotel bombing, So they telephoned they placed the bomb, how nice of them, but why did they put a bomb, because British army confiscated their document, really what a great reason to explode a hotel that is highly populated. Also no kill policy is not bad for an armed organization, which is actually a high standard. Yet they phoned, because they knew British may act back pretty harsh on them, if they kill any British citizen, don't even claim they pity human life other than Jewish, because the statements after the bombing proves they simply don't.

"The Irgun issued an initial statement accepting responsibility for the attack, blaming the British for the deaths due to failure to respond to the warning and mourning the Jewish victims. A year later, on July 22 1947, they issued a new statement saying that they were acting on instructions from "a letter from the headquarters of the United Resistance, demanding that we carry out an attack on the center of government at the King David Hotel as soon as possible." Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the hotel was not evacuated which resulted in casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy. The Irgun's radio network announced that it would mourn for the Jewish victims, but not the British ones. This was explained by claiming that Britain had not mourned for the millions of Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust. No mention was made of the largest group of victims, the Arab dead."

Presenting them as angels is against the truths by any means. They can't even express sorrow for the non Jewish British victims, while not even mentioning the largest group of victims, the Arabs. So calling these political statements as humanized, may not reflect the reality. Kasaalan (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

4 Also there is something called as a signal beacon/warning shot. If IRA would call, you had enough reason to take them serious, since they have done that before many times. But you also know anyone can call a building and say there is bomb in it. You cannot fully evacuate a building anytime anyone calls with fake threats. Or any flight or building would have been emptied till they can no longer operate. If they need to be taken seriously, they could explode a bomb before the event to a non-populated target, showing they are serious somehow before bombing a hotel completely. Sorry, phoning a first time event in the name of a hidden organization, not always taken seriously.

5 A massacre cannot justify another one. And your claims as no massacre IDF is responsible but Deir Yassen is a clear error. Let alone millions of Palestinian living as refugees with no rights in other countries, IDF killed civillians more than we can count. For the Massacre's that Jewish people got killed of course should be treated as same human basis, and we should all remember them, yet with a difference. Israel is a state, that organizes its own forces, from the very beginning so it is responsible of their actions, but Arabs has as separate forces. Even Hamas may only represent just a minority in Palestine population over the years. And again just as Kaufman said, only after Arafat's death and IDF's human targetting over the years, they gained a huge force, beginning with the support and overlooking of Mossad against Fatah. So when we talking about Hamas' murders we should also mention Israel's own support to them in the earlier years, just like US-Taleban/Bush-Bin Laden support over the years. I don't know if you have been watching the situation for more than 10 years but Palestinian land was still occupied, when there was no Hamas, no rockets or no suicidal bombings, they only happened after 90s. IDF's own actions created Hamas, so blame Hamas but also blame IDF/Mossad if you want to be neutral to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

6 Hamas cannot make peace, they are weak only Israel can, because they are strong, if they really wants it, but as a matter of fact it is clear Israel doesn't want to make peace according to any justifiable term. They have never stopped the occupation, check points, or illegal settlements that invading palestinian territory, neither before the rockets or suicide bombings, nor after them. So don't tell me the whole issue is about the lousy homemade rockets of Hamas. Their maximum capability is killing 5 people if they fire a thousand. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

7 List of Irgun attacks clearly shows they target civillian Arabs and British in public bombings. So don't tell me they phoning before, or care civillian harms. Irgun bombed the public a lot. So again Irgun not different from Hamas. Kasaalan (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

8 List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine clearly shows the massacres from different parties. Kasaalan (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this WP:soapboxing have anything to do with this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read we discuss the truths/errors about the speech Kaufman made on British mp that highly critizes Israeli government for the Gaza Strike. It is also rather informative if you bother to read. Personally I learned a lot by reading other editors. Same happened here, although in the conclusion I still oppose the arguments, Irgun may be a little polite against British, but they were definitely not nice at all. Kasaalan (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PCHR List of fatalities revisited.

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (Herzliya, Israel) has carried out an intensive research project to gain a clearer picture of the casualties of the IDF military incursion in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009. The research was based on the list of casualties published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), supplemented by Hamas and Fatah websites and official Palestinian government online sources. Summary:

http://www.ict.org.il/ResearchPublications/CastLeadCasualties/tabid/325/Default.aspx

Report: http://www.ict.org.il/Portals/0/Articles/ICT_Cast_Lead_Casualties-A_Closer_Look.pdf

The Institute for Counter-Terrorism has carried out an intensive research project to gain a clearer picture of the casualties of the IDF military incursion in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009. The research was based on the list of casualties published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), supplemented by Hamas and Fatah websites and official Palestinian government online sources. Although the study relied on the PCHR’s raw data throughout, our analysis of this data disproves the PCHR’s claims regarding indiscriminate Israeli fire on civilian areas. In fact, by checking the names on the PCHR list against Hamas websites, we found that many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. Others listed by PCHR as civilians, killed in Israeli raids, later turned out to be Fatah members killed by Hamas, some of them in execution style killings. While both PCHR and ICT consider civil policemen to be noncombatants, our researchers found that many of the civil policemen killed also held operational ranks in the Hamas military wing. In fact, due to the structure of the Hamas military, it was difficult to draw a clear dividing line between purely civilian police functions and activity in support of military operations.

According to PCHR, some 1,434 Palestinians were killed in Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip; these included 235 combatants, 239 police officers, and 960 civilians. Of the latter, 121 were women and 288 were children (defined as anyone under 18 years old). ICT’s research, based both on Hamas websites and on investigation into the circumstances under which people were killed, has so far individually identified at least 314 combatants; as this effort is ongoing, the number will almost certainly increase. 18 of these identified combatants were younger than 18, and thus counted as children by PCHR. (Detail: 1 14-year-old, 4 16-year-olds, and 13 17-year-olds.) Not counting policemen, we have so far identified 363 noncombatants, leaving us with around 518 unknowns – all of them male.

Many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians, were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas.

The age distribution of noncombatant fatalities shows a huge excess of combat-aged males, as well as a smaller excess of males at all ages.

Hamas had engaged in a publicity campaign for many months before the invasion, proudly claiming that 'unpleasant surprises' would await any invading Israeli forces. These Hamas claims led to (and justified) Israeli tactics designed to minimize IDF casualties, including heavy use of force and considerable reliance on stand-off weaponry such as artillery and aerial bombardment. Considering all this, the fact that at least 63% to 75% of the Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead appear to have been specifically-targeted, combat-aged males, PCHR’s own data refutes its claim that Israel’s attacks were indiscriminate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, by checking the names on the PCHR list against Hamas websites, we found that many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. Others listed by PCHR as civilians, killed in Israeli raids, later turned out to be Fatah members killed by Hamas, some of them in execution style killings. While both PCHR and ICT consider civil policemen to be noncombatants, our researchers found that many of the civil policemen killed also held operational ranks in the Hamas military wing. In fact, due to the structure of the Hamas military, it was difficult to draw a clear dividing line between purely civilian police functions and activity in support of military operations.

With a methodology like that, where being hailed at a funeral as a Hamas militant converts you into one (thus confusing public rhetoric in praise of the dead with the cool analysis of realities), makes this just a piece of Israeli propaganda. Hamas was the only employer, hence if you were employed in the Gaza government in any capacity, you are not a civilian. Oh come off it! Those kids killed at the police graduation ceremony at 11.32 can be thought of as 'terrorists' only by a government that wants to make its slaughter of all and sundry, clean, legal and precise. No one abroad seems to swallow it.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice combination of WP:soapbox and WP:OR.

Anyway, we were kind of discussing this issue here, for anyone interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, 1. Speak for yourself. Unlike some OR I presented above, this report was submitted by well-recognized and known body. So, merely the fact that you don't like it cause it contradicts your POV won't make it ineligible for entering the article. You are welcomed however to present us with different report made by verifiable and reliable source that refutes this one. 2. There were about 40 'kids' killed during that ceremony, we have still about 200 policemen to address. Apart from cadets, the report presents enough evidence there are lots of 'policemen' who has also ranking in Hamas military wing. Not to mention militants below 18 (PCHR itself listed 7 boys below 18 who were militants), Fatah members executed by Hamas, age distribution and so on. 3. Do you speak Arabic? Cause if you do, I will ask you to enter PALD forum here:http://www.paldf.net/forum/ and tell me with all the sincerity (and I will accept it cause I don't speak Arabic) how many children below 14, or women, or elders are hailed there as shahids and martyrs in the same way they are hailed in pp.4-6 of the report? If you find that many undisputable civilians are hailed there in the same manner, I will reconsider my attitude towards the report. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no WP:OR involved. Merely an examination of their method. It is the Israeli government's purpose, well serviced by the usual think tanks, to make as many of those killed militants. If they convince independent bodies that their breakdown is correct, well and good. Until they do, I will trust only non-governmental bodies for a final assessment. Give me an in-time report by any major government that holds up over time and I'll be a Monkey's uncle. I went through that in Vietnam. Some of us have memories.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty of OR here from both sides, which is not at all helpful.

It is the Israeli government's purpose, well serviced by the usual think tanks, to make as many of those killed militants. If they convince independent bodies that their breakdown is correct, well and good. Until they do, I will trust only non-governmental bodies for a final assessment.

This too is not helpful. One may very well have personal reason to consider Palestinian think tanks and ngos to be more reliable/notable than their Israel counterparts, but this doesn't matter in terms of policy. A think tank is a think tank. The ideological label alone can't determine value. In the United States, we don't place the Brookings Institute above the Heritage Foundation or vise versa.

The questions here are (1)Is the ICT notable and reliable in general? and (2)Is the ICT's views in this particular case worth mentioning? I believe both are true and including a sentence or something like that about the ICT's critique of the PCHR to be approriate. This is certainly up for reasonable, rational debate if we could all please stop the ideological jihadist-like soapboxing from both sides. The Squicks (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the ICT really notable worldwide or reliable, how can you prove this. Which independent human rights organisations give the notability and reliability you mention to ICT. Personally never knew there was such institute before. How many international newspapers, magazines or organisations mention them, and give this notability and credibility to them. Kasaalan (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But also if there are some incosistencies exist in PCHR report as ICT claims, we should mention that in the article with a sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One quick rant though= 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds are not "kids". They are adults. I consider this ageism to be as morally sickening as homophobia and anti-semitism and the like. The Squicks (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know in most of the countries in the world 17 year is not considered to be adult, even 18 year not considered as adult untill they are 19 or even 21 in some countries.

In most of the world, including the United States, parts of the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales), India and China, the legal adult age is 18 for most purposes, with some exceptions:

Singapore (21)

Indonesia and Japan (20)

South Korea & British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Yukon Territory in Canada (19)

the United Kingdom: Scotland (16) Legal Adulthood

We shall overcomeeeeee. We shall overcome. We shall overcome, Squicks, someday...

You may read the Age of majority article, for a complete listing. You are simply wrong about your 17 years old kids are actually adults claim. So if there is any kind of ageism here, it belongs to you. Also don't forget, even in the countries the adulthood age is low, the main reason for such a low age preferred is so that young people can get married with each other and have a family. Not because they can be considered as adults when they killed by Israel army. Kasaalan (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Israel the age of majority is 18 not 17, like most of the world countries. Kasaalan (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about inalienable human rights. Sure, just how the law around the world used to consider gay people to be subhuman and used to consider black people subhuman just a few short years ago -- today's laws claim that young people are similarly subhuman. Kasaalan's argument that "the law is the law" and that something is inherently true or good just because it is the law is just silly.

Those laws are a product of Christian-based infantilization, enforcing their moral concepts on others against their own will. You can note that non-Christian countries without this Christian social conservative BS have lower age of majorities.

It's a matter of destiny that the more and more secular a country gets, the lower the age gets. And this secularization is the inevitable push of history in the last few decades. The Squicks (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are simply wrong to claim that young people are not adults because of "the law". That law will change since it conflicts with the basic inalienable human rights of young people.

So if there is any kind of ageism here, it belongs to you. Hah! Projection at its finest. Just like how the homophobes call gay rights advocates "hateful" and "bigoted"... The Squicks (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim a 17 year old boy should be considered as an adult, while they have been killed by IDF, I proved you are simply wrong all around the world, except a few countries that give permission to before 18 years old marriage. So call yourself whatever you want, but don't call me anything, because you have no right to speak over your false claims. So leave any projection along, and try to prove how you can consider a 17 old boy as an adult. If you cannot accomplish that, arguing false claims according to your personal thoughts won't help you on the issue. Your claims are vague and even don't deserve a discussion, if we talking about who we will call as children in a death toll report. Because as an international agreement under 18 year old considered to be children. So recounting will lead misunderstandings. Kasaalan (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I am against any kind of religion based dictatorship including Christian-based ones, I can clearly say even a 23 year old university student shouldn't be considered as a true adult. Being able to vote or being able to think won't make anyone an adult.

I don't understand what you try to propose here, so for being more human and secular to the matter, should we actually label 17 boys and girls that have been killed by IDF as adults, so that IDF and Israel can call them as such for their public probaganda, I don't know is there any better way to justify children killings then calling them as adults. As Kaufman said, would the "reply of a Nazi" be any different. Kasaalan (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I can clearly say even a 23 year old university student shouldn't be considered as a true adult." Denying people their inalienable rights and labeleing them subhuman just because of your personal prejudice without any logic or reason to back you up... wow, your words sound just like "the reply of a Nazi".

The answer is way out of the scope of this topic, I made a clear statement on my answer is limited to the death toll, if you don't oppose that I have no issue with you. Yet it is neither proper or revelant, discussing your ageism claims in such a delicate matter, out of nowhere, if it is not relevant. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to deny people their rights because of their age, than this makes you a bigot like the Nazi were bigots. And if this is "neither proper or revelant", then it was pretty silly of you to make this arguement in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"should we actually label 17 boys and girls that have been killed by IDF as adults, so that IDF and Israel can call them as such for their public probaganda" I opposed the Israel assault on Gaza when it started, and I still oppose it. I also accept the fact that international law considers young people to be subhuman the same way it used to consider blacks to be subhuman.

"I don't understand what you try to propose here" I am not proposing anything. The article is fine with me. It was you who wanted to get into an arguement since you believe that young people are subhuman based on your prejudices. The Squicks (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated being able to vote or marry is not relevant to being a real adult. I do not consider anyone as subhuman, maybe only those who considers others as subhuman, so calling some 17 year old teenager as adult when you giving their rights is totally different than calling them as adult when you take away their life. No prejudice involved. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated being able to vote or marry is not relevant to being a real adult. I do not consider anyone as subhuman, maybe only those who considers others as subhuman Well, I'm sure it's all nice and perfect and wonderful in your mind to support keeping people from marrying and from voting against their will. Again, is this not the Nazi mindset?

All of this is besides the point of this article. It's like aruging about religion on a page about cooking.

The ICT is notable and reliable as well as making criticism of PCHR that is worth mentioning. Of course, Wikipedia cannot take a stance as to whether or not the ICT (or the PCHR) is true or noble or correct or whatever-- that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ICT is less notable and credible than PCHR internationally, also I don't think they have field experience on casualty reports in anyway, if you claim otherwise you should prove it first, even their name indicates the center accomplished military purposes in mind. Yet we should mention their objections, but before we should proof check them first against PCHR claims, I also consider mailing the report to PCHR for an official answer from them. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how really you can compare PCHR vs ICT credibility. Anyway, ICT: The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) is a non-profit organization located at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel. The ICT was founded in 1996 and describes itself as "the leading academic institute for counter-terrorism in the world, facilitating international cooperation in the global struggle against terrorism. ICT is an independent think tank providing expertise in terrorism, counter-terrorism, homeland security, threat vulnerability and risk assessment, intelligence analysis and national security and defense policy. This of course can be found on their site and right behind the corner, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Policy_Institute_for_Counter-Terrorism. Now here is an example of their annual conference: 'More than 1000 participants from over 56 countries attended ICT’s 7th annual conference, with a similar turnout expected this year'. http://www.ict.org.il/AnnualConference/Highlights8thConference/Conference2008/tabid/86/Default.aspx. Sounds notable enough for me. 'We' don't have to do nothing more. If you wish, you are more than welcomed, Kasaalan, to mail PCHR the report and provide us with their response. Until then, the highlights of this report are about to enter the article. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you simply forget 1 important part in the sentence, ITC describes itself as "the leading academic institute for counter-terrorism in the world, facilitating international cooperation in the global struggle against terrorism. ICT is an independent think tank providing expertise in terrorism, counter-terrorism, homeland security, threat vulnerability and risk assessment, intelligence analysis and national security and defense policy." They may even describe themselves as duck or superman, that doesn't prove anything. Besides, annual UFO conferences are even more crowder, but that doesn't make them credible. So quality that matters not quantity. 1000 experts may be important, but calling yourself as expert and being expert is different, also did these 1000 people payed their expenses to come conferense, or did they funded because that changes a lot. Notability doesn't give credibility. I agree mentioning them since they may have a point, but think-tanks main foundation purpose is serving the military army and their governments. So expecting them to claim what IDF want them to claim is not far from truth. Having International in its name not makes it international, which solid books, articles, experts, academics give them credit, is what I ask for. Their 1000 user meeting is no proof, it may only be an indication. Being credible to Israel and being credible internationally is different, also on which expertise area. Kasaalan (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR is an ideological propaganda wing that supports some Palestinian ideologies against some other Palestinans and against the Israelis. The ICT is a mirror image propaganda wing.

As far as international notability is concerned, the ICT's reporting has been mentioned by The Village Voice here, USA Today here, and Asian Tribune here. All of these are reliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PCHR Documents on Gaza Strike

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Welcomes Decision of Spanish Court to Investigate War Crimes Committed by IOF in Gaza PDF

Complete list of victims following Israel’s 23 day offensive on the Gaza Strip PDF [Name, Sex, Age, Occupation, Address, Governorate, Civilian/militant coluns available]

PCHR Documents

PCHR has a complicated page. I will try to collect selected links here. Kasaalan (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter law section

Can someone explain how this isn't WP:SYNTH since the reporter's remarks isn't even sourced? And where in either of the "two" sources is International Law violations are mentioned? as per long standing requisite?

Il Corriere della Sera's correspondent for the Middle East, Lorenzo Cremonesi, reported that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields, and that they carried out armed operations from schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations. Cremonesi also reported that Hamas arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents and people allegedly involved in acts of collaboration with Israel. Cremonesi stated that he based his report on interviews with local citizens. The political violence allegations have been corroborated by a HRW report on the subject.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that launching military attacks from hospitals and press buildings (at the very least) are breaches of international law.

There was a source for the Corriere stuff, must have gotten lost in all the reverts that went on yesterday. I'm not touching this article today so nobody would have an excuse to try and block me, but I'm sure you can find it if you're really interested.

Also, I think the name of this section should be changed to something along the lines of "International law and human rights". The (badly named) "Hamas reprisal attacks" could be merged into it as well as it covers some of the same stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should mention the journalist's objection, yet only limited to 1 or 2 sentences at most, along with proper references for further research in reference section. Yet dedicating him parapraphs long, is out of question. He wasn't the only one in town. If they were such outrageous difference in numbers, UN reporters or other journalists would definately notice. Kasaalan (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We were able to limit the Cremonesi stuff to a couple of sentences about how he didn't see a lot of wounded and a couple more about other information he gathered like so, in a way that at least Nableezy and myself seemed to be able to live with. That was reverted. Feel free to weigh in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm a whiney little girl about it... the section is still off and needs to be restructured. Don't mind most of the content just the flow and weight given to certain sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check Cremonesi completely since he claimed he visited 4 hospitals and they were not that crowded, but did he also checked Red Cross and UN hospitals, because they clearly say they are overwhelmed by the patients, "A health expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza said on December 28 that hospitals were "overwhelmed and unable to cope with the scale and type of injuries that keep coming in." The ICRC noted that medical supplies and medicines were already badly depleted as a result of Israel's prohibition of most imports into Gaza since Hamas took full internal control of the territory in June 2007." [7] Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rename

I know that this topic has been discussed many times before, and no consensus has been reached so far, but wouldn't 2008/2009 war on Gaza be a far better title than the current vague one? Imad marie (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza War is appropriate. The War on Gaza is not. Israel was not waging war on Gaza but in Gaza against a terrorist organization.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

on implies that the war happened between two unmatched entities. Still, "Gaza War" is better than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, right. One is terrorist's nest (no offense intended towards those who are really innocent uninvolved civilians) and another is sovereign state. If you are an expert in martial arms, surrounded by bunch of hooligans, does it mean you can't use your skills to defend yourself? Having a military advantage over the adversary is legal. Nice try, though. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try for what? What did I try? And in what way does the title I suggest imply that Israel should not use it's military?! if you can't make constructive comments then maybe you should not make ones at all. Imad marie (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree Offensive on Gaza, or War on Gaza seems more accurate and these are names that can be found in reliable sources. Don't mind sceptic's soapboxing/hasbara, if anything his comments brings no relevance to the discussion. Anyway, I think we can reopen the discussion to find a better and accurate title. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not Gaza massacre then?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider that name to very accurate. These antisemitic terrorists do as well. But our personal feelings do not matter. For NPOV reasons, and the fact that this name is not a name used in Western reliable sources, we will have to stick to a neutral name like Offensive on Gaza or Gaza War. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Like War on Cancer? The "war on X" seems to be used mainly where X is something abstract like War on Drugs or War on Terrorism. I think that "<date> <location> conflict" is the best NPOV way to describe a conflict that doesn't have an obvious commonly used name.
By the way, nice picture and title. Way to promote constructive discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting all the nonsense in the past, I would hope we can agree that major news sources have used the 'Gaza War/war' as the name of this conflict and from there it should be trivial agreeing that if that is the case then we should also be using that as the name. Can we agree to that? And if so, does somebody want to start a RfM and go through the filing procedure? Nableezy (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not discussing this again, and I'm forsure not doing anything that involves any procedure. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well every single person who has commented in this section, from as far as I can tell most of the POV spectrum agrees that Gaza War should be the title. I will take care of the process for my more lazy Semitic cousin. Nableezy (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's from my grandfather. He was so lazy, he was always packing for his international trips at the last minute. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard that used toothbrushs are smuggled to Gaza through terrorist nest tunnels to mitigate the brutal dental hygiene blockade imposed by Israel. People are apparently having to pick their teeth with rocket and gun parts most the time. Dentists are having to hide as they're been categorized by IDF lawyers as part of a plaque resistance force. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After the 10th person got stabbed to death with a sharpened toothbrush, you can't be too careful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Gas Reserve

Why there is nothing in the article about Gaza gas reserve and what Israel and British Gas are doing about it? Here's something to read:

• War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields

--Saba84 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because neither belligerent has mentioned it though reliable sources and there's no development plan for the field yet. Not sure what you mean about "Israel and British Gas". BG pulled out of Israel and are trying to get rid of their one remaining Israeli licence block. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About Lorenzo Cremonesi's statements

Cremonesi's statements about estimated casualties and violations of human rights of Gazan civilians by Hamas can be found on the external links listed by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

LiveLeak is not an acceptable source. And rules about NPOV and placing due weight on given statements mean that Cremonesi's ideas, if included, only merit around two or three sentences... not four paragraphs. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about LiveLeak, but what about the other three sources? I think that the BBC, The Jerusalem Post and Israel Today are acceptable sources. Cremonesi's statements are also mentioned here and here, so I think that this information should be included; there is a big difference between 500 to 600 deaths and 1,100 to 1,500 deaths. If the estimates given by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Israel Defense Forces and the Gaza Strip-based Palestinian Ministry of Health (controlled by Hamas) are cited, why not those of Cremonesi? I think that this issue should have been discussed before removing the information added by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You didnt address the major concern, which was undue weight. His numbers are his own, and when we didnt have official numbers from the Israelis or Palestinians they were useful. Both sides say more than 1300 dead, do you have a reason why we should also include this one reporters number? Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think this is getting undue weight, then by all means, edit it down to what you think gives it reasonable weight. Don't go and just delete it. It's from an RS and gives important perspective on some possible reasons for the discrepancy between the official numbers by someone who was on the ground during the conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this before, this information was once in the article. There was consensus to remove it as we got the official numbers from each side. Due weight here is no weight. Not every little piece of information you find on google needs to be in an encyclopedia article. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you justify keeping this content that is based on one reporters opinion? An opinion that has been disproved by all involved parties. The IDF says 1100+, yet you want to dedicate multiple paragraphs to this. Can you give a single rational reason why a single sentence should appear about this outdated and inaccurate number. Again, a number that nobody recognizes as having any validity. This does not belong in the article, and instead of making an actual argument you just re-revert it. Nableezy (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Partially agree. Indeed, this is no help for fatalities issue (even though empty beds is interesting finding in itself). However, his report and evidencies he recorded might be helpful in other sections. 'Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances'; 'A woman spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292938156&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in the line that we had back before it was agreed to take it out. Please do not reinsert 5 paragraphs dedicated to a single reporter. We can go over the rest of what Sceptic said in another section and where it might fit. Nableezy (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS stating, among other things, that the Hamas was using civilians as human shields, that they used schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations to launch attacks, that they arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents, and that a certain doctor told him certain things about the dead and wounded.

It is not about the reporter, it's about the report from a RS. If you'd like to condense all that information (much of which is corroborated by other RSs, by the way) into a few lines, by all means, do so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a city, so wherever armed militants would hide behind or over should be either "schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings" or any other type of building anyway, I am not sure how this should be called human-shielding this is regular guerrilla warfare in a city, do IDF really have to bomb a house where civilians living while they invading a city covering behind safe tanks. That is no good reason for me. On the instant a militant stays in a clear area, a jet will bomb him, you cannot expect anyone to throw himself as a clear target. Hamas has near no heavy arms that can even penetrate the tanks anyway. If IDF really like to clear Hamas that much and don't harm civillians, why don't they send troops for 1v1 fights with rifles. But bombing them afar along with civilians, is much more easy for them. If Hamas is human shielding, then IDF is human targeting. Try to be fair for the situation. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and WP:OR. Your personal views on the situation notwithstanding, if a RS reports that, for example, Hamas was using schools, mosques or public buildings to launch military attacks thereby rendering these buildings legitimate military targets according to the laws of war, that should be reflected in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually justify your reverts, or is that asking for too much? Nableezy (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An article with the propogandastic "massacre" placed in the lede is not unduly weighted when it provides ample discussion on the amount of dead. The Israeli number's shouldn't preclude anything. After all, Shimon Peres himself was hoodwinked in another "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome back, but why include this number from somebody that is rejected by both sides? Nableezy (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nab, but as you're well aware it's the reliable sources that rule the day around here. And as outlined above these types of discrepancies on both sides are not unprecedented.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sources rule, but the report of a single reporter gets the same treatment as the numbers used by the governments of each side which get thousands of times greater weight in the sources? This is a number from the middle of the fighting, that both sides confirm is low. The IDF has confirmed 1100+ dead, yet we dedicate paragraphs to somebody who based his numbers on how empty the hospitals felt to him? Nableezy (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cremonesi is mentioned at length, violating undue weight for just one reporter, whose rushed testimony gets several lines. Secondly I can't see where the page sources his comments. Where are the footnotes to the articles he wrote (he wrote many, and several could be quoted to give different impressions)?Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the death tolls given by the IDF, the PCHR and the PMoH don't necessarily imply that Cremonesi's statements aren't relevant. He's an experienced reporter who works for an internationally renowned newspaper. He allegedly was on the ground, interviewed Gaza Strip's inhabitants and a doctor, visited hospitals and witnessed relevant facts, something that wasn't made by other journalists of the international media and investigators of the ICRC, HRW, AI, UNRWA,... If we trust the media and these organizations, who didn't base their figures on exhaustive investigations on the ground, but on Palestinian or Israeli sources (specially those of the Palestinians), and then we say that Cremonesi's statements are necessarily wrong or irrelevant, I think that something fails here.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source in the article for his statements? Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy of WP:RS does not require that the reliable sources provide their sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I read several articles, and that one article is the one originally sourced, and no longer so. This is a rapid translation of what he wrote of some of the hospitals in that brief visit. Nothing like it is being cited from Cremonesi.

'A choral scream of 'shahid, shahid'(matyr) accompanies one on entering the hospital. Two stretchers red with blood, on them two corpses. Men, youngsters, brains dripping from the skull. Some women dressed in black, their faces without veils call on Allah, and weep. When they catch sight of a western journalist they weigh in against Israel and its nazi crimes. Some wounded then come in, at least six. One is shaken by continuous trembling: he too has a head wound. You can't recognize his face the nose split, the eyes opened wide. Today Israel hit the villages of the south eastern zone hard, the ones that face the Negev desert. Two names continually crop up: Abasan e Kuza, with, respectively 25.000 and 16.000 inhabitants. "Practically all the most serious victims of the last 24 hours come from those two villages'. Our hospital sends the hardest cases to the most important hospital, the "Nasser" Hospital of Khan Yunis," Kamal Mussa, the institute's administrative director tells me. Chaos dominates the place. The guards allow everyone in to the emergency treatment area. The doctors seem professional, many of them have studied abroad, in Cairo, but also in France, Italy and the United States. There's no shortage of medicines, nor equipment. But the crowd is excessive, the emergency ward's overwhelmed by it. 'The Israelis have no humanity, they fire into the thick of crowds, don't distinguish between soldiers and civilians, aim at children, fire at homes,' the members of, the Qodeh and Argelah, the clans hit hardest (by the attacks) scream. One fact seems obvious, at least for south Gaza: there's no malnutrition. Notwithstanding the price rises, and the shortage of certain kinds of food, the blockade on movement, no one is dying of starvation in Gaza. 'The situation's much worse in the great refugee camps further north, like Jabaliah. But here in the south there's no lack of food', Saber Sarafandi, a 30 year old intern doctor tells me. He and his colleague, the nurse, Mohammad Lafi, just back from a long course of specialization in the US, are clearly moderates. There's little they share with the culture of holy war and islamic fundamentalism propagated by Hamas. To the contrary, they look on the lads with long bears and in black uniforms moving about the reception area with a certain distaste. Yet they both are assured of one fact: 'It's true that Hamas broke the truce and caused the beginning of battle to precipitate on the 27 December. But Israel had us in a stranglehold, and nthey had no alternative. The gravity of things are so much a matter of the targeted murders which israel perpetrated even during the truce. Rather, it's the sealing off of Gaza like one big prison. Hamas's choice was one between being killed over a slow fire, or quickly in war. And they were right to choose the immediate clash, a scream (of remonstrance) to the outside world. Because of this they are winning the population's sympathy. Hamas today is stronger than it has ever been amongst out people'. . .At the Nasser, it's the administrative director, We’am Fares, who supplies us in detail with the figures for the war. All 350 beds in his hospital are occupied.'Just today we have taken in 12 dead and 48 wounded, aged between 13 and 75. From the 27th of December we (alone) have had 680 dead, and 183 wounded, at least 35% of whom were children under 14 years of age.' . .Christopher Oberlin, a Parisian surgeon who arrived three days ago on behalf of the French government (speaking of phosphorus wounds),'I personally haven't seen any victims of it, and I don't know whether I would really be able to distinguish them from other wounded, I'm not a doctor with experience of war wounds'. But he's certain of one thing.ìThe Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that bvefore any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it. And the wounds I've seen are horrible.. A good many patients die in surgery'. Towards 10 pm other ambulances full of wounded arrive. A painful scene follows, lightened only by the wide smile of Asma, a 10 year old young girl with a throat wound, who speaks nonetheless rapidly, almost happily, and promises that she will go on to study at the university.'Lorenzo Cremonesi, A GAZA TRA MACERIE E RABBIA (In Gaza, between ruins and wrath).Corriere della Sera, 14 gennaio 2009

The 500-600 people who have died, does not specify absolutely anything. How many where civilians and how many were combatants? if they were all civilians, they surpass the total number of IDF's civilian casualties. And if 300 were combatants and 300 were civilians, they actually underestimate IDF's total combatant numbers, in direct contradiction to the statement that says, PCHR over-estimated civilian casualties. And if 450 were combatants and 150 were cicilian, the reporter's count actually under estimated the casualties count according to the IDF and PCHR, making both parties guilty of over-stating casualty counts. I am removing this section, for good reasons. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, are Cremonesi's statements less valid only because they overestimate or underestimate the death tolls given by the PCHR and the IDF? The IDF also underestimated non-combatant figures given by the PCHR, and the PCHR overestimated non-combatant figures given by the IDF. So, according to your point of view, Israeli and Palestinian figures should be removed, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR and IDF aren't over or under estimated. They are unverified for now, and the reporters figures does not verify neither one of them, but does criticize one side yet neglects to state that it is also in contradiction with the IDF's numbers. Why are you arguing this for ah? can't see the point? The UN report will look at both, the IDF's and PMH's numbers, it is safe to say, when looking at range, under-over, that the reporters numbers will be make looked as a field excursion by a reporter while the war was going on. The reporter simply does not criticizes the IDF's numbers but does the PHM's, if you can find a report that criticizes both, then it would go up there. Don't add this up again if you don't have any good reason, thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In a number's dispute, the reporter's statements don't provide enough verifiability if it's used to verify actual count etc. The two figures here in dispute are the PMH's numbers and the IDF's, the reporters statements and numbers in this context, are used to get an outside account(in lieu of UN numbers), but when it criticizes one side and not the other, when it's own numbers are in contradiction with both camps, then it no longer serves it purpose, and so the whole commentary can be rendered obsolete. This is elementary as in, get it the first time. Cryptonio (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And who does provide enough verifiability for you? The IDF? The PCHR? The PMoH, which is under Hamas control? The reporter says that 500 to 600 people were killed, the IDF says more than 1,100, the PCHR and the PMoH say that more than 1,300. The verifiability of all of these sources is questionable; the neutrality of the Israeli and the Palestinian sources is also questionable. Then appears this reporter (who made more than a field excursion) quoting a doctor, and his numbers are less valid only because he critizises only one side? Israelis and Palestinians also critized just one side (that is, the other) but their unverifiable figures were put in this article. By the way, is not a contradiction citing the PMoH death toll and delete Cremonesi's death toll, which is based on a declaration of an individual who presumably works for the PMoH?--Follgramm3006 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio: That's not the way things work around here. You can't discount and wholly delete a reliable source because you have issues with the content. Please revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The content has issues with the article, that you don't want to follow the case being made is not my idea of fault. I was not the one who added this information, I was the one who removed it. Statements by both sides, and ample has been made, critisizing the version of the other are more than welcome. The UN report shall make everything good. That in the meantime we have a report by a reporter, in such a delicate matter, is of no use to us and does no justice. That the report critizes Hamas when it doesn't, where it doesn't is not right, and of course that it fails to address the other side's "accounting mistake" is the main issue. Cryptonio (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a RS reporting on events pertinent to this article. What you think is right or not about how this RS treats Hamas is also irrelevant. This is how wikipedia works, for good or bad. Feel free to include other sources that say this source is wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all RS reporting about the subject is included in this article. So that "one size fits all" barrage is not welcoming. It is not about Hamas, bud, it is about criticizing PHM numbers when its own numbers are also in conflict with IDF's numbers. Feel free to find a source that would criticize both sides numbers. Cryptonio (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) has been notified of WP:ARBPIA here. If he doesn't stop edit-warring I'd suggest you post a notification on WP:AE -- further reverting will only escalate and won't help the article. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 07:04

I do not need to find a source that "criticize both sides" that is not how wikipedia works. You need to find a source that criticizes the source you don't like. We were reaching something several editors from both sides of the issue seemed to be able to live with, but apparently that's not good enough. I won't edit further since I'm close to WP:3RR but I'm sure someone else will. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Follgram seems to have trouble conversing. Another argument against the source he keeps reverting, is htat the reporter quote ONE single doctor. What doctor is this? head nurse? the reporter doesn't even 'allude' that the doctor is a director or something like that, able to speak in that capacity. I would like a response on this matter, before reverting this again. Cryptonio (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read here: [8]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are people here who think that Cremonesi's information should be included. In my point of view, Cremonesi's information is interesting for the article, and the PCHR response, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Im with you bud, anything Cremonesi is all important to this article. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All of this civility is going to drive me to drink. You gotta be Cremonesi himself Follagram, not only you add this information to the article, information that was included in the article for a LONG time and almost in its entirety, and that was removed by a Pro-israeli editor(whose name i will withold for a fear for my life). Plus you also add the external link of the report to "SEE ALSO"? IN ITALIAN?? that move is more to make the report more relevant than what it is. You have to be Cremonesi, trying to get some air space in the article. And can somebody tell brewcrwer i don't appreciate him writing in my talk page. Thanks all. Civility rules kids, be nice to one another. Cryptonio (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio. I left a rather lengthy response to your inquires in psy-war section. Cremonesi issue is of course the most problematic one. I think it is more than obvious that terror (including own population) is means of psy-war. I provided some links that indirectly support it. If you still oppose, I will seek a way to challenge your standard. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating certain 'tag lines' in hopes that it becomes the standard. And those tag lines are pretty, obvious, POV. You throw these lines as if we have to adapt to your terminology and beliefs. It's not working, dude. Cryptonio (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not Lorenzo Cremonesi.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)