Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Israeli calls for genocide against Arabs

• This article, or subarticles, need mention of frequent anti-Arab sentiments in Israel, and calls of genocide of Arabs by Israeli politicians as well as civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Marching Israelis In Tel Aviv Chant 'There's No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left" http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/29/israelis-chant-there-are-no-children-left-in-gaza_n_5630601.html
• "Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed – Israeli MP" http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/17/mothers-of-all-palestinians-must-be-killed-israeli-mp/

I have checked this story out with a reliable observer in Israel and it is false. The source is Press TV which WP recognises as untrustworthy Chrismorey (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Times Of Israel Publishes Op-Ed About 'When Genocide Is Permissible', Then Deletes It". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/times-of-israel-genocide-article-post-deleted_n_5641971.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Its been widely noted that at least the last one was not actually "published by" the times, but it was in their "self publish" area, and done by a guy from New York, and as soon as they were made aware of it, took it down. It may still have value for the article/section, but it should be characterized correctly. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's inherent in the story, and even the headline I pasted. Regardless, it does represent the opinion of many Israelis, even Knesset members. ~~

Okay I added the section but it could use some refinement. --Youngdrake (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Even more: "‘Bomb Gaza’ Google Play app lets Android users carry out Israeli air strikes on Palestinians" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bomb-gaza-google-play-app-lets-android-users-carry-out-israeli-air-strikes-on-palestinians-9647579.html

why is this relevant? Is it claimed that the game was written by official Israeli sources? You can do all sorts of dreadful things in cyberspace Chrismorey (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous: "Israeli official calls for concentration camps in Gaza" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715466/Israeli-official-calls-concentration-camps-Gaza-conquest-entire-Gaza-Strip-annihilation-fighting-forces-supporters.html#ixzz39TwS70nJ FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

the same source as above informs me that the "Israeli official" made the comment about two pro-Arab MKs who have publicly advocated anti-Israel violence. This suggests it is a case of heavy-handed political repartee. I don't know how it got into the Daily Mail; one possibility mooted is that it was radically mistranslated. To me, the fact that two "genocide" stories posted by the same user are false or dubious suggests a strong POV. I've heard a lot of these; there seems to be a cottage industry making them up Chrismorey (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this and was removed someone else please put it back in. I'm still blocked. Obvious JIDF in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The background section is still broken

The lines about 2005 are back but they are unsourced. The subsequent paragraphs are sourced by editorials or primarily based on the overreaching premise of a couple editorials. The reader does not need a brick of unruly text that cobbles together sources and personal opinion to understand that the conflict is complicated. The reader certainly does not need to be reasoned with. Write the article based on the weight given in RS and not your opinion. This is ridiculous.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing description of Hamas attack tunnels

This article crucially miss what the Israeli operation was about (alongside stopping the rockets) - that's Hamas attack tunnels that were dug beneath Israeli Kibbutzim in order to the kidnap and kill civilians there (3 motorcycles were found inside one tunnel for that purpose). Likewise the title on the tunnel photo "used by Hamas to carry out rocket and cross-border attacks on Israeli soldiers" is incorrect, it aimed against civilians. 5.28.159.18 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please find a source that says that. The closest I found is that the tunnels led into civilian communities, between schools and kindergartens and contained explosives and tranquilizers, but no source said that they were intended to be used to kidnap and murder civilians. Apparently it's forbidden to use common sense on WP. The only actual use the tunnel saw was to attack soldiers, so this is what the article says. - WarKosign (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here this for example: it says that the tunnels were intended to be used for attacking civilians but luckily these attacks were averted by the IDF. http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/Hamas-terror-tunnels.aspx. - WarKosign (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas' conditions for a truce

@Monopoly31121993: Your edit here. It is hardly a secret that Hamas' main condition for a ceasefire was ending the blockade. This can be confirmed by hundreds of sources. Even in the source cited, apart for a couple, all of them refer to the blockade and Gaza's economy. And you can't just count them, they all have different weights. The main thrust was to end the blockade.

More importantly, you need to read again WP:SS and WP:LEAD. The lead is the place for a summary, not for including all caveats. All sentences in the lead need not be footnoted. The summary "mostly centered on ending the blockade" for the truce is accurate.

I cannot revert this edit based on ARBPIA sanctions, but it would be good if you reverted it, and discussed it first instead of removing it. Kingsindian (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, editors should not be making judgements about whether Hamas' 10 demands for a truce were "mainly about ending a blockade" or not. If the source didn't say that then it shouldn't be there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As an example of a different opinion - Hamas demands are mainly about their ability to re-arm. - WarKosign (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Why this edit? Did you see the second reference I added here which says, right at the top, that the demands were based on ending the blockade and release of prisoners? Kingsindian (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I kept that information and the reference but added their other demands as well. What's the problem? Are you opposed to including their other demands?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: Yes, I am opposed to including their other demands. As I have mentioned already, the lead is the place for a summary, not all the details. Everyone understands the basic demands of Hamas for a ceasefire, this is why it is mentioned in a hundred sources. There should not be half a paragraph of the lead on all ten demands. Kingsindian (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Turkey support Hamas

I have sources that say Turkey supports Hamas financially and publically, so I think it should be added to the infobox.

1. http://time.com/3033681/hamas-gaza-palestine-israel-egypt/
2. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/hamas-rejoices-erdogan-victory-turkish-elections.html
3. www.worldtribune.com/2013/12/22/turkey-replaces-iran-as-primary-funding-source-for-hamas/
4. http://www.clarionproject.org/news/turkey-increasingly-isolated-us-and-egypt-over-syria-gaza
5. http://www.local10.com/news/which-mideast-power-brokers-support-hamas/27337210
6. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/13081-davutoglu-we-support-hamas-because-it-embraces-the-palestinian-cause
7. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/06/world/meast/mideast-hamas-support/index.html.--JudgeJason (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Kemp's statement

@WarKosign: Regarding this edit. What does this have to do with the section on "Warnings by Israel"? Neither the quote nor the source talks about any warnings. There are many other problems with the quote. Why is the opinion of one man important? You can find hundreds on either side who support or oppose Israel's tactics. Kingsindian (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There are many quotes from people. In this case, as a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan he seems to be knowledgeable on the subject. His quote belongs in the section because he provides a fact - no army ever did more to protect civilians than the IDF in this conflict by warning them, which is the subject of the section. Currently the section consists of 3 paragraphs - first is about Israel giving warning, second is about Hamas telling the people to ignore the warnings, third is about the effectiveness of the warnings.

@Kingsindian: Neither the article, nor he, talk about warnings at all. And it is not a "fact" that no army did ever more to protect civilians, but one man's opinion. Not to mention that the "fact" is irrelevant to whether the warnings are effective or not. Kingsindian (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I share Kingsindian's analysis. The quotation itself seems to be irrelevant to this article, though it might find a home in an article on IDF military tactics. Its inclusion seems to constitute granting one person's opinion undue weight. Its placement in the section on warnings as if it were pertinent specifically to Israeli's tactic of issuing warnings seems like synthesis, since the article at no point mentions warnings. -sche (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and -sche: When I've read the summary it was obvious to me that he was talking about the warnings, but indeed they are not mentioned directly in the text or in the video. He might be talking about avoiding attacking certain targets because of civilian presence. Do you think this quite is relevant in any other section ? - WarKosign (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: It should be at least removed from this section, since we agree that it does not belong there. As to whether it belongs in some other section, it depends on whether it has enough weight, compared to other things in the section. It is after all, only one man's opinion, and he doesn't give any arguments for or against it. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

separated the combat causalities from Civilians causalities

a pregnant women killed by Guided bomb it's not a military damage the 80% of causalities killed by Israel are civilians

The civilians causalities should be apart from combat causalities. --Pototo1 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

How about militant casualties that are presented as civilians ? Hamas admitted that their militants dress in civilian clothes. According to some estimations, at least 50% of the casualties are militants. Was the pregnant woman targeted specifically, or was there a rocket storage in her house and she ignored all the warnings that told her to leave ? See sections above, there is ongoing debate how to give proper weight to the different estimates of civilian casualties vs total casualties.- WarKosign (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Insurgents in Syria used civilian clothes too... --Pototo1 (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lead

The first paragraph of the lead is an embarassment and the ongoing battleground for everyone on all sides to get as much of the "relevant background", as they see it, to the conflict as possible into the lead. I propose that there should be a clear starting point, and some consensual criteria on what to include. Otherwise, it will continue to spiral out of control. Kingsindian (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Operation Protective Edge, but even the title refuses to admit it. "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict" title is vague, and most of the events in the background happened in 2014 and they are part of the conflict - why are they background and not part of the article ? If the article is about a military operation, than clearly the beginning point is the end of the previous operation and the background is everything that happened between them. - WarKosign (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Bukyrrocro has for some reason changed the first paragraph of the lead completely with no discussion at all of his mysterious ways. I cannot revert it due to 1RR. Kingsindian (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done what I could to merge the useful (in my judgement) bits of the old lead with the useful bits of Bukyrrocro's version. I kept the altered (closer to the start) placement of the IDF operation name and the summary of what the conflict itself is (an a military operation by Israel militant activity by Gazans). I re-introduced the summary of background events. I dropped the double-wikilinks to the 2014 kidnapping article, which Bukyrrocro linked once as "Operation Brother's Keeper" and then again, redundantly, in the next sentence as "abduction and murder of three Israeli boys". -sche (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks, it looks better now. Perhaps it is still too much for the first paragraph of a lead, but perhaps this problem can only be solved once the title of the article gets fixed. When the title was moved to this title, the scope was broadened too much, and these kinds of problems are bound to arise. Kingsindian (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Destroying Hamas tunnels

An additional goal of the operation was to destroy the tunnels, see [8]. It should be added to the beginning. --192.114.88.210 (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Check the date of the article. This goal was added along the way, it was not present from the very beginning. It is mentioned in the article, but perhaps not enough. I'm not sure where would be the right place to add it. - WarKosign (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

sourceless and baseless statements in the lead paragraph

@Noon: would you mind explaining that is the the source for "ensuing rocket strikes on Israeli cities by Gazan militias" that you restored in your edit? Even if someone claimed that IDF action 'ensued' rocket attacks, how could this be a 'stated goal' ? I believe this statement is baseless nonsense, unless someone can provide a RS that says otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

PCHR way of counting civilian casualties

(I started this sections for specific reason related to PCHR which is unrelated to the question raised above. Please do not alter my text) "The PCHR says anyone who is not effectively participating in a military operation is a civilian, including a Hamas fighter who is killed at home while taking a break." Now as this definition of civilains does not match the standard definition of civilians this has to be specified in the article. The numbers of civilians as presented by PCHR includes civilians and militants who at the time of their death did not actively participated in the battle.[9]--Tritomex (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556773,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-gaza-dispute-over-civilian-vs-combatant-deaths/2014/08/08/b84fd734-1f28-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html @Tritomex:

Their numbers also include:

• victims of Hamas executions
• people killed by Hamas rockets and Mortar shells falling short. A report, I think from ITIC says that more Hamas rockets fell in densely popuplated Gaza than were missed by the Iron dome and hit populated areas in Israel.
• any natural deaths - did people suddenly stop dying from diseases in Gaza?

See sections above. The question is how to incorporate this information into the article in a manner that would not be deemed POV. I think a section called "reliability of reports" at the end of the section detailing casualties in Gaza would do the trick. - WarKosign (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign and Tritomex: This is a somewhat misleading summary of PCHR's methodology. First of all, one should not focus on PCHR's methodology exclusively. As the Casualties of the Gaza War and the Ynet article makes clear, once all the figures and backgrounds are cross-checked, the figures from various orgs, including B'Tselem, who only has a very incomplete figure so far, would be roughly the same. And it would be very different from the IDF/ITIC figures. Till then, if you wish, describe the methodology in some neutral way, if you wish (it is too early to do so, in my opinion, but do it if you really want), but don't imply in any way that PCHR's figures are suspect, as compared to others. Kingsindian (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the source is not Ynet but Associated Press [10] and it precisely describe how PCHR counts civilian casualties as "The PCHR says anyone who is not effectively participating in a military operation is a civilian, including a Hamas fighter who is killed at home while taking a break." This is therefore a WP:RS regarding the non standard procedure of civilian casualty counting. A soldier or militant is regularly considered as such, weather he/she is actively engaged in military operation at the moment of his/her death. For example many of 66 Israeli soldiers killed were not actively engaged in military operation but died as a result of cross-border military action from Hamas.However in PCHR way of counting of civilian casualties, they would constitute to civilian casualties--Tritomex (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the IDF defines as Hamas militants anyone belonging to the 'terrorist' organization, as qua 'terrorists' is fair game. On the first day of Operation Cast Lead they blew up a parade of policemen, and then included them in the figures of Hamas militants, an inclusion that is not accepted internationally.

For example many of 66 Israeli soldiers killed were not actively engaged in military operation but died as a result of cross-border military action from Hamas.

Oh really? Where's your source for that statement?

In general, both sides will tend to spin figures to their own propaganda advantage. We should not try to secondguess the future outcome of neutral analysis, by entering into the complications of IDF and Palestinian counting biases. The IDF is no more reliable than any Palestinian organization.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I did not say that particular quote was wrong (and the same quote is also present in the Ynet article) and I did not say anything about it not being WP:RS. I am not sure what gave you that impression. My point was that the same criticism can be made of IDF numbers, which routinely show much higher figures of militant deaths. The difference between PCHR and B'Tselem in the last war was much much smaller than difference between B'Tselem and IDF. Even right now, the difference between IDF and Al Mezan or IDF and UN figures are much larger than the difference between PCHR and UN/Al Mezan figures. And finally, all the different human rights orgs figures are likely to end up roughly the same, and collectively much different from IDF/ITIC figures. Either one deals with this topic in a systematic way, or one drops this whole topic. Just focusing on the definition of PCHR's civilian count is not the way to deal with this. A point already made above. Kingsindian (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and Tritomex: How about "Current reports are incomplete and not final. Number of civilian and military casualties vary considerably between different sources. Reasons for differences include mistakes, intentional data manipulations and different methodologies." in the "Casualties and losses" section, before "Palestinian" ? - WarKosign (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Current reports of the civilian/militant proportions are incomplete and not final, as real time errors, intentional data manipulation, and diverse methodologies on both sides produce notable variations in sources, depending on provenance. (per NPOV)Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani's version seems fine to me. But, I repeat, the parenthetical comment about PCHR from the infobox needs to be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The claims of both sides (Gaza Health ministry and IDF) are nowhere mentioned by any WP:RS to include militants who are not effectively participating in a military operation to be "civilians, including a Hamas fighter who is killed at home while taking a break." Therefore although likely both IDF and Gaza Hamas affiliated health ministry numbers are not correct, they are claims allegedly based on standard procedure of counting victims. The problem with the way of casualty counting is specific and UNIQUE to PCHR, as it CONFIRMED that it uses non standard procedures in determining who is civilian and who is not. As this is not done by other sides, it can not be denied or withheld in article as it represents a very important issue which can drastically shift the numbers. Also I agree theat beyond this it must be stated that all this numbers are provisional and not final which is btw logical due to unfortunate continuation of hostilities. Another issue is that there is no such thing as "Gaza health ministry" as Gaza is not a country and does not have a health ministry. The objective wording would be the one used by Associated press as Hamas affiliated Gaza health ministry or eventually Palestinian health ministry if it does represent Palestinian Authority/State of Palestine (I must check this) Tritomex (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that there is no such thing as "Gaza health ministry" as Gaza is not a country and does not have a health ministry

Please desist from silly statements. We follow sources, and one second's googling would have told you that the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and Haaretz use the term to refer to the institutions overseen by the Health Minister of the Gaza Strip. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: You are still not addressing the logic. The fact that it is WP:RS is irrelevant to the logic. I don't know why you keep bringing up WP:RS, when nobody is challenging it.

• Statement A: IDF figures are much more different from a group including UN or Al-Mezan or PCHR or B'Tselem (likely, as mentioned in the article), all of which are likely to end up much the same.
• Statement B: The IDF/ITIC is using a different methodology for classification than the UN etc. etc.

Statement A implies Statement B. Your assertion that the IDF is using some "standard methodology" is baseless. It is logically impossible. You cannot simply include some statement about methodology of one particular source in the infobox. Are you going to discuss the methodology of the IDF and the UN in the infobox? There are dozens of human rights reports which say that IDF has given no evidence of military activity in many places that it has attacked. Are you going to put all of that in the infobox? Write a section dealing with this issue in a systematic way if you want, but don't put this it in the infobox to suggest that the PCHR figures are suspect in some fundamental way than the others. When in the final event, it is likely to end up much closer to the other souces than the IDF figures. Kingsindian (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is the source that the IDF/ITIC is using a different methodology for classification of civilian victims, than the UN? I am not discussing the numbers, but the classification of victims and I nowhere saw a WP:RS claiming that IDF/ITIC is using a different methodology for classifying civilian victims.--Tritomex (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I do not know how to say it more plainly. If two sources give hugely different figures for combatants, they must be using different classifications. Otherwise the term "methodology" or "classification" has no meaning. I can't find a WP:RS claiming 2 2 = 4. Kingsindian (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani, Tritomex, and Knightmare72589: I added the paragraph suggested by Nishidani. (Bare url refs, will fix tomorrow). I also cleaned the section that follows the casualties table from repetition of information already present in the table, moved the civilian percentage there as well. I think there is room for comparing methodologies, but criticizing only one of them is clearly POV. - WarKosign (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not works that way. This is an example of WP:OR as your observation regarding differences in numbers of claimed casualties does not equal reliable source stating that IDF/ITIC is using a different methodology for classification of civilian victims, as PCHR has confirmed to do. If such source exists, present it please. --Tritomex (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I see logic is useless. How about some quotes from the same source?

"For its part, Israel has said it uses its own intelligence reports to determine who among the dead belonged to Hamas or other militant groups."

"In one set of 300 names classified as civilians "at least 50 percent were ... members of the Hamas terrorist movement," he said, declining to give further details on exactly who made that classification."

Do you think that relying on intelligence reports and opaque classifications of combatants is a fundamentally different methodology than a network of human rights orgs and the UN which

U.N. researchers start out with figures from the ministry, the media and other sources, but then cross-check them with the help of Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights groups."

Do you see some fundamental differences in methodology here? Kingsindian (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the methods of classification of civilain casualties which is done by all sides in accordance with their available sources. Nowhere I saw that anyone beside PCHR declaring that militants or soldiers who are not effectively participating in a military operation, at the time of their death, are (counted as) civilians. I nowhere and never saw such thing and If I am wrong Wikipedia rules are that reliable source has to be presented to prove such allegations.--Tritomex (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Look. The IDF methodology includes googling islamic websites that commemorate 'martyrs' and comparing names against the names in the PCHR and other death lists, and where they can find a casualties name on the Islamic sites, they correlate and deduce that the person must be a Hamas militant. That itself is a very dicey procedure. Secondly, newspaper reporters commented today, in respect of charges, shown to be rare, that they were intimidated by Hamas, said Hamas militants were rarely observed. If in lulls they appeared, they came out of holes in the ground dressed in civilian clothes, which is sensible since the whole area is under 24/7 drone-video and satellite surveillance, and no army is obliged to offer its enemy an easy target. These things are being spun: there is ample evidence from Israeli sources that the technique of massive carpetbombing of houses is dictated by the necessity to contain soldier casualties below the limit thought acceptable to Israeli public opinion. This war is run by military experts who have clear reasons for doing whatever they do: Israel to protect its soldiers by razing areas, Hamas protects its soldiers by avoiding being easy targets. The logic in either case is purely military, i.e., defending one's army in war, at whatever expense. Wikipedia should not be dealing in guilty/innocent drafting. It should just give both angles. That's what NPOV means.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I urge you to reconsider your stance. Everyone except you who has participated (me, Nishidani and WarKosign) agrees that just putting PHCR methodology and no others in the infobox is POV. Perhaps, if you reflect, you may see my point. Kingsindian (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The allegation will be presented Tritomex, but its not appropriate for the infobox. The allegation is more appropriate to be presented, with the source, in the casualties and losses section. EkoGraf (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The stats showing the high number of casualties among soldier-aged males has been noted in other sources and is more mentioning, as well as the conclusion that Hamas overestimates the relative number of civilian deaths, and in fact did that in the last conflict. TFD (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

spelling error, in section "Financial impact"

"genertor" should be "generator"

Pdragy (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for letting us know about the error. :) -sche (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV wikipedia seems to be a IDF's blog page

Headlines like "Use of civilian structures for military purposes" and "Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes" seems to give any impression as if this article is official blog of IDF. --39.55.108.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@39.55.108.4: I doubt the IDF includes a big paragraph from Amnesty International, HRW, and B'Tselem in their blog postings. These claims are made, Wikipedia discusses the claims in an NPOV manner. If you have some better suggestions, give them, instead of wholly inaccurate snark. Kingsindian (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for separate headings.--39.55.108.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes" should be changed to something more neutral. That paragraph do highlight a point, Only Western Media is supporting that claim, while independent sources e.g Amnesty International and HRW didn't find any evidence to support that claim. While that heading claims as it is proven fact. Other heading have similar issues.--39.55.108.4 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a neutral statement. "Using human shields" is a loaded term. - WarKosign (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed the one title to include "Allegations", but I'm a bit perplexed on the "urging/forcing" title, since it seems silly (and I'm not sure why?) to include "allegations" there, because the whole title there should be changed, but I'm not sure how to make that more neutral, except for "allegations" again. Or, we could just take that part out, and not have a section/title there at all. And I think "human shields" is ok, loaded or not, because it's actually neutral in its meaning. Maybe something for that title: "Questions raised about human shields" Hires an editor (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor and 39.55.108.4:

• The section headings are about allegations, not proven violations. For that matter "destruction of homes" is also not a war crime by itself, but a topic which is discussed and only then condemned as unlawful. This is why there is so much text discussing all the claims. This is the nature of the topic.
• Removing section headings would make an already large section even larger and confuse the two separate memes about "human shields" both thrown out by this "western media", which you speak of so disparagingly (rightly so in this case). If you check the actual text of the two sections, all the claims about human shields are actually about the first topic "use of civilian structures for military purposes" and not the second "urging/forcing civilians to stay in their homes". The evidence for the first is much more widespread than the second, for which there is almost no evidence. I am not sure why you think jumbling them together would make it any more comprehensible or any less "like an IDF blog". Kingsindian (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Might as well add "alleged" to every sub-section heading: "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law", "Alleged human shields", "Allegations of urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes", etc. Everything that is not universally agreed upon can be said to be alleged. The first paragraph of "the violations of the international humanitarian law" already says "Various human rights groups have argued", not "agreed", and there are arguments for and against each allegation inside each section, so adding 'alleged', 'disputed', etc in each title will only make the text less readable but not improve the NPOV. - WarKosign (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove the heading, just make it more neutral. "Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes" can be changed to "Allegations of Civilians been urged or forced to stay in their homes" --39.55.7.152 (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@39.55.7.152: I already said, they are all allegations, and none are meant to be understood without context. Hence, the text discussing them. Putting "alleged" before every section topic will only make it awkward, nothing more. Kingsindian (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be diffident about the word 'Allegations'. Wars are also propaganda wars. Secondly, how many sections allege something of Hamas, and how many sections allege something of the IDF? Editors should be aware that allegations should be balanced, otherwise the point of allegations (no smoke without fire; make some of the mud stick etc.) weighs in for one side. And thirdly, 'allegations' made by either of the two parties are par for the course: the only allegations that really count here are those by disinterested neutral parties, who have no horse in the propaganda race.Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and 39.55.7.152: Since I organized this section (twice), let me point out the basis on which I did this. The major allegation/meme is the clearly the "human shields". I have put all the allegations, their evidence and the counter-claims in one section. For example, the section on "urging/forcing civilians to stay" "warnings by Israel" includes both the Israel's claims and evidence, and a long paragraph pointing out that even if warnings are given a) they must be "effective warnings" under IHL and b) if civilians ignore the warnings, they retain all the protections of IHL. I have not organized the sections based on allegations by each side exclusively, rather tried to put all the context in one place. If there is some better way to organize it, I am open to it. Kingsindian (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani, 39.55.7.152, and Kingsindian: There is another way that I proposed several times. List each of the allegations, with or without the word "allegation", and give arguments for and against each of them being real. When they are related - and many of them are - just link to the relevant paragraphs. See the draft that I already made to get the general idea. - WarKosign (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In your draft, the very first thing which comes to mind is, "By Hamas" as if we the Wikipedia editors are actually accusing Hamas. With word "allegations", reader gets an idea, One party accused the other regarding something. In the text we can provide material which supports that allegations and sources which deny or refute those claims. --39.55.7.152 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea is to discuss each alleged violation by a single side separately. In most cases the violations are indeed different, except for attacks on civilians and journalists. How about top level headings - "alleged violations by israel" and "alleged violations by hamas", with violations listed under each without 'alleged' or side name ? - WarKosign (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already responded as to why I don't think this is a good organization. In a nutshell, the "links" are not a sufficient way to discuss the context. And if the context is discussed in every section, it will lead to lots of duplication. This is why I have put the meat of it in one section. Kingsindian (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign is to be commended for a fair slash of work trying to work up a detailed article. (I don't think that US Congress need be there. They don't know anything about the world, and it's purely for internal consumption, criticizes something that hasn't been proven, and probably functions as a fund-raiser signal within the US.) If you go ahead, I don't think you should hold the word 'allegations' hostage. The only other worry is that this third Gaza war, from the outset, has developed so many specialized spin-off articles that the main text is all thumbnail and section redirects, unlike the earlier ones. The average reader probably wants a comprehensive yet succinct NPOV account at around 120,000 bytes.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: I just took a look at Operation Pillar of Defense#Alleged war crimes. They are organized in this way - "Alleged war crimes", underneath it each side, and under the side violations that it allegedly committed in a flat list. In current article "human shields" are underneath "civilian casualties". In my view human shields definitely should be referenced in the civilian casualties as (arguably) one of the reasons, but listed on their own as well since use of human shields, whether or not causes casualties, is a violation of international humanitarian law. If there is agreement on this or similar structure, I can begin to move sections gradually, in-place, and delete the draft page.

'Human shields' is a POV hypothesis, and should not be referenced in civilian casualty lists, unless some genius can come up with specific proof in articles of occasions where people died after being forced to act as human shields. We have far more evidence that Israel has identified a 'terrorist' in a crowd, in markets or near a school and used high explosives to kill the person regardless of the inevitable collateral damage. Not for that reason would one argue or classify under civilian deaths those collateral casualties as 'targeted by Israel'. It's just that whoever pulls the trigger doesn't give a fuck either way, and that is probably true of both sides firing from or at civilian areas.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If this section needs to be changed, perhaps this much more detailed and comprehensive page can be a model International_Law_and_the_Gaza_War Kingsindian (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I don't see a big difference - a big section for each side, and sub-section for each alleged violation, with claims and counter claims. Few lower level sections, when present they elaborate on the section and don't detail a different violation. - WarKosign (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

UN impartiality

@I.am.a.qwerty: I have put a POV tag on this section. There should not be a section on "UN impartiality" which is a litany of crimes, real and alleged, against the UN. If such a section is there, it should be called "Role of the UN" with pro- and con- presented. None of the criticisms made here are new, and all of them have been responded to, by various people. That needs to be presented. Finally, I have removed the totally silly statement (from FrontPageMag) about UNRWA members being "Hamas supporters" based on the fact that they voted for Hamas in the election. The source concludes that "The UNRWA in Gaza is an arm of Hamas". Members of humanitarian organizations are not required to not vote or not hold political opinions. Kingsindian (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@user:I.am.a.qwerty @Kingsindian: Agree. I've got two suggestions:

• Some other sources opposing this viewpoint should also be used. For example, Washingtonpost writes as such:

  While Israeli officials have never admitted intentionally targeting the United Nations, many Israelis contest the notion that the United Nations is a benign and impartial actor in Gaza, devoted only to ensuring the well-being of refugees in the territory. The Israeli government and the U.N. refugee organization for Palestinians — the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) — regularly trade accusations: U.N. officials have criticized Israel’s economic blockade of the territory, while Israeli officials have routinely accused UNRWA of parroting Hamas’s arguments and even being complicit in some of its activities.

• The title should be changed to "UN impartiality allegations" to maintain neutrality. Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The title implies that the UN is impartial, which is POV. Also, it should not list allegations against it without providing the other view and emphasizing that the anti-UN viewpoint is in the minority. TFD (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff

@WarKosign: Please be careful in deleting/reverting stuff. Under ARBPIA sanctions, there is a 1RR rule, one revert every 24 hours. Reverting does not have to mean using the "undo" button. If you remove all of the edit of some other user, you are reverting them.

You have already effectively reverted 4 times, here, here, here and here. I am not saying all the edits are wrong. The rule is there to have some discussion on the talk page, not continuous edit warring. Kingsindian (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Thanks, you are correct. I attempted discussions with this user several times, and only got threats on my talk page. Please see section above. I would like to see other people's opinions whether hamas's numbers are properly sourced and should appear in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs)

@Johorean Boy: Please use the talk page to discuss your edits instead of continuous edit warring. If you continue to do this, you will be reported. Kingsindian (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: At 16:29, 7 August 2014‎ WarKosign (talk | contribs)‎ . . (137,111 bytes) (-552)‎ . . (Undid revision 620249311 by Erictheenquirer without any discussion in Talk, supplying as justification "POV" and "the referenced source does not contain any of the claims". I strongly object that WarKosign has once again made a complete deletion of an edit without any discussion whatsoever on the Talk page and without even the courtesy of notification. Regarding "POV" I want WarKosign to point out exactly where I inserted a point-of-view in the text that he/she reverted. I also totally dispute his/her claim that the reference that I supplied did not support the claims made. If not forthcoming I intend to revert the deletions. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: You made big changes to the first paragraph of the article without any discussion on the talk page. As I wrote, these changes clearly represented a point of view - they show how Israel's cruel actions were the cause for reasonable and just reaction by the poor and oppressed Hamas. In addition, the source you provided did not contain support for any of the claims - all it contained was a list of links. You might as well have provided google.com as a source - sure, if you look hard enough you may be able to find the relevant quotes that backs your claim. If you think that the paragraphs needs to be changed, please discuss it here before you go on and modify it again. - WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:You make two points and I find them both to be unjustified reasons for deletion without Talk discussion My reasoning is as follows 1) In your twice-repeated but as yet non-existent justification of my additions as being POV, are you proposing that calling them "events" is a POV? Or that referring to them as being "preceding" is a POV"? Or is it that their being pertinent to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict is a POV? Or is it your view that none of them ever happened? 2) The Israeli actions that I listed were collectively on-going throughout the entire period. Do you deny that? You judge my citing of a source that covers the entire period to be unacceptable because it contains links, and not because these links fail to provide exact documentation of all of the Israeli actions that I listed. Fine, then please provide the Wiki ruling thatprohibits this tpe of collective citation. If you can, I am willing to list all 57 currently available direct references supporting my addition. But I put it to you that a collective citation is far more efficient. But allow me to express my appreciation of your honesty that your real objection to the Israeli actions is that they dare to show that there were Israeli aggressions against Gaza, and not just the one-sided "rockets rained down on Israel" as it currently stands. Thank you for the clarity of your motivation for the deletion. I await a reasoned response with less 'ad hominem' disrespect for a serious contributor and for fully documented facts. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: POV is in the importance of the events. Placing these events in the lead implies they are the main reasons for the conflict. Apparently this is your opinion, some people would not agree with it. Reasons can be traced back as far as you'd like. There are ongoing discussions on the talk page on what should and shouldn't be included in the lead paragraph and the background section, feel free to join and contribute your opinion. Regarding the references, you don't need all 57 references - but you need at least one RS for each major claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim - another editor doesn't have to go over each and every link in the page you provided to prove that what you claim isn't there. - WarKosign (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:I have now read the Talk regarding the lead. The main theme is that it is a mess. I will therefore shorten my 'lead' input and place third party citations. I will not agree to the complete removal of the topic of Israeli embargo against and attacks on Gaza during 2014 from the lead, since title is '2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict', and since the counterpart - the Gaza rockets - is considered worthy of 'lead' status. When structure returns to this Page, I will add the Israeli embargo and attacks into the main text with the PCHA and additional OCHAO references. Please check my shortened version. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I removed several of the claims that you added. In neither of the sources that you cited there was anything about the partial blockade being a violation of the ceasefire, no mention of the words "continued","incarceration","without trial", the prisoners issue being a violation of anything, or "continued" attacks. "land, sea and air" did appear in one article, but nowhere it says that Israel actually attacked by either of the 3.- WarKosign (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:The first of your most recent deletions is utterly without foundation. Your stated reason is that the sources that I cited contained nothing about the continued Israeli blockade being in violation of the November 2012 ceasefire agreement Your claim is completely false, because:

1) the lrd source clearly states. "“The 21 November 2012 ceasefire ... stipulated that ... the closure of Gaza would essentially end as a result of Israel’s ‘opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods, and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas’" It then relates how Israel failed to comply with the ceasefire: "The end of the closure never came. Crossings were repeatedly shut. So-called buffer zones – agricultural lands that Gazan farmers couldn't enter without being fired on – were reinstated. Imports declined, exports were blocked, and fewer Gazans were given exit permits to Israel and the West Bank."

2) The Economist source is even more succinct, clear and inescapable: "in November 2012, it was agreed that, along with a ceasefire, the blockade of Gaza would gradually be lifted and the crossings into Egypt and Israel would be opened. The ceasefire generally held, but the siege continued."

Your revert of that part of my contribution was unfounded - Israel's continued siege was in violation of the November 2012 agreement. Please replace that text.

@WarKosign:The second of your most recent deletion has marginally more merit. The cited source confirms the importance of the prisoners issue, and refers to a round-up of prisoners, but apparently that is too subtle: “The Gazan grievance over prisoners stirs great passion among Palestinians everywhere . … The increase in rocket fire was partly intended as a protest against the round-up of prisoners.” As a result I will include an additionally supporting source for my entry that “the continued incarceration without trial of prisoners in Israeli jails” was on-going in 2014, since it documents the totality of new mass arrests ((hence justifying “continuation”), that is was an event prior to July 2014, and that many of these were Administrative Detentions and states that these are detentions without trial. I do not intend to stoop to the pettiness of proving that “incarcerate” is the same as “imprison”. Here it is. I am sure you will be pleased with this thoroughness of documenting well-known facts. Thank you for this critique which helped improve the quality of Wiki. Unless there is justified rebuttal, I intend to replace the deleted sub-portion of text, and add the additional reference. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Are you claiming that the alleged violations of the 2012 ceasefire were the reason for IDF beginning Operation Protective Edge ? Or perhaps they were the reason for kidnapping and murder of the 3 teenagers, allegedly by Hamas ? Perhaps these alleged violations do belong in the article in the background section, but I fail to see immediate relevance to how this round of violence began. - WarKosign (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:None of those. I am claiming that these are all events that preceded Operation Preferred Edge, just like the Gaza rocket attacks on Israel form a valid type of important preceding event, and that one seems to be perfectly allowable. I know that you have documented your displeasure at seeing the Palestinian side reflected, but my sense of balance objects to that being a Wiki goal. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:Regarding these events being "background" I disagree. In that context it might be a useful reminder that the title of this page is "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" and that it is not "Operation Preferred Edge". I hope that we can work together further to improve this mess, perhaps starting with a decent "Background" section to set the stage for 2014. KingsIndian is in agreement that it should start with the November 2012 ceasefire, and not dredge back to the 2012 assassinations or even to Operation Cast lead. I agree. It is a very clear historical hiatus. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You justify your third and final deletion of a sub-portion of my contribution “continued land, sea and air attacks by Israel on Gaza” by claiming that my cited sources do not have anything about "continued" attacks, and that "land, sea and air" did appear in one article, but nowhere it says that Israel actually attacked by either of the 3." OK, let us check the reality of your claim which amounts to a denial that Israel attacked Gaza during the first half of 2014:

1) The lrb article by Nathan Thrall contains the following: “The 21 November 2012 ceasefire … stipulated … that Israel would end attacks against Gaza by land, sea and air”. Later it continues: “In the three months following the ceasefire [= “continuing”], (Israeli) forces made regular incursions (= continuing) into Gaza, strafed Palestinian farmers and those collecting scrap and rubble across the border [= “land”], and fired at boats, preventing fishermen from accessing the majority of Gaza’s waters [= “sea”].” OMG you are correct, that source fails to mention “air strikes”!!

2) The OCHAO citation contains: “During the reporting period, Israeli forces conducted a series of airstrikes (phew!!) targeting alleged military sites and open fields across Gaza, leading to the injury of 19 Palestinian civilians, including six children and six women” It also documents 10 Gaza deaths that week for a 2014 total [= continuing] of 24, plus 19 injuries cumulating for the year to 190.

3) But in another display of good faith, I will add a third source to doubly confirm the land, sea and air strikes by Israel. Just the title from 17 June (= events before Operation Preferred Edge) should suffice “Israeli air, land and sea assaults on Palestinians continue” – the whole shebang in a nutshell. Once again thank you for your critiques which spur me on to make Wiki a even better vehicle for recording true historical facts about the conflict ... all of them.

I will revert your change and provide the additional source citing.

@Erictheenquirer: If you want to be picky, "incursions" is not the same as "attacks". Trying to cross the border is not "collecting scrap and rubble". Crossing were generally open for goods not intended to be used for attacks on Israel - tens or hundreds of trucks of good passed every day, and continued passing even as Hamas bombed the very crossings they demanded to keep open. Hamas was supposed to "cease all hostile activities" - meanwhile it invested estimated $60M and lives of 160 children into digging attack tunnels across the borders. As you said, the problem is with the scope of this article - if it's about the IDF operation, the scope is relatively clear. Since people belive using the IDF name is too biased, and nobody provided a non-biased name, we have the vague 2014 conflict, which in theory matches anything that happened in 2014 and either of the sides isn't happy about. You don't need my permission to add unbiased, sourced and relevant content to the page, as long as there is consensus. - WarKosign (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Now when I think about it, it would be nice to list all the violation of the ceasefire agreement of both sides. I do not think it belongs in this article, nor in the Operation Pillar of Defence, but somewhere between - either in the conflict time line, or in a separate article. - WarKosign (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

{{re|WarKosign} the statements were are all sourced to citations already present in the article, as Erictheenquirer has outlined. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As WarKosign, Kingsindian and other editors have observed, this page is a mess. It lack's structure and as a result has duplications and reads disjointedly. As Kingsindian and ANOther (?) pointed out, it deserves a background section, but one that does not go back to the Bar Kokhba revolt, but starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire. So as to get this rolling, I will therefore start a new Talk-topic titled "Page Restructuring". Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I am not sure I understand you. I only mentioned that the first paragraph of the lead is a mess, it is much better now than before, though still a mess. There is already a background section. Not sure what you mean. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@KingsIndian:You made a strong point that the Background should start with the November 2012 Ceasefire. I agreed and remember that you based your preference on another editor's earlier suggestion. I am perplexed by the volte face. I believe that going back to 2005 could give rise to a huge scope for debate about balance and bias. But if that's what the majority wants, so be it. I therefore will check the Talk on BackgroundErictheenquirer (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@KingsIndian:As I suspected, the Background section is totally unsatisfactory. A major issue is that the background to "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" consist in 50% of its content matter pertaining to 2014!! That is very poor. I will continue this in the Talk - Background topic. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Background

I have collapsed this to refer to an earlier discussion on the background

(Since people keep removing a whole lot of stuff from the background, I am reposting this from the archives) Kingsindian (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC) I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) No one should be tampering grossly with the lead or background without first addressing the talk page. The lead summarizes the article and yet the second major paragraph has no connect with the background, in fact it contradicts it. By 7 July, 100 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israeli territory, towards Beersheba, Ashdod, Ofakim, Ashkelon, and Netivot, and Israel struck several sites in Gaza.[10][11][12] Overnight, Israel hit 50 targets in the Gaza Strip,[13] and by 8 July, Palestinian militants in Gaza had fired over 140 rockets within 24 hours into Israel, as far north as Hadera, beyond Tel Aviv. Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome, intercepted about 30 of the rockets. Israel also thwarted an infiltration from the sea.[14] Israel commenced the major military response on 8 July. On the same day, Hamas declared that "all Israelis" had become "legitimate targets".[15][16]. The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace. This also, in the background, is POV pushing: however, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said that he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, and congratulated the abductors ('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I don't believe any of your suggestions are related to my edit so all I can say is be bold and fix what you see needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.160 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC) They are all related to your edit. You removed substantial text that had been stable, and then alerted the talk page. One is not supposed to do that. This is supposed to be a (ha!ha!) consensual drafting, not an obiter dictum followed by an executive expunging of text no one till you found problematical.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC) It was by no means stable. The edit went through by a single editor before the ground operation started and we saw increased traffic on the page. It was reported to a noticeboard within 24 hours of the original insertion since it was in obvious violation of copyright. Pardon me for being dense, but I still don't see anything I removed as being at all remotely related to your tl;dr personal blog/attempt to start a debate for the fun of it/diatribe. I'm not engaging in an argument with you. Fix it or don't. Just make sure to not copy and paste a single source in then add unrelated sources throughout in an attempt to make a point. Have you even looked at the dif from the edit or were you too busy trying to convey your own point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC) I expect rational discussion to make analyses, compare them to relevant policy issues, link to relevant noticeboard discussions, etc. You haven't done that here. You made assertions. Document them closely and they will be examined.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Completeness of "Background": Quote: "The operation follows a chain of events that began with the abduction of three Israeli teenagers Naftali Fraenkel (16), Gilad Shaer (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) in the West Bank in June 2014, for which Israel blamed Hamas." Why start there? Why not step back slightly and look at the full picture since the start of the recent tension, because that start was NOT as the article currently states. Here is the sequence as I have gleaned it: http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Reports/Pages/default.aspx 2013: No Israeli fatalities from Gaza during 2013 January 2014: Shabak – 11 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) February 2014: Shabak – 7 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) March 2014: Shabak – 22 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) April 2014: Shabak – 10 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) May 2014: Shabak – 4 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) During early/mid May 2014 twelve Palestinians were wounded by the IDF in a series of events http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10331 Then, on May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed by the IDF and eight civilians wounded during commemorations of Nakba day. On May 20 video evidence became available showing that the youths were posing no threat at the time - http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/palestine-teenagerskilled.html. The USA called for an inquiry. The IDF reported that “live fire” had not been used, a claim refuted by B’Tselem. On May 22, as Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the UN) suggested on CNN that the boys may not be dead, the UN released a report of a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties over recent periods [11]. June 9: The body of one of the teens, Nadim Numara, was exhumed and an autopsy performed which found that a live bullet had killed the boy. “The willful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime” Human Rights Watch -http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/israel-killing-children-apparent-war-crime. A senior Palestinian official called the killings a "deliberate execution" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27488135 On June 12, three days after the official autopsy result, three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped in the West Bank. Is this pure coincidence? The rest of the saga DOES appear in this article. I believe the full lead-up needs to be laid out, and not one of selective memory. Any objection to this being done?Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC) The issue I see with these additions is that there are many reliable sources linking the conflict and the kidnapping. Are there reliable sources that are discussing the timeline as far back as you have in the context of this conflict? If not, it is WP:OR to say they are linked. IF there are, then we get into an issue of WP:WEIGHT regarding what perponderance of reliable sources make that linkage. If such sources exist of sufficient number and reliability making that linkage I have no objection, but if not, any point to start is just as arbitrary as any other. We would end up recounting back to the 60s, or the 1600s just as easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the civil response, Gaijin42. You are correct that there are reliable sources linking the conflict to the kidnapping of the Israeli teenagers. I am pointing out that there was also an earlier event, only days before, not decades before, involving deaths of Palestinian youths, that is also part of the post April flare-up. You ask for sources linking the current period of conflict back to before the kidnapping of the Jewish lads. Sure there is - the whole screed of bellicose events that I listed from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The fact that Hamas or others did not go on a mass revenge operation as Israel did, and hence make copious amounts of news, in no way detracts from the cause-and-effect chain. Regarding proof that the kidnapping of the Israeli youths was related to the deaths of the Palestinian boys, since the perpetrators of those latter kidnappings have not been found, their motivations are equally speculative, yet the article presents these copiously without censure. Why the bias? The most obvious way to reconcile our differences is to support the merger of this Operation as per the "Move Request 1→ 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", something that you have opposed. You seem to support a salami tactic in the current flare-up. You claim that “we could end up going back to the 60’s". I suggest that is a red herring, because the flare-up that started in early-May and continues to this date was clearly preceded by a limiting period of months of relative calm that even the Israeli Security Agency noted. So, unless the facts from a fuller timeline are allowed to be presented, without any POV commentary, in the “Operation” article, I have no option but to support the incorporation of this Article into the broader 2014 conflict. Salami tactics rarely assist an honest evaluation of history. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Proposed section added to "Background" Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC) I do not understand much of the earlier discussion. But I fail to understand Erictheenquirer's edit, and moreover, this whole "Background" section is a mess. I do not exactly see where the "proposed section" was proposed. No doubt there is a lot of background, and I am not unsympathetic to including some of it. The statement "We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard." is spoken on July 8, much after the kidnapping of the teenagers. Why is it in the first paragraph? I fail to see the criteria of inclusion of things in the Erictheenquirer's edit. And there is all kind of incoherency in the whole section. It jumps around chronologically all over the place. And what kind of language is this: "The pro-Israeli version is that..." My head spins just trying to read this Background section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) (removed the above to isolate the thinking behind the current background) Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Background section is a mess. Perhaps this is a consequence of the topic being one which is currently evolving. In fact, I do not see how there can be any real logic to having an intricate Background section in an Article that is essentially an Annual timeline. And as you noted, the timeline is thoroughly messed up. If one were to step back, there seem to be a few fundamental "bits" that contribute to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: 1) The November 2012 Ceasefire: How did in progress in 2014?; 2) What were the lesser violations that did not result in week/month-long conflict; What was the detailed timeline within the continuous conflict that started in early-May; how did the chain-of-events evolve? There is much merit in adding the Israeli 'Operations' into this section rather than to slice them out as events that somehow are unrelated. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If we want to keep a background section, we have to start somewhere as Gaijin42 mentions. I suggest that we start after the 2012 ceasefire. That should be a logical starting point. We can then give some criteria about what to include in the background. The logical things which should be included, seem to me these: we can summarize the violations of either side in a systematic and neutral manner. Right now, it's not clear to me what is the criteria for inclusion of most of the incidents. The killing of the 2 kids near Ofer prison seems notable because of RS mentions, but is it representative in some way? And how is it related to the current airstrikes etc.? The shooting incident, sadly, just seems to me just one in a long series of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. The second thing to mention is the Hamas/Fatah unity deal and Israel's reaction to that. The third thing is the kidnapping of the teenagers and subsequent Israeli activities in the West Bank. The fourth should be Hamas/Israeli actions which triggered the airstrikes. These are the four important things which around which the section should be based. What exactly to mention in each category can be discussed, but there should be some logic to inclusion of various incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you have pretty much got an excellent framework outlined there. Agreed about the start point. So background is Nov 2012 to 31 Dec 2013. Thereafter the ‘relatively’ detailed timeline starts. Regarding what to include, it should preserve a level playing field. I do believe that is imperative to summarise the reason for the start of the June rocket fire from Gaza even if that reason originated outside of Gaza. There is already an article on the kidnapping of the Israeli teens. We can discuss ‘wrinkles’ on Talk as we go along. Many thanks for your positive contribution. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

<------- (Merging a section from below)

This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, and the same pattern continued through June. Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming Hamas leaders denied any involvement. and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, . among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership.

The BBC reporter has now revealed that the Israeli authorities do not believe Hamas was behind the kidnapping, though blaming Hamas was a crucial element in the leadup to the war.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing references

The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian & @Nishidani The new background although has the benefit of being short, has some major problems which should be modified:

• POV problem arises from the SHABAK source which is used here to show how the situation had been quiet after 2000! in this regard, the editor has mentioned " rocket attacks from Gaza" as a criteria to prove the claim which is an obvious POV.
• The readers need to know how the Hamas-Fatah negotiation could be regarded as a factor for moving toward the conflict. Hence, we should present the reactions to these talks. The new version only has one sentence in this regard which might be disputable without other completing sentences.
• The part talking about the chain of the events right before the conflict is very brief, we'd better have some of the former materials for this part. Even we might have a time line table for showing the major effective incidents from the peace period up to the conflict.
• The citations are really used in an awkward manner.

In whole, I believe that this version plus this analysis makes a better background considering the current one. Moreover, The peace periods after the 2012 cease fire can be mentioned using WP:RS without mentioning any data or report from the sides-related sources. The new edition needs to have all of the parts in a rational order. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein. I rewrote one part of the background because it was written in bad English, had excessive incidental details, and irrelevancies (Michael Oren) etc. What appears to have happened is that the part I copyedited, with an adjustment, has been used to replace the whole background, which is what this version you prefer retains. I have no problem in restoring all of the matter in that version, preferably keeping the changes I made in my copyedit. This has a long history, as one of my edits from that Guardian article showed before it was removed, and as

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014

and *Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' 972 Magazine July 15, 2014

J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza"

show. The background should, as before, start with the Guardian analysis, use sources like Zahriyeh and Landau to show the firing patterns, the November 2012 ceasefire and its violations, then deal with the second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Netanyahu's vehement opposition. The section I rewrote is essentially the short term, immediate background to the event, dealing with the attempt to blame Hamas for the kidnappings. I suggest therefore that you ignore the section I proposed and be adopted, and rewrite or repaste for comment nd eventual inclusion here your preferred version of the 'older background'.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein & @Nishidani & Erictheenquirer My apologies, I misunderstood the part which had to be replaced, and drastically changed the background section. I am fine with including the Guardian view etc. Kingsindian (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani That's a good Idea, I'll take care of that and paste my proposed version here. By the way, I think the first paragraph in the current version contains OR and hence should be reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for apologies. It is difficult enough handling the flurry of changes, let alone trying to read and think through RD. We now have

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014
• Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' 972 Magazine July 15, 2014
• J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza" Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As to OR, just cite the sentence(s) here. If no one can back the content up with a ref to both the operation and its background where that content is mentioned, we will drop it immediately. All this can be done rapidly by simply addressing everything, issue by issue, here. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Mhhossein: Just FYI, I had already added JJ Goldberg's Forward's piece as a source for the sentence that Israel knew about the deaths of the teenagers almost from the beginning, when I put in Nishidani's ce. So it is already present in the article. Perhaps more stuff from there can be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: This is just an example; this sentence: The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014, is an obvious OR, the source has presented only the data, the editor is analyzing the data! whole paragraph should be replaced by a correct and suitable one. I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it out then, but since several of the sources we have speak of 2013 being a period when Hamas rocket activity, and rocket firing from Gaza was at an all-time low, just substitute it, when you do your general edit, with one or two of those sources mentioning that fact as they discuss the present war. WP:OR is avoided by simply finding a source which connects the data on the rocket lull prior to the war underway.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: My proposed background is ready and available here. It contains 2005 withdrawal, violation of peace 2008-2012, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation and immediate events as was discussed before. Please make comments on this essay. The background will be replaced by the proposed one. We even have the option of making a daughter article as "Background of 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict". Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: A general comment. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the background should more or less start with 2012 ceasefire, with some major things from earlier periods included from before. Specific comments: 1. I am fine with including the Guardian view that the roots are in the 2005 withdrawal 2. I am skeptical of including all the ceasefire violations etc. going back to 2008 in detail. One can mention that there were two prior ceasefire agreements in 2008 and 2012, but to have sections for them seems not correct to me. 3. The 2008 and 2012 wars/massacres already have articles for them. And they have their own summary of the ceasefire violations prior to the wars. The sections for the 2008 and 2012 wars are quite far from the sections in the articles for those wars/massacres and will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV. 4. I do not see any references for the 2008 violation and for the 2012 violations, there is only one reference to Israeli violations. Again, this will be seen as violating NPOV. 5. The last two sections are more or less ok. However the statement by Moti Almoz was uttered on July 8, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. It belongs in the last section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks for your review and your useful comments. Truce violation sections, as you said may be summarized while keeping the major points (what are these points from your viewpoint?). Do you have any Idea for mentioning the trend of cease-fires? please include it at the very bottom of this page. I tried to use WP:RS for writing these sections and have mentioned each side's justification for violations to maintain NPOV. However, I'll search for more sources dealing with violations. By the way, I'm in agreement with moving statement by Moti Almoz to its suitable section. Mhhossein (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think it is ridiculous to use the Guardian piece as it is editorial and does not offer substantial evidence for its claims, which run counter to prevailing wisdom. It is unworthy of its current prominent place in the article, which is the first non-intro section. Thetwentieth (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth and -sche: Can you explain what exactly runs counter to prevailing wisdom in the stuff mentioned from the Guardian piece? Why do you think it should not be included? Kingsindian (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The prevailing wisdom is that the Gaza withdrawal was part of unilateral plan by Sharon to end the occupation. This view is reinforced by the fact that he staked his career on a followup disengagement plan from the West Bank which was to involve substantial dismantling of settlements. There are perhaps any number of ways to interpret Sharon's actions, but what that guardian article offers is pure speculation and editorial perspective. Edit: The guardian article is essentially the opinion of its author. The paragraph that sche removed was holistically poorly written, as it was of limited relevance and involved an "appeal to authority" fallacy of quoting the guardian author's opinion to advance an opinionated narrative of events within the text itself. Thetwentieth (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A source from 2005 can tell us nothing about this war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• As the IP who posted #Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2014 noted, the Guardian piece which was cited dates to 2005, and so cannot support the conclusion that [the Guardian's view is that] the root of current conflict lies in 2005. (Also, @Thetwentieth, note that I'm not the one who removed the section, that was TheTimesAreAChanging; I merely commented that I thought it was the right move.) Furthermore, every move by either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally asserted to be a response to some previous move by the other side, so the most practical course of action seems to be to limit this article to only the immediate background and leave the rest to be documented by the main article on the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]] (which is appropriately prominently linked-to from the top of the ==Background== section). -sche (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• @-sche: You are mistaken about the date of the Guardian piece. The piece cited is this, which was published on 25 July 2014. I think the confusion comes from the fact that an Independent piece from 2005 was cited to establish that Israel continued to control the borders/sea etc.
• You are of course correct that each side asserts that the response is a move by some other side. Most of the background section deals with post 2012 period. The Guardian piece was only quoted to establish the context of the 2005 withdrawal, and the split between Hamas and Fatah in 2007. Every analyst agrees that these are very important events which form the basis of the conflict today. I think one short paragraph outlining this should not be undue weight. Kingsindian (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a section mentioning the 2005 withdrawal and subsequent major events would be valuable here. But the guardian article is not a valuable source and was being used improperly. Better to start from scratch with that section. Thetwentieth (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: You are confusing public boilerplate statements of facts with actual policy. Here is Dov Weissglass, Ariel Sharon's chief of staff on the withdrawal. You can read it on the wikipedia page as well:

The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process.... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Disengagement supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.

The occupation never ended. And all the international community, the EU, the US, the UN, the Red Cross, all consider Gaza to be occupied. Here is one source, but can be multiplied easily. Also, there is no evidence that West Bank settlement were to be dismantled, in fact West Bank settlement expanded after the Gaza withdrawal. Kingsindian (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You essentially cherry picked the most damning part of that article, (which admittedly is certainly more substantive than the guardian article). Elsewhere in that article, you can see that the disengagement was widely hailed by international figures as a courageous step in the direction of peace. (There was an element certainly of sharon seeking to conclude the peace process on his terms, but discussion of his motivations should be carried out with reference to well sourced material). While Gaza has legally been considered occupied do to the israeli control of its waters etc, much of the indignation concerns the closing of borders to trade/blockade. However, the Rafah crossing was actually open for many months after the withdrawal (until the shalit kidnapping) with the acquiescence of Israel. Hence the blockade is much better seen as a response to circumstance than israel's plan all along. Also, you are wrong about the West Bank settlements. Sharon founded the Kadima party to contest the 2006 elections essentially in order to push thru West Bank disengagement and was expected to win an unprecedented victory until he was felled by a stroke. The fact that settlements increased in recent years has nothing to do with the intent of the PM w.r.t. the gaza disengagement. Thetwentieth (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: You and I are just handles on wikipedia. Our opinion carries little weight in itself. Again, you make the mistake of taking at face value the pronouncements of leaders as though they determine policy. Sharon's public pronouncements are not important. What is important is what happenned and what was planned. Pretty much every scholar understands that the role of the 2005 withdrawal was not to end the occupation but to freeze the peace process. Is is even a question, looking back now, 8-9 years, that the peace process was frozen? I of course "selectively" quoted Dov Weissglass (hardly arbitrarily, he was the Sharon's eminence grise) and did not quote the boilerplate public statements by EU/US etc. which are meaningless for policy. As to settlements, they are not mentioned in the parts quoted from the Guardian, so it is not important here for our purposes. Kingsindian (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Most of the content of the my above paragraph are facts, not my own opinions and can be easily sourced. You ask "Is is even a question, looking back now, 8-9 years, that the peace process was frozen?" Just because the peace process has stalled does not mean this was the intent of the gaza withdrawal. Things might very well have gone differently if Sharon had not been incapacitated. As I say, the West Bank withdrawal issue was THE MAJOR issue of the Israeli 2006 election discourse and the reason for the founding of Kadima. Would Sharon have split his party from its right wing in a convoluted cynical ploy to destroy the peace process? The quote from his aide is one circumstantial data point but not the whole story. I do not believe that you have the sourcing to support your assertion of a scholarly consensus that Israel was seeking to undermine the peace process, but by all means please produce them. Also I was not taking the official statements as a substitute for policy, but merely as a gross readout of the sentiment the withdrawal elicited, but that is neither here nor there.Thetwentieth (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: It is easy to provide sources. Here are two, in the New York Review of Books even before the disengagement here(he again quotes Weissglass, among others) and London Review of Books by Sara Roy, the leading academic specialist on the economy of Gaza here. Here is a quote from the latter: "Whatever else it claims to be, the Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument for Israel’s continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical integration of that land into Israel". Perhaps you can start with some of your own sources now. The fact that the 2005 disengagement was a major issue in Israeli elections in 2005 is not important. There is a very broad consensus in Israel for continuation of occupation and keeping settlements. This is why it has endured for 47 years. You again mistake theatrics for the reality. Kingsindian (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The NYRB article's opinion rather hinges on the notion that Israel would not disengage with the W. Bank and was trying to create 3 "Bantustan" cantons, which was invalidated by Sharon's later move towards disengagement. c.f. "Apparently Weissglas was concerned that there might be Israelis who, even after his interview, may still believe that the disengagement from Gaza and a few West Bank settlements proposed by Sharon might lead to further disengagements in the West Bank". In this context, we can see that he is putting undue stress on the Weissglass quote, who could easily have been pandering to his base etc. Haven't gotten a chance to look thru ur second source yet, will do so later. What claims would you like sourced from above? Thetwentieth (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: As for your second source, you quoted the most relevant section. She states that Israel is intent on annexing west bank land and backs this up by quoting an israeli govt report which refers primarily to keeping the major settlement blocs on the israeli side of the separation barrier, which are still expected to mostly be in israel in a final settlement. Her reading of this as a broader endorsement of annexation is again further belied by Sharon's later plan to withdraw from almost all settlements beyond the W. Bank barrier. What you have cited are opinion pieces which do not provide strong evidence on this issue, let alone evidence of academic consensus. Sharon's W. Bank disengagement plan and the upheaval it caused in israeli politics are facts, not opinion, and powerful counterevidence to such highly uncharitable readings of the Gaza withdrawal imo.Thetwentieth (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: I am afraid that assertions by handles on Wikipedia that Sharon planned to do this, he planned to do that, carry little weight. I have given, by my last count, 4 sources to demonstrate the validity of the Guardian editorial's points that the 2005 withdrawal was intended to keep Gaza controlled and blockaded, while expanding settlements in the West Bank and freezing the peace process. I see nothing except assertions disputing this. Kingsindian (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Sharon's plan for west bank disengagement and founding of Kadima is a basic fact of israeli politics during that period and i was not sure you were disputing it. You can find some sources in the second paragraph here: [12] and further evidence at [13] although that article is admittedly not as detailed as it should be. I can find plenty more sources where those came from. Thetwentieth (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: Perhaps it is useful to point out why you think I am disputing something which I am not disputing. There is no logical contradiction between expanding settlements in the West Bank (the area one wants to keep) and withdrawing from the rest of the West Bank. And note the "unilateral" part in both the disengagement of Gaza and the (hypothetical) disengagement of the West Bank. This is the same point being made that the "peace process" is frozen. By definition, if you do something unilaterally, you do not negotiate with the other. Kingsindian (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:If you don't specify what it is you want a source for, you may not get the exact source you want. At any rate what I cited is relevant because doubt over whether Sharon would ever do a west bank withdrawal was a key facet of those sources you cited, and Sharons west bank disengagement is strong prima facie evidence against those sources and the Guardian's argument. The west bank withdrawal was not to be mutually exclusive with a negotiated settlement. Would Sharon frontload the most painful concessions required for a peace agreement (ie the dismantling of settlement blocs beyond the barrier) in an effort to stop a peace agreement to stop such an agreement from ever happening? If this was such a brilliant ploy why wasn't Israel's right wing in on the plan?Thetwentieth (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: Recall the issue we are discussing. It is the Guardian editorial. The paragraph makes the following 3 points:

1. Sharon in withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 envisaged that Gaza would be controlled and surrounded. You do not dispute this, because this is true and this is what happenned. This is what the NYRB and LRB sources say.
2. That disengagement from Gaza would freeze the peace process, or at least get concessions on the West Bank. This is what happenned. Both the NYRB and the LRB sources say this, as does the quote from Dov Weissglass. Both your sources talk about unilateral annexation of (at least) the territory behind the wall, while withdrawing from the rest. Well, that is already 10% of the West Bank. And notice the "unilateral". This means no negotiation, and no "peace process". This means that Israel will annex (at least) 10% of the West Bank unilaterally. Giving up 90% of somebody else's land is not "generous". And notice this is the "best case". If everything went to plan, and Sharon had not been incapacitated from a stroke (comes in the "oh if only Kennedy had lived!" category) etc.
3. The last point it makes is that Hamas won the 2006 elections and the 2006-7 conflict and Hamas takeover of the Gaza set the stage for the current conflict. This, again is true.

Can you tell me what exactly is it that you dispute? Kingsindian (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I dispute your interpretation on all counts. 1.It was not envisaged that Gaza would be "controlled and surrounded". The withdrawal included a multilateral agreement to open the Rafah crossing under EU supervision (see [14]) and plans for a port. Israel only forced the abandonment of these initiatives following attacks from Gaza and Hamas's election and takeover. Note that "controlled and surrounded" are not well-defined terms in this context btw. 2. Again "freeze the peace process" is not well-defined. Withdrawal of settlements is clearly a part of the peace process, and would make any final status agreement easier. It is true that the disengagement plan was intended to consolidate control over several percent of the west bank, but most of these are expected to remain in israel under any final status deal even today, and Sharon and olmert entertained compensatory landswaps in a final agreement. To say that the point of the gaza withdrawal was about consolidating on the "west bank"--unqualified--is clearly glib and misleading in light of plans for a substantial withdrawal there. I maintain that the NYRB and the LRB sources are editorial wrt the points you cited them on and deeply contradicted by more concrete facts in the year or so following their publication. The notion that Sharon was likely to pursue west bank disengagement can be much better documented than Kennedy planning to disengage from Vietnam (if he even was so planning). Furthermore it was pursued by Olmert. 3. The Hamas election win was tied to e.g. corruption in Fatah and Hamas's perceived role in bringing about the Israeli withdrawal. Hamas's election win was not a response to the blockade considering it predated it and the Rafah crossing was operating at that point.Thetwentieth (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I found this article very good on the background. This is by a mainstream political scientist in the "realist" school. Kingsindian (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why "first Hamas-Fatah reconciliation" section is removed, while you are just discussing the "2005 withdrawal". The lay out of the "Background" was set according to our previous consensus which should be respected by the editors. Mhhossein (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree I can't see any discussion relating to the removal. Dlv999 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How can that be, Dlv? -sche, Shrike, Thetwentieth, IP 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE, and myself have all gone on the record challenging the use of these editorials, and the removal of the text was initially stable. Naturally, when Mhhossein and you return days later to cite an older discussion for consensus, your claim strikes me as rather weak.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of the second part of Mhhossein's edit, because it was not alluded to in his usual boilerplate edit summary and I did not bother to check.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A comment here about the removal of the Guardian text. The removal of the text was certainly not "stable". The text was removed, first by User:Cptnono, reverted by me, pointing to the talk page, and then by TheTimesAreAChanging within 24 hours. I could not revert it again due to ARBPIA sanctions, and there was a mass of other stuff I had to revert later. Neither User:Cptnono, nor User:TheTimesAreAChanging have participated in the above discussion as to why it should be removed. I would be happy if they would. Kingsindian (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, I don't see any consensus in removal of the Guardian text. The only thing was to modify this section, as I see. So, this and other sections (first reconciliation) should be restored, then we should discuss how this section (2005 withdrawal) should be, if there is any opposing opinion. Of course editions for improving the article is admirable and you may search for WP:RS related to this issue. In fact we should not act solely based on our own decision in such hot topics. More reversions may rise the risk of war editing and hence should be avoided until next consensus on the topic. Thanks every body! Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should restore the text, since it was editorial and citing an editorial source. We should report facts first, opinion and analysis from respected sources later. I think the Gaza withdrawal is a reasonable first event to include in the background. Other reasonable things to include are certainly the nature of Gaza's occupation status, the multilateral agreement over the Rafah crossing, the problems with implementing that agreement, hamas's election, hamas/gaza conflict, hamas clashes with israel, etc.Thetwentieth (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Text inappropriate to "Background" - incorporate in main section:

• 2012-13: “… and 85 in the first five months of 2014.[67] Most of the 85 rockets were fired in March, after the IDF killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad who were attempting to fire rockets.” – does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text; incorporate on a sub-section “January to June 2014” (i.e. prior to the conflict explosion)?
• “Second Hamas–Fatah reconciliation” – Entirely focussed on 2014 = does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text (see above).
• “Immediate events” ” – Entirely focussed on 2014 = does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text (see above) Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Alan Johnson's blog

I am afraid that the following might sound a bit bitter, but my "faith in humanity" has been shaken. None of the people who are complaining about "Guardian editorial", we should stick to facts (even though nobody disputes the facts, excepth User:Thetwentieth, who I have tried to argue with) etc. are complaining about the irrelevant passage from some person's blog (the fact that it is on a newspaper's site does not make any difference) making tangential (at best) statements. One person, User:TheTimesAreAChanging, even helpfully elaborated from the blog post. Am I to believe that this is a serious discussion? I have already listed the 3 points made in the Guardian editorial above. The statements made by Johnson do not even talk about the points made but someone has mindlessly put in a "contrary view" with no regard for weight or logic. The first statement is very dubious, it regurgitates Israel's view "blockade was necessary because of rocket fire" without even looking at the chronology, easily available in the lead for Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip article (the financial sanctions were first put after 2006 elections, blockade after 2007 Hamas coup). The second statement is from 2014, which has nothing whatsoever to do with 2005 or 2007. Kingsindian (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@user:Kingsindian Agree, although I myself might be one of those who are not complaining about the irrelevant passage from some person's blog. But FYI, some days ago I opened a discussion about this issue here. You might like to follow this discussion. As it seems they were not opposing this blog (although I think it should not be here).Mhhossein (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is dishonest. I deleted Johnson, but Mhhossein restored the text. Because Johnson was being deliberately misrepresented to set up a strawman to be torn down by editors such as yourself, I thought honestly presenting his arguments was necessary, particularly given the ridiculously undue weight given the Guardian editorial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I once again call for deleting references to both sources and restarting with a paragraph on the withdrawal that reports "just the facts". Thetwentieth (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I am happy to WP:AGF if someone bothers to discuss stuff instead of acting like this. Nobody "set up a strawman" to be torn down. The blog post was added by another user entirely (and the motivation for adding it was exactly as I described). I did not accuse you of adding the blog post, I said you elaborated on it. From what I gather, you first deleted the whole section, which included both the Guardian and the blog post. User:I.am.a.qwerty deleted the 2011 Fatah-Hamas reconciliation section and User:Mhhossein restored it all, which you reverted, which you say you did not know included the 2011 reconciliation section (I am fine with your explanation). Now, none of you have bothered to discuss the editorial or the facts, except asserting that it is POV. To balance it somehow, some other material was inserted. This is not the way to proceed. You address the arguments made, instead of adding stuff critical of one side to balance out stuff critical of the other side, regardless of weight or logic. The 3 points made in the Guardian editorial are listed in my last reply to User:Thetwentieth. If anyone wants to dispute the points made, please do it. Kingsindian (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thetwentieth: I am afraid this is terribly unfair. "Pox on both houses" is not the way to proceed. The two parts (the Guardian editorial and the blog post) are miles apart in weight, notability, logic and closeness to reality. They should not be linked at all. The Telegraph blog post should be removed, and someone should address the points made in the Guardian editorial. If they are one-sided points, then those points should be elaborated. Instead of this kind of stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I feel that you are insisting on inserting editorial perspective/POV into the article before there is even content recounting basic facts. Note that I have disputed your "facts" above and feel that they are interpretive/editorial in nature. It should not take me writing 1,000 word essays on the talk page just to get a POV section amended.

@Kingsindian: It is bemusing to me that you find the guardian editorial to be "weighty" as it is purely editorial and offers little if any concrete facts. Concrete facts are what should be on the wiki entry--not a reprocessing of a Guardian reprocessing of the facts--not to mention that these were highly dubious reprocessings.Thetwentieth (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Notifying User:Erictheenquirer and User:Nishidani one of whom added the Guardian section (I forgot who). Kingsindian (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't have the energy to fight this more, I have tried to write a "just the facts" section diff. I have not added references, but can easily do so if anyone wants. Kingsindian (talk)` — Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thank you. This is/will lead to much more suitable section. Thetwentieth (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Good. Find sources for it, then it qualifies to stay here. Mhhossein (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gazan tunnels

The editor tries to make a connection between the background and this section by writing "An additional factor in the conflict is the use of tunnels by Hamas and other Gazan militias. Various groups in Gaza have built a number of tunnels reaching into Egyptian and Israeli territory," a sentence which is referred to no WP:RS. Which of the sources has mentioned the tunnels as factor for igniting the flames war? If there is no source claiming that, which I think is the case here, the editor's WP:OR, at best, move the paragraph to another section. Mhhossein (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@user:Kingsindian I moved this section out of the background, but still I can't find any motivations for this section to stay in the article. In fact I can't find any relationships between this section and the article. Am I right? Mhhossein (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think there are many WP:RS which report Israel's statements that they carried out the ground invasion to destroy the tunnels, cited in the part and so on. There should be a section on the tunnels in this article. How long and what to include can be discussed. Things to mention include things like these tunnels are not new, Israel has known about them for years and that there are both offensive tunnels leading into Israel and defensive tunnels which lie inside Gaza itself to serve as deterrence. A good way to know what to take and what to leave in this section is to look at the leads for the two articles Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip and Gaza_Strip_smuggling_tunnels and base the section on those, instead of arbitrary parts, the basis of whose selection is not clear. Kingsindian (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks for clarification. However, as you said, there are other factors, such as economical ones, to be considered besides military usages. Using the lead section of those mentioned articles was a good solution. The sections in its current state is not neutral, I think. Mhhossein (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike and Mhhossein: What is the relevance of the use of child labour in tunnels? Are we going to include Hamas attitudes to women and alcohol next? This article is not about Hamas domestic policies, but the Israel-Gaza conflict. Kingsindian (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The section discuss the tunnels hence the relevance of child labor building those tunnels.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: That seems very insufficient to me. How are Hamas' domestic policies relevant to the conflict? If child labour was not used, how would it matter? WP:UNDUE for me. Kingsindian (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed widely by the media in connection with the tunnels hence the relevance its not mere domectic policy but concern about 160 children dead as the result --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: There is plenty of criticism of Hamas domestic policies in the media. I am not challenging WP:RS. The issue is: how is it related to the current conflict? Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:RS make the connection they discuss it by mentioning the operation -- Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user:Kingsindian when he says the article is about a Conflict not such irrelevant issues! Is there really WP:RS making connections between child labor and the current conflict? Mhhossein (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes read the sources the conflict is specifically mentioned.The issue was surfaced because of the conflict and discovery of attack tunnels--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence about child labor, while relevant to an article on the tunnels themselves, is not relevant to an article like this which concerns the conflict. In my opinion, everything from "The tunnels were built with pre-stressed..." straight through "...million to construct the tunnel network" (as of the current revision) is not important or relevant enough to mention here and should be moved to the article on the Gazan tunnels. I'm also unconvinced of the relevance of the sentence "According to the Independent [...] between Iran and Iraq". This article is getting quite bloated. -sche (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche, Mhhossein, Shrike, and I.am.a.qwerty:

• It is not clear to me what the logic of this whole section is, and what is being included. The article is about the conflict. The whole section about "construction" to almost totally irrelevant. And as noted, there are already articles on tunnel warfare and smuggling tunnels. They need to be summarized here, and not peripheral things which have no relevance.
• Regarding Shrike's source about child labour in tunnels, it adds nothing at all, except sympathy (I somehow doubt the sincerity of the author, but not relevant here) to the children building the tunnels. There is no connection at all shown with the conflict, except for PR purposes. I have removed the line again. But as I said already, the whole section needs to be rewritten, with a focus on the conflict, not obscure details about tunnels. Kingsindian (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  The entire "construction" section should be moved to the Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip and Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels articles. It is not relevant to this article. It is like including, in the article on John Kerry, information on how the US State Department came to be established and how it derives from Department of Foreign Affairs, etc. -sche (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche, Kingsindian, and Shrike: lets firstly decide if we should have such a section and then if the former answer is yes we should decide how the section should be. I believe that the matter of tunnels relevant to this article are mentioned through out the article. But, what is gathered here is not in accordance with the aim of the article being an article dealing with conflict. If there's consensus of having such a section, every irrelevant sentence must be removed. @-sche: Agree The entire "construction" section should be moved elsewhere. It is not really suitable here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Text inappropriate to "Background" - incorporate in main section

• 2012-13: “… and 85 in the first five months of 2014.[67] Most of the 85 rockets were fired in March, after the IDF killed 3 members of Islamic Jihad who were attempting to fire rockets.” – does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text; incorporate on a sub-section “January to June 2014” (i.e. prior to the conflict explosion)?
• “Second Hamas–Fatah reconciliation” – Entirely focussed on 2014 = does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text.
• “Immediate events” ” – Entirely focussed on 2014 = does not belong in a background to 2014; move to main text.

I realise there has been discussion on this but it seemed to go nowhere, and we are left with a crippled Page concerning a mega-2014 event. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Background" (and page structure) failures

This "Background" section remains totally unsatisfactory. Remembering that it is meant to be a Background to "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict", its major and critical failing is that 50% of the content refers to 2014. This demands major revision. In fact the entire Page is clumsy because the structure is woefully poor. There are dozens of repetitions, backtrackings, and incomplete timeline sequences. In fact it reads like a clumsy attempt to be a Page titled "Operation Preferred Edge". This is yet another reason to address the whole structure and to edit this mess into shape. Expect a "structure" proposal soon. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer:

• Regarding the background which we discussed earlier, I mentioned four things in the outline of the background section earlier: 2012 ceasefire and its violations, unity govt formation, the kidnapping of the three teenagers and finally the Israeli crackdown/Hamas reaction. As you can see, three out of the four parts deal with 2014, so it is not unnatural that most of the background section deals with events in 2014.
• I had some more discussions afterwards (you can see the whole discussion in the background section), where we found it useful to briefly mention the background setting -- namely the Fatah-Hamas conflict and the blockade. If you notice, the first part summarizes these issues in a very short section. The 2011 Fatah-Hamas reconcialiation is more or less mentioned only because of the similar reaction by Israel to a previous reconciliation as in 2014.
• It is quite possible that there is undue weight given to different parts. These can of course be discussed. Kingsindian (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:

• Your bullet 1: That discussion took place when the Page was still entitled "Operation Preferred Edge". Now that it has been merged into the broader context of "2014 Israeli-Gaza Conflict" it is no longer pertinent to "Background". So some of those items mentioned by you - "Unity Government formation, the kidnapping of the three teenagers, and finally the Israeli crackdown/Hamas reaction" - are relicts from the past, and as such do not belong in the background to 2014, but in its main text. They should therefore be removed or transferred.
• Your bullet 2: Understood, but I question whether a sub-heading and 4 lines of text are warranted on such a marginal topic. I suspect not since it contributes little to understanding 2014 - my POV, I agree. Do you find it to be critical background to 2014, warranting a sub-heading?
• Your bullet 3: I will do so in the "Background" Talk topic, because I still have problems regarding it being an effective background to a 2014 article. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer:

• As far as I understand it, the page is still about "Operation Protective Edge". The move of the page was due to a confusion. Some people objected about the name of the conflict following the IDF name, and without consensus, it was moved to an overly broad name. It was not moved back because to move it back again would be too disruptive.
• I think the Fatah-Hamas conflict and the blockade are fundamental to the background. A short section discussing these is essential, in my opinion. Kingsindian (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yr bullet 1: Sorry, I cannot accept that reasoning. The article is clearly about 2014; that is unshakeable. Using justifications such as "due to a confusion", "overly broad name", and "too disruptive" are not going to help a new reader in 6 months time to understand the unhelpful structure and illogical content of the Page. I am a firm supporter of having a full picture available so as to prevent overt 'cherry-picking' and pretence that certain critical events (involving humungous numbers of fatalities') just started out of the blue on one particular day. It also prevents a page such as "Operation Protective Edge" from having a hugely bloated "Background" section in an attempt to provide context and fairness to all parties.
• Yr bullet 2: I accept your preference. But that does not mean that everything pertaining to the blockade should be in "Background". The Blockade issues pertinent to the 2014 conflict and occurring during 2014 belong in the Main text.
• Should you wish to have a Page titled "Operation Preferred Edge", then I do not have a problem with that. Much of the detail of that campaign which appears in the "2014 Conflict" page can be transferred, and summarised on the "2014 Conflict" page. It will also allow the "Background" section of a potential "Operation Preferred Edge" page to refer elegantly to "2014 Conflict" as the main source. But I am not volunteering to rewrite a new article :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - the penultimate "2014 Conflict" should read "Operation Preferred Edge". Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why a fairly reasonable lead was fucked up. Probably edit wars and too much tweaking. The first para is a complete mess. References have been dropped, useful links erased, and the passage is written in poor English. Just a minimal CE would rewrite it thus:

::I preferred the older version. The first para here is an absolute copyediting mess, which should read:

In 2005 Ariel Sharon implemented a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. The following year, Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections. The outcome disconcerted Israel, the United States and the European Quartet, and they demanded Hamas accept all previous agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and when Hamas refused, cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. In mid-2006 an Israeli soldier was captured by Hamas in a cross-border raid. The United States, in response to Fatah moves in October 2006 to form a unity government with Hamas, tried to undo the elections by arming Fatah to overthrow Hamas in Gaza: Hamas mounted a counter coup and wrested complete power. Israel then defined the area as an "hostile territory" forming no part of a sovereign state and put Gaza under a comprehensive economic and political blockade, which also denied access to a third of its arable land and 85% of its fishing areas, a move deemed by the UN to constitute collective punishment in violation of international law.

(above comment by Nishidani)

@Nishidani: Even though the above is completely true, good luck getting this stable in the background. The Guardian editorial addition was mercilessly attacked. See the background section and my discussions there. Kingsindian (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

All I did was take the existing text, restore the links, correct the prose, add references, and add a clarification or two. I think, in review, it missed an Israeli statement of the purpose of blockade which seemed WP:OR (the reasons are larger). I have reintroduced a statement to that effect per NPOV, and given a source, modifying it per source. It is essentially what is there on the page now, corrected, tweaked and slightly expanded.

@Nishidani: Ok, I have bunged it in, with some minor wikilinking. Also added Sara Roy's piece as reference on the economic problems caused by the blockade. Kingsindian (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: When I said it was not moved back because of too much disruption, I did not mean the name of the page is destined to be 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict permanently. As you cane see from the top of the talk page, some administrator put a moratorium on moving the page for three months. It will be evaluated again after that time. Almost all of the page is about Operation Protective Edge, not 2014 in general. I believe (this is of course my opinion), that after the three months it will most probably be moved to some version of the original title, perhaps replacing the official IDF name with something like 2014 Gaza war, like the Gaza War (2008-09) article. Kingsindian (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I can see no point in the objections raised. The Background just needs more work, not more gutting, as has occurred in every section save the boring 'responses' and the inadequate impact sections.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:An interesting insight and prediction, given that I am such a newbie. However, I am still puzzled. On 25 July you responded to me: "If we want to keep a background section, we have to start somewhere as Gaijin42 mentions. I suggest that we start after the 2012 ceasefire. That should be a logical starting point". I still agree .... very strongly. You confirmed your view on 30 July to Mhhossein. Given that I would be sincerely interested to hear what you think of the following structure for a revamped Background:

• November 2012 Gaza Ceasefire and the agreed responsibilities for each party
• Israeli and Palestinian violations of the ceasefire in December 2012
• Annual summary of 2013 Israeli and Palestinian and Palestinian attacks involving Gaza
• Annual summary of deaths and injuries by both parties
• 2013 non-military ceasefire violations by Palestinians
• 2013 non-military violations of the ceasefire by the Israelis
• New 2013 developments against the spirit of the 2012 ceasefire agreement
• Annual summary of deaths and injuries by both parties

All strength and may the field remain level Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Plz excuse blatant duplication by the last point, and mentally remove it :-) [[User:Erictheenquirer|Erictheenquirer[[ (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: The topics are fine as they go, but what about the other 3 things I mentioned earlier? The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, the kidnapping of three teenagers and the West Bank crackdown and finally the attack on Gaza with resultant Hamas rocket fire? That should be included in the background, like it is now. Currently, the 2012-2013 tries to cover the ceasefire violations, though it can be expanded for sure. It does not include summary of deaths/injuries, that can perhaps be added. Kingsindian (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One cannot write a background section without RS at hand which name the salient points to be outlined. To make a list without reference to such an RS is to risk violating WP:OR. We have several such sources so far. The list above does not appear to come from a relevant reliable source analysing the background to this war.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

2011 Fatah-Hamas reconciliation

@-sche: Regarding your concerns about WP:SYNTH in the section, the stuff all comes from the 972mag article cited in the section, which bases itself on two articles. One is this about the opposition to the unity govt, and the other is in Hebrew by Alex Fishman about the strike being a "premeditated escalation" here. Kingsindian (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that information. I had mostly figured that out myself by my next edit, and so reworded the article to follow the source in attributing the "escalation" theory specifically to Fishman. -sche (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not "The Foreign Press Association of Israel (FPA)" but "The Foreign Press Association (FPA)"

In the section regarding attack on journalist someone changed the name of Foreign Press Association into The Foreign Press Association of Israel, an organization which does not exist. The Foreign Press Association [[15]] is a professional journalist association established in 1918. It has branch in Israel called Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestinian Territories.--Tritomex (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR

This page is under strict 1RR . As Wikipedia envision sanctions regarding violations of 1rr policy, respecting this rule is an imperative for all of us.--Tritomex (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)