Talk:2006 Gaza–Israel conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

John Dugard under UN

Removed due to wheasel words.

Although I am without doubt on the side of the Palestinians here, I fail to see the similarities between a 3,000-man rescue operation and a genocide of more than 6 million people. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both - I disagree is the "jews" because although Israel is a Jewish state, I believe it runs deeper than a religion - in other words, Anti-Semiticism is not cool. However, I can see the similarities in terms of Hitler agression with that of the Isreal aggression. Also, if you read the laws of Israel, I think they are pretty racist to me - reminds me of Jim Crow here in the United States.

User:65.93.203.219 has been blocked for antisemitic diatribes (elsewhere, too). El_C 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

-->

Hamas broke ceasefire due to gaza beach shelling

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/16/wmid16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/16/ixnews.html

to quote : "Last Friday's beach carnage prompted Hamas to end its 16-month-long ceasefire as its militants fired salvos of rockets into Israel over the weekend, prompting immediate and bloody retaliation."

Eliyahu Asheri

Would you include the kidnapping of Itamar settler Eliyahu Asheri in this? They were kidnapped near Ramallah on Sunday night and being held also as a bargaining chip. However from what I read they are not garunteed to be alive. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was also reportedly another today, which should also be included somehow. Rangeley 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to expand then with info I get regarding him and the situation. I see the name spelled in some sources as Eliahu Asheri, the teen is 18, he is being held by the PRC and his identity card has been shows as proof they have him. [1] Regarding the 3rd the source says:

"As the search for Asheri continued, Palestinian militants linked to President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party claimed that they had seized a third Israeli hostage, a 62-year-old man from the city of Rishon Lezion, according to the AP news agency. The Fatah statement says that the man was kidnapped on Monday and more evidence would be released later. It is signed by Abu Fouad, spokesman for the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Gaza. Police are treating it as a missing person case."

I will update with other information I get. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Egypt has beefed up security to prevent the transfer of the prisoner out of Gaza into Egypt and to prevent an influx of refugees into Egypt. [2] They have added 2,500 policemen to the border of 750, and imposed a curfew. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some put this as a Palestinian victory, which is false.Maxflight 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Rangeley 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a vandal I fixed the numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is now reported in press that the 62 year old settler died of natural causes according to the IDF autopsy. Palestinians just found his body by the roadside and thought it could be useful to also claim his kidnapping to put more pressure for female prisoner exchange. So it was just a media scam invented by the palestinians. 195.70.32.136 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strength and Casualty Figures

I don't think these numbers are correct (certainly 2400 Israeli casualties for this operation seems impossible). Also, isn't it a little bit early to decide that this is a "Decisive Palestinian Victory"? ThreeBlindMice 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignore my above comment - the page got changed while I was typing it. ThreeBlindMice 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a vandal I fixed the numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Though, the 3,000 for Israeli stength is correct. I re-added that. Rangeley 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

What do you mean by 700 under Israel?

Just a vandal ignore it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with blanking out the deaths of (at least) 1 Israeli murdered? --Leifern 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we consider the Israeli casualties in the initial incident (the commado raid), in which 2 Israeli soldiers died, and the subsequent killing of Asheri? If so, we would have 3 killed on the Israeli side, and 2 if we consider only the military casualties.

I edited this a few days ago, to include the 8 Israelis killed by bombs in Haifa, and someone has put it back to 1 Israeli casualty. This is wrong. There have been many more than just the 8 civilians in Haifa, if you include soldiers. Do you, or don't you, want this to be objective?? Roshlyn July 18, 2006

Prisoner Exchange

Any thoughts on adding the prisoner exchange offer from Hamas and the events of th 1994(?) hostage rescue attempt? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont know anything about the 1994 event, however the prisoner exchange is worth mentioning, though Israel has turned the offer down. Rangeley 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

>The militants who seized Shalit have demanded "the release of all female prisoners and all prisoners under the age of 18"

That is 300 people all-together, all of them held in "administrative detention" indefinitely, without any trial or charging. Much like Gitmo. Includes some toddlers as young as 18 months! Arabs think the only way to free them is with kidnapping hostage swap. There is a thorough BBC article on the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5122056.stm

According to the said BBC article, the 18-month toddler in question is not in administrative detention as implied in your post; It reports that his mother, an alleged member of the Islamic Jihad, "went on a 16-day hunger strike before the Israeli prison authorities allowed her baby Aesha to be brought to stay with her".

It Was Not Hamas Only

from The Guardian "Hamas' armed wing had claimed responsibility for Sunday's raid, along with the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and a third group calling itself the Islamic Army". We can't say that only Hamas did it as stated in the article. --Lanov 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ignore my comment , the article was edited while I was writing it.--Lanov 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

the joint attack was done by hamas, PRC, al qaeda (army of islam is a name for its gaza division)--69.114.174.131 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

US reaction

Would someone please put in some info from this article? I'm not comfortable enough with wiki to do so. Basically, the US supports Israel in the operation: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19625342-5001028,00.html

Also this http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885880859&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 72.83.84.202 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

just a well done

I just wanted to tell you all what a great job you've done. I mean this article was only created about a day ago. Yonatanh 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, in only 6 hours it has come far. Rangeley 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

some thing of interest; i:e content... maybe; http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=613 User:Alnico

Yeah, great coverage!!! Gtrojan 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Futility and the meaning of the operation

Until now, the article just sums up what you can read in the news. Should a comment on the futility of this action be added?

I don't think thousands of troops can bring Gilad Shalit home safely; and how could any army of this world comb through the thousands of households that are located in Gaza? I think, putting the Operation Summer Rain into such a perspective enhances its NPOV value; and I think a neutral commentator would tell you that this Operation is intended to hide Israel's recent trauma and not to rescue this soldier. --Keimzelle 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's been only 24 hours or so, isn't it a little too early to talk about how futile the operation has been? --kutukagan 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

not to be drawn into conspiracy theory; but could this be another Gleiwitz incident happing before our eyes? User:Alnico

It could be, but with what probability? The most disturbing thing is that Mahmoud Abbas, in the eyes of the Israeli politicians, is the only guy that can make Hamas to release Gilad Shalit. If Abbas would really be that powerful, Shalit wouldn't have been kidnapped in the first place; and any agreement between Israel and and the Palestinian leadership would be a matter of some few days. And finally, I use to tell myself that peace is only possible between two partners possessing equal power and rights. Everything else is wishful thinking.--Keimzelle 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While interesting to ponder (for some atleast), as an encyclopedia we cant really delve into that stuff too deep. We dont know how it will end, we just know what has happened so far. And thats all we can say. Wikipedia isnt a crystal ball, remember. Rangeley 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we should gather our best people and develop a free crystal ball that anyone can use. --Keimzelle 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that there's a striking difference between Gleiwitz and this one. As far as I know, there had been no clear Polish aggression towards Germany before that incident - although it was a set-up - or its immediate predecessors, which too were probably setups. However, you've got Palestinians and Israel here, it's hard to talk about any of them being unprovoked. --kutukagan 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, not out to side track; just making sure people have their ' thinking hats on ' User:Alnico

Now THAT would be far-fetched. Are you implying that the IDF captured their own soldier and pretended to be a number of known palestinian organizations? Come oooon. Be real. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Rangeley 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really about the solider, the family and a Nations pride and right to protect it's self; it seems to be a (any) excuse (by any means) to get a ' unnoffical war' on the go. History, even in our own time is ladened with these events. User:Alnico23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, I'd argue that there's no similarity - at least of the nature that you talk about - between Gleiwitz and Summer Rain. A very rough analogy would be to argue that Turkey had hit her own aircraft and gave its pilot to the Greek Cypriots to have a pretext to intervene in Cyprus in 1974. --kutukagan 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Israel is damned if it responds with force and damned if it doesn't. Terrorists launched a major attack. If they don't respond, it invites more attacks. If they do respond, people say "they're just looking for an excuse". Also short-term risk of casualities on both sides goes up.

It was not a terrorist attack, because the target were soldiers (IDF), not civilians. When combattants among the ocupied nation fight the occupiers with wepons, they are called insurgents or partisans (russian and yugoslavian term used in WWII) or see the "french resistance movement". Terrorism is not possible against armed forces. Even suicide bombings are not terrorism, just kamikaze, if done against armed forces. It was done in WWII Japan and Vietnam War with great results, it also ousted american army from occupied Lebanon.

By the way, post-WWII international treaties clearly recognize the natural right of occupied people to conduct armed struggle against the occupiers based on the experiences of WWII. 195.70.32.136 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The same internation treaties require that the detaining party allows prisoners of war to be visited by the ICRC and similar organisations as well as allowed to communicate via mail (subject to censorship) with the outside world. Seeing as the PA has not allowed that, it is still possible to brand the attack a "terrorist" one although it was on a military target. ----

None the less; great article. User:Alnico 1:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Isreal is tired of the BS coming from the Palestinians, and is saying enough is enough.Maxflight 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a dicussion forum and users are prohibited from making offtopic remarks, unrelated to this entry. El_C 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You had a small typo there. What you meant to say was "This is the Talk page for discussing changes to the article. Please keep your comments on-topic and civil." --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm-doing-what-now? El_C 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You could put a "possible outcome" section. PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah strategy so far consisted of kidnapping Israeli citizens (civilians or soldiers) to trade with convicted terrorists held in Israel. Usually the trade was very uneven - dozens of palestinians for one Israeli. This is effective because of the huge pressure a kidnapped soldier's family can put on the goverment. This tactic wouldn't work the other way around. As it is perceived by most Israelis, the operation has 2 main goals, in addition to securing the release of the kidnapped soldier: 1. To give every Israeli citizen confidence that everything is being done for them, in the event that they are captured. 2. To make sure the "Prisoner capturing" strategy doesn't pay off, and so to stop the use of such a strategy. There could be other views, of course. This operation also could mean that Olmert and Peretz need to show that while Sharon is not PM anymore, this doesn't meant that they can be intimidated by Hamas. 128.139.226.34 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts are worth considering. In what aspects is this military operation different from those in the past? Perhaps it is the single event in history in which an army mobilized thousands of troops trying to save just one soldier.--131.152.23.73 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) And amazingly, if during the operation just one Israeli soldier is killed the whole operation was for nought in numerical terms. (extended and signature added, --Keimzelle 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC) )

Even if/when Israeli soldiers do get killed (by now have gotten killed) it is only necessarily a numerical wash in the short run. If you consider the deterrent aspect to the incursion as well as other reasons offered, some above, this operation clearly isn't just about this soldier. He is, to quote the Bard Dylan, "Only a Pawn in Their Game." In any case, it's entirely possible (the probability is at this point very much unclear) that rescuing him, even while losing the lives of other soldiers, could have a numerically positive result in the longer term.

A 'possible outcome' or 'futility' section would be original research by every definition and will definitely be speedily deleted. Joffeloff 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's a discussion of the future as you say, I agree. But if you put refrences indicating the evidence or the philosophy behind the operation, it could shed new light. There were enormous efforts (still continuing) to get Ron Arad released, that indicate a concern to missing soldiers that is unparalleled in other countries in the middle east, and perhaps around the world, this might be relevant for the article. Also, an overview on the Hamas would explain/give possible reasons why it started this operation now, of all times. 128.139.226.37 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You could have a section named 'similar operations' linking to those articles - anything else would be opinionated unsourced material. Joffeloff 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Abbas, if he really tried his best to, would have a significant influence on the terrorists. However, he is probably not trying to do so. Which government negotiates with terrorists? If they're breaking the law, stop them, and if they don't stop, arrest them. Seems like Israel has to do their dirty work for them, while the Arab leaders (who gang up and are biased against Israel) scream their lungs out at the seeming "treachery and non-acceptance of peace talks" to the world. --Terrancommander 08:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the complete purpose of the conflict lies in the fact that "no one should mess with me again".Its not only about the single soldier kidnapped.This should be the agenda endorsed by everyone.

Fly by in Syria

Does anyone have more info on Israeli airforce flying over the presidential palace in Syria? Syria said they had shot after it. I only have a swedish language ref. which refers to syrain state television. http://svt.se/svttext/web/pages/133.html

Here are links from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150885870124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and from Ha'aretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732362.html

Cymruisrael 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit more on Syria's involvement:

"Abbas and Egyptian dignitaries tried to persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to use his influence with Khaled Mashaal, the Hamas leader exiled in Syria, to free Shalit. Assad agreed, but without results, said a senior Abbas aide."[3]

"The flight was undertaken ``based on the understanding that Syria provides patronage and support for the leaders of terror organizations, for the most Hamas, responsible for the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shilat, the IDF said in the statement."[4]

And this one has a lot of information on what the Syrians say and similar events [5] LongKong

Also the quote from a Syrian official in the "Reaction" section is out of context. It is a reaction to the fly by, not a reaction to the operation in Gaza.

Actually, the Syrian official went from yapping about how his great AA chased the Israeli planes away, to talking about this very operation. So it belongs here. Joffeloff 11:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

i think that the term kidnapping carries pov connotations. It favours Israel, are captured palestinians refered to as 'kidnapped'? this man was a SOLDIER. If this is kidnapping then all the inmates in US detention centres are also kidnapped. This reflects a fundemental statist bias in the language used to describe armed conflict eg. the use of the words 'terrorism'.

The kidnapped soldier was taken by an armed group and is held somewhere, like a hostage. The captured Palestinians are held in prisons. General consensus on the definitions of these words are followed, and they're not going to be changed to something most people would scoff at because a minority thinks they are 'statist'. If the Palestinian Authority had captured the soldier and imprisoned him, he would not have been 'kidnapped' in the eyes of this Wikipedia article. Joffeloff 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, captured soldiers goto prison, kidnapped soldiers goto some room in a random building or some location. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The soldier is held as a Prisoner of War. The term kidnapping is wrong because it assumes that the act is criminal and illegal. See the kidnapping article. One can not reasonably state that it is illegal for Palestinian militants to abduct Israeli soldiers and at the same time say that it is ok for Israeli soldiers to abduct Palestinian militants. And you can use the word "abduct" instead of "kidnapped." 213.131.147.169 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The organization that abducted the soldier is not a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions; and it is in any event illegal to hold POW's lives for ransom. --Leifern 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A prisoner is someone in a prison. A Prisoner of War has rights as well; including they cannot be shown in the media, they must be allowed to see a representative of their country etc. This soldier is not a prisoner of war. His life has also been threatened, a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. So he is obviously not a POW. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a categorization it should be Prisoner of War, not kidnapped. He was captured after a military confrontation. He is held hostage but he was definitely not kidnapped. Read the articles I have linked to for the full definitions of these words. 213.131.147.169 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not being treated as a prisoner of war by the definition of international conventions, and so he is not a POW. Using 'abduct' instead of kidnap wouldn't make much of a difference since both actions are 'criminal' and 'illegal', as you said. The Palestinian militants are using him as a bargaining chip to get their prisoners released - if that's not this:

'It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.'

..then I don't know what is. (taken from the kidnapping article you kindly linked to). Joffeloff 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The 3rd Geneva Convention says the guy is a POW. If he is being mistreated, this is a violation of the Convention, but this mistreatment does not suddenly make him a non-POW. Please use common sense. mdf 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions does not apply in this situation.--Leifern 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the supreme court they must always apply or they would never apply. --mitrebox 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

the term 'captured' has no connotations of the legitimacy of the operation and is an appropriate replacement for 'kidnapped'

All the big newspapers (which are neutral) use the word "abducted" so I'm pretty sure we can use it as well. He is not a POW as he has been denied the rights of a POW. We can also use the word "taken hostage" if people like it more. --LongKong

I agree, if that somehow makes this more neutral, then by all means. It's the same thing. Joffeloff 12:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, both "taken hostage" and "captured" are perfectly neutral and fine (AFAIK). 213.131.147.169 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind saying he was captured, but we then have to say the Palestinian Government has violated the Geneva Convention

• Part II: General Protection of Prisoners of War
  • Article 12: Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
  • Article 13: Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. violated
  • Article 19: Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. unknown
  • Article 23: No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. unknown
  • Article 39: Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application. is this the case?
  • Article 70: Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family, on the one hand, and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner. Getting close

I am sure there is more, thats just skimming. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Zero Faults, please be advised that this talk page is about the article in question, not a forum for propaganda, or, if you prefer, political rhetoric. Nor is it a forum for the conduction of original research, let alone the adjudication of matters relating to the Geneva Coventions. Life becomes alot easier if you can simply find a source that has asserted, documented or even merely allege violations: introduction into the article at that point would be a no-brainer. mdf 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, zerofaults seems to have failed to read the article. Whatever his/her opinions may be about the capture/abduction/kidnapping of the Israeli soldier, it's quite clear there is no clear evidence the Palestinian government had any knowledge or involvement. Nil Einne 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the comment fully. What you fail to understand is if people want to say this soldier was "captured" because of their being a war, then you have to acknowledge the Geneva Convention, as the first section I posted states, "Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. " Hence if he was captured, then its the responcibility of the Palestinian Government, according to the Geneva Convention that is. And he is then afforded those X ammount of protections under the Geneva Convention, hence making the Palestinian Government in violation of the Geneva Convention. So he was kidnapped because if he was captured by Palestinian soldiers then the GC comes into play. Thank you for your attempts to demonize me, perhaps if you want you can see I contributed quite a bit to the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't add pov. So far there is no evidence that Palestinian government exists. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can use words used in "classical" way of fighting for this situation. There are no "rules" for terrorists nor really for fighting terrorists (e.g. Guantanamo Bay) since this is not the classical enemy vs. enemy situation. So, let's just stick to words such as "taking hostage" and "capture" so we have to avoid going into the Geneva Convention and so on. I think it's clear that terrorists (in general, including palestinian militants) do not follow any convenctions, no need to state these thing, in my opinion. -- LongKong

I don't consider it a POV issue, just a semantic issue. "Kidnapped" isn't really the right word to apply to adults. I would just use "captured". Especially in a military situation when two sides are warring, kidnapped is simply inaccurate; captured is much more precise. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"kidnapped" has become synonymous with "abducted" despite its root words. You might be able to make a case that the soldier was "captured", but "captured" would only be appropriately be applied to a soldier involved in a conflict, which wouldn't apply to the abducted civilians. One doesn't generally speak of civilians and being "captured" even during war time--so it wouldn't be very appropriate to speak of the settler as "captured". I suppose you could make a case that they were "arrested" for being a settler or something, which is viewed by many to be illegal. But no pretense of legal authority to make such an "arrest" has ever been made by the people who took him (and would be a dubious claim even if they did, as they are not acting under any legal system.) It would be different if Hamas or the PLO, or even possibly a shadow government, had ordered the "arrest", but obviously nobody did that (or atleast no official claim has been made to such effect) which makes it extra-judicial. --Brentt 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If this soldier was "captured" during a military engagement, then his location would be given to his parents to contact him, he would be located in a proper prison or camp, would not have appeared in any video and would not have had his life threatened. Using captured, means you have to say its a violation of the GC, since the GC says POWs, which are "captured" soldiers are the responcibility fo the government in which those soldiers belong. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The solider was captured in combat, therefore the GC applies. How could it be otherwise? If violations have occurred, then you will have to present a source that states the charges, gives the evidence, etc -- this doesn't strike me as a difficult job, given the typical behaviour of those who are holding the guy. I only ask that you remember that it is not the job of Wikipedia to hand down war-crime indictments. It is also not the job of Wikipedia to serve as a mouthpiece for Israel's (or any other state's) agitprop department. mdf 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is he was not captured in combat. Furthermore if the article did list him as such then its not original research to say the threat against his life is against the Geneva Convention, its obvious. The Convention says you cannot threaten the lives of POWs, they threatened his life, this is not original research. And finally the reason it would be hard to produce a source is that noone considers him captures, its kidnapped. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An attack on a military target that results in five dead, one wounded, and one taken prisoner is not combat? This is so at odds with observed physical reality, I don't think it would be wise to comment further on that one. However, your claim that it would not be original research to say the Convention was violated is simply false and can be addressed: Wikipedia:No original research means that Wikipedia can not be a source for a claim, statement, or in general, any argument. Please read the section on "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" very carefully. Even for "obvious" conclusions, someone else must present it first .. and only then you can cite it here. mdf 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Combat" is not the defining characteristic of the Geneva Convention. If that were true, street gangs in LA who get into pitched battles with police could insist on POW status. For the Geneva Convention to apply, there must be a de jure or de facto state of war between high contracting parties, in accordance with laws of war. For example, combatants must wear identifying insignia (uniforms) to claim rights as protected persons if they are taken prisoner. And if the Geneva Convention does apply, Israel is perfectly in its right to invade Gaza to rescue the prisoner or for any other military purpose. There is no question that repeated rocket attacks and the attack that triggered this is a casus belli. --Leifern 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree this person has been kidnapped or abducted. They have not been captured. Johntex\^talk 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Captured does not imply that this has anything to do with the Geneva convention, rather that he was taken by force. I would say that this describes the situation. Kidnapped or abducted are specialist terms for capture depending on the circumstances of the case. As far as I am aware the Palistinean authorities are not holding him and so any further discussion seems POV.

He does not have to be, soldiers being captured by militias or armed forces of the government in which they belong are the responcibility of the ruling power. So if Hamas military wing "captures, as people want to call it, an Israeli soldier, then he is the responcibility of the government for which they belong, the Palestinian Government. This is according to the Geneva Convention. Which is why I keep saying he is not captured, because if he was then the PA Government would be responcible, hence he was kidnapped by a group of non recognized(by the PA Gov.) militants. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No one disputes the captors have undertaken a responsibility. No one.. "Capture" captures the event in question perfectly, and neutrally. We can reserve kidnapping or abducting to its commonly understood context: civilian, when force is used to seize people for whatever reason (ransom, slave labour, murder, whatever). Think father who steals the kids from the mother. Think gang who takes rich kid for ransom. Think Paul Bernardo. Had this soldier been walking down the street, off duty and minding his own business when the militants seized him, then yes, "kidnapping" would be the proper word to use. Can you cite any evidence that this was in fact the case? mdf 13:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading carefully, or I am not explaining it well, or something in the middle. If he was "captured", meaning he was taken as a prisoner due to a conflict, meaning he is a POW, then he is the responcibility of the Palestinian Government, not the militants who took him. The Geneva Convention states " Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. " However people want to say the PA Government did not authorize this, did not have any connection to those who did it, and they do not know where he is. So there is really (2) conclusions

• A The people who took, for neutrality, the soldier did it as an unauthorized action, and continue to hold him against the wishes of the government, making it illegal, hence kidnapping.
• B The attack was staged by the government or at least authorized by it, making these militants recognized by the Palestinian Government, and making the soldier a POW under the responcibility of the Palestinian Government according to the Geneva Convention.

You cannot say he was captured in an ongoing war, the say that those who captured him have no link to the government taking part in the war. Its like if some guy with Iraqi ancestry "grabs" a soldier from a checkpoint. Is this kidnapping or was this the capturing of a POW? People who are not related to the conflict cannot take POWs, they cannot capture soldiers. Furthermore "captured" soldiers cannot have their lives threatened, its in violation of the Geneva Convention, kidnapped soldiers can, because they are not POWs. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One more time: no one disputes that those who captured this soldier have undertaken responsibilities. It matters little to what these people are ultimately responsible: their landlord, a "government", the Geneva Conventions, some God, or perhaps (and most dire of all) the unanswerable wrath of the invisible pink unicorn. All we know is they are. Now, if anyone has suggested they are not responsible in some way, can I ask you direct your comments at them, instead of lecturing me on the GC? Can I also ask that if you believe the GC's have been violated, you offer relevant citations? And, to return to the point, can you answer my question? Is there any evidence that this soldier was minding his own business (as opposed to minding his government's business) when he was seized? I assert this is the key piece of information needed to decide the matter. mdf 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very simplified version for you. The soldier was kidnapped, a ruling government would know of a "captured" soldier cause he would be a POW. Illegal action, without government consent, by militias not attached to the government, making it kidnapping not capturing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a simple analogy for you. If some gang members in NYC drive by a military outpost and open fire on a soldier at a guard post, was he killed in action or murdered? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. However, this isn't New York, is it? It's Israel and Palestine, where there is long history of brutal, armed conflict to the present day. So your analogy is as appropiate as the word "kidnapping". Do you have a better one? mdf 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A recognized conflict does not change the situation of them not being recognized as members of the government. So its illegal, hence its kidnapping, capturing soldiers makes them POWs, and as the PA government has already acknowledged, he is nto a POW as they have no control over him or his location. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are harping on this "ruling government" nonsense. POW status is a function of captee and general conditions at time of capture, not the captors per se (see GCIII, articles 1-4). But even if there _was_ such a distinction to be made, there a monstrously huge difference between even the nastiest gang in NYC and a "gang" in Gaza. At least in 2006. mdf 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your circle logic has tired me, I no longer wish to engage in this as you seem to not get the similarity between a non-government recognized gang, and a non-government recognized gang in Gaza. Odd how noone calls this captured soldier, captured, nor a POW. Have fun debating amongst yourselves. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Context is essential, Mr. ZeroFaults. Strip enough of it and anything goes. To my knowledge, the "non government recognized" gangs in NYC do not carry around AK-47's, launch missiles, and generally conduct military operations -- not even against inappropriate targets! Have I missed something in the news? mdf 16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Military operations are conducted by militaries. I will give you a suitable analogy then. If a Columbian cartel head shoots dead a US soldier on US soil at a check point, was the soldier murdered or KIA? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the PA government also thinks this is illegal, as it's not part of the war of two nations or so just some terrorists (not recognized army) kidnapping someone. Therefore, illegal, therefore kidnapp correct word to be used, in my opinion. --LongKong 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the term Prisoner of War is used, it means that Palestine started a war, since the culprits are under Hamas. But Palestine is sure to deny that, so he can't be classified as one. He is being held as a hostage, which is the main purpose of kidnapping. "Captured" is a more general term, if some people feel that "kidnapping" is biased. --Terrancommander 08:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansions into Northern Gaza

I think we need more information here. Some things to be added:

"But the military signaled the prospect of a new front being opened in the northern part of the strip when it dropped leaflets late Wednesday into the area, urging residents to avoid moving in the area because of impending military activity."[6]

"Israeli army bulldozers moved in Thursday to clear agricultural lands in northern Gaza, witnesses said, apparently so Palestinians couldn't hide there. A small number of tanks entered a buffer zone between southern Israel and Gaza, as they have done in recent weeks."[7]

-- LongKong 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with references

There is a problem with references. Check reference 18 in the text, for example. It links to reference 16 at the botom of the page, not to reference 18. Anyone have an idea why this happened? LongKong 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

there is no problem with references. Please, don't introduce more confusion. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...I see it now, sorry.--LongKong 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Language

Our language should not support either side in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. When we describe Isreals as 'arresting' and Palestinians as 'kidnapping' or 'abducting' we prejudge the legitimacy of Israeli control over captured territory.

it has nothing to do with legitimacy of control. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate? --Cyde↔Weys 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that the settler and soldier were detained in an extra-judicial action. i.e. outside any legal process (and no, claiming "Israel acts illegaly all the time" doesn't mean thier arrests are in general extra-judicial--not that they havn't been involved in extra-judicial detentions and killings, i.e. kidnapping and murder, in the past, just not in this case). This has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks it is justified or not. The fact is that it is an extra-judicial detention--i.e. a kidnapping. I suppose you could get all philosophical and ask "is there really a difference?", and most people would still say yes, the difference is that there are legal processes, paperwork and rules-of-conduct and such (however loosley adhered too) that people follow in judicial detentions. These are completely absent in the case of the "detained" (and now sadly murdered apparently) Israelis. Get it? --Brentt 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Invasion" (used in the heading of the section "Invasion into Northern Gaza") is for me the wrong word and POV. Wikipedia definition of "Invasion":

"An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government"

As Olmert has stated repeatedly, Israel is not entering Gaza as to occupy it again, and Israel is not aiming at conquering the Gaza strip. So we should not use the word "Invasion". --LongKong 08:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_wells/2006/06/cpl_shalit_kidnapped_or_captur.html Read this, it's all about whether to use arrest / detained and capture / kidnap. --LongKong 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it. Black people 'loot', white people 'forage'. Palestinians 'abduct', Israelis 'arrest'. --RedMethod 06:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone

Please ignore my ignorant edit - it has been reverted, and rightly so. I'm pretty dumb. WilyD 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Plural translation

Why does it stand in the translation from Hebrew: Operation Summer Rains, whereas it's singular in English? Who made up the name by the way, I think it's rather beautiful ;) Shandris^{the azylean} 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A direct translation is apperantly Summer Rains, but the english media is calling it Summer Rain. But the plural version is nonetheless worthy of note, next to the Hebrew. Rangeley 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew גשמי is geshmey (plural construct state), not geshem (which would be the singular). AnonMoos 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion article should be moved. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

.....to? Shandris^{the azylean} 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

to Operation Summer Rains? -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But all newspapers call it in singular! Shandris^{the azylean} 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But they are mistaken! -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be titled by their most common name in English. If the newspapers are calling it Operation Summer Rain, then Operation Summer Rain is where it belongs. What it's called in foreign languages is irrelevent. While it may be interesting to note in the article, it's not appropriate to move the article. Having Operation Summer Rains redirect here is probably right. Please see WP:NAME for more details WilyD 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, right. I wouldn't expect anything else from WP. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WilyD. Operation Summer Rain is the proper title. Operation Summer Rains can redirect here and can be mentioned in the article next to the Hebrew. Johntex\^talk 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Soglasen. End of story. Hope you agree, tasc. Shandris^{the azylean} 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. But who cares. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the correct plural name. Just because a newspaper made a mistake doesn't mean wikipedia should too. 71.199.123.24 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Capturing of Hamas Government Members

According to CNN not only Hamas government members have been arrested. Here is the exact quote:

"The Palestine Liberation Organization said 84 people had been arrested, including seven Cabinet officials and 21 members of the Palestinian parliament. The Israel Defense Forces said 87 people were arrested overnight. Of those, it said, 64 were members of Hamas. Another 23 belong to other factions."

Maybe someone should rename the section to "Capturing of PA Government Members". --LongKong 18:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like its stating the other 23 are even government officials. They may just be people, am I reading it wrong? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably militants, you're right. So just ignore it or make a new section for it? Or rename section to "Capturing of Palestinian Militants"? Since it's one of the secondary goals of the operation I think it'd be good to include it. Just don't know how. --LongKong 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think militants would work. They arent all in the government, they arent all Hamas, but they are all militants. Rangeley 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just use "Arrests of Palestinians" or something similar, its not right to label government officials to be militants, some may be, but blanket lumping is not right. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but according to the IDF (which is our primary source here) they are capturing people involved with the abduction, capturing or whatever you want to call it of Shalit. I just read that Israel says they captured about 100 Hamas members:

"Israel arrested last night about 100 members of Hamas. Those arrested are Hamas activists who had violated laws pertaining to the prevention of terrorism. While those arrested include ministers and legislators, it needs to be emphasized that the majority of those arrested are not. In any case, the arrests were carried out due to terrorist activity."

--LongKong 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• That govt. members were arrested is the most important part of the arrest wave, and they are being "arrested," through court orders signed by a judge (multiple judges, in fact). Merely saying militats is misleading. Also, there were 8 govt. ministers arrested according to haaretz. El_C 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard on TV that ALL of the Hamas leadership (including all government officials) in the West bank have been arrested by the IDF. Can anyone find an online reference for this? Another thing: So El_C, you're saying we should completely ignore the arresting of non-government Hamas people? Even if all of the Hamas leadership has been arrested? Or maybe just add it in thesection? --LongKong 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "officials," I just mentioned the govt. first, the members of the PLC 2nd, and then mayor/regional council and other officials. IBA says at least a third of govt. members arrested and & held (Haaretz confirms - this is the article they are actively updating, ref 23). I now added it (1/3) to the article. El_C 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats the first time I've heard anyone source (or even mention) the 'PLO' since Arafat died.--mitrebox 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont get this, how are these 23 militants arrested . unless they are legistlators or something--69.114.174.131 02:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli casualities

So who are Israeli casualities according to you, Leifern? -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Israeli casualties as of yet, that we know of. The two civilians that are dead were deceased prior to the operation beginning, and infact one died of natural causes. Rangeley 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Eliyahu Asheri, who, as a "settler" figures as a subspecies in the fevered anti-Zionist mind, but is nevertheless a human being murdered in cold blood as part of this. And there may be culpability also for Noach Moskovich. --Leifern 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eliyahu was killed in a hour after abducion. I don't see any reasons to call him victim of this operation. Noam died due to medical cause. It was pure palestinian bluff. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The abduction and murder of Eliyahu Asheri is mentioned in the article; certainly the threat of his death entered into the conflict after the incursion had started, so at least the threat was part of the conflict. That it was an empty threat, considering he'd already been murdered, raises an interesting question. As for Noach Moskovich, if he died as a result - direct or indirect - of mistreatment at the hand of the kidnappers, they are culpable for his death. I guess it isn't clear whether he was even abducted. --Leifern 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

These "settlers" are on occupied territory, and are usually armed. Therefore they are not civilans, but soldiers, and he was not "murdered" but killed in a war.PerDaniel 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He was not armed. He wasn't soldier. He was killed and robed. PA so far didn't openly declared was on Israel. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He died of natural causes. This seriously has nothing to do with anti-zionism or being anti-Israel at all. We dont include the 3 Palestinian militants, or 2 Israeli soldiers who died during the original kidnapping either, because this was prior to the operation. Likewise, the natural death of the 62 year old, and the murder of the other civilian occured before the operation began, and are therefore unable to be casualties of this. Rangeley 19:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I say keep the threat about Noach but mention he died of natural causes, possibly on Sunday. As for Asheri its really upt o developments now to see if he was kidnapped before this even started or why he was killed etc. The only reasonI think we should wait is both may have been bluffs and the people claiming to be tied to this larger operation may not have been, or done it for those reasons, or the ones who did kidnap may not have even been the ones claiming to have. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Arrests" a POV word?

Hello there ladies and gentlemen!

I was doubting the use of the word "arrests" - especially so in a header - in the article. Why, you might think. Well, Wikpedia's definition of arrest is as follows:

An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. (First sentence of Arrest)

What bothers me here is the fact that the Israeli Defence Forces have "arrested" people in territory under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority. The IDF are obviously not the police, and in no way they represent Palestinian law - is it then possible for them to "arrest" the Palestinians?

Is it perhaps so that Israel still - in some obscure way - retains the right to legally exercise its laws in PNA-controlled areas?

This of course raises the question what one would call the "arrests" - and the arrested. If they can't arrested, they're simply Prisoners of War, and if so - it's War. That is not a topic for discussion here, though.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

tell us more about palestinian law. I'm eager ot hear.-- tasc ^words_deeds 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the Israeli Ministry of Justice officially calls it. The arrests were carried as such (i.e. "arrest orders" signed by judges). The legality of the arrests according to international law is a different matter. The use of the word arrests seems rather appropriate. El_C 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

tasc - I know nothing about Palestinian law. That is why I am asking. El C - seems appropriate indeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are subject to a trial in a court of law, so yes, they are arrests. They had perpetrated crimes against Israel, and since the PA was unwilling to cooperate in arresting them, they took matters in their own hands. Joffeloff 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Arrest is not a POV word as those being "arrested" have commited a crime according to Israeli law against Israeli citizens/Israel. Whether Israel has the right to go into the Westbank/Gaza and "arrest" the "criminals" is something different. But clearly they are seen as criminals by Israel and are supposed to be put to trial in Israel. So, yes, they have been arrested according to the wikipedia definition. --LongKong 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actualy your line of reasoning doesn't support your conclusion. The "wikipedia definition" (if there is such a thing!) would seem to support NPOV, not the POV of the israelis. Since the legality of Israel's actions is a central controversy in this conflict, the use of "arrest" supports the POV that Israel's actions are legitimate.--Cerejota 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like jews were arrested in Germany before and during WWII for comitting crimes against Germany.PerDaniel 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They have not been arrested, they have been kidnapped.PerDaniel 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a conflict, and the taking in of the people happened outside the territory of Israel, without mediating an international arrest warrant, I think the use of the word "arrest" is POV. I suggest the standard setout in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict of reffering to "capture" regardless of side is the best NPOV to reffer to them. "Arrests" reflect the contested and controversial POV that holds that Israel is carrying out a simple police action in Gaza. "Kidnapping" likewise spouses the contested and controversial POV that Israel's actions are illegal .Whereas "capture" simply describes the fact.--Cerejota 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Palestinian Chemical Weapons

Is this relevant to this article? Reuters article, Jpost article If not, maybe it should go in Qassam rocket? 72.83.84.202 01:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. As the title suggests, this article is about events during and relating to Israeli "Operation Summer Rain". 69.140.65.251 20:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it into the Qassam rocket article would be most appropriate.Hypnosadist 14:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll

No one has been killed yet in combat. Is there a potential for thousands to be killed? - Little Spike

In combat, it seems highly unlikely. Beyond that, with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza, fortunately, so far it appears unlikely, since it would be a public relations disaster for Israel to have thousands of Palestinians die. I predict that Israeli (and undoubtedly American and European) capital will be expended to restore and keep in operation whatever vital services currently destroyed or being witheld. El_C 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the militants may begin to combat the Israeli forces directly rather than just fire rockets in hopes of killing civilians. They have supposedly dug in and prepared to combat troops that enter the north, though they said the same about the south. Rangeley 04:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Israel will White phosfallujah Gaza or anything remotely in that scale. Not to mention that unlike the US in Iraq, Israeli intelligence in the occupied territories gives them infinitely greater maneuverability. The Isareli and Palestinian masses need much better leadership than these sweat-shop imperialists and Islamic fascists, respectively. But all of this goes beyond the scope of this talk page, so I just hope I'll be the one who gets to have the last word in this section. El_C 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I bet the militants will conduct guerilla warfare and plant mines, or act as martyrs and set off suicide bombs. They know that they are too weak in strength to go to conventional warfare with Israel. However, in the unlikely event that the Palestine Authority will send troops to intervene, it is unlikely that Israel will suffer a 50% casualty rate based on their 2-3k troops there. --Terrancommander 08:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Can we have some definitive dates in this article? At the moment we have a number of events with no sensible way of sequencing them. When was this soldier kidnapped? When did the rocket attack on the beach happen? Without them, this is not high enough quality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.202.144.223 (talk • contribs) .

At your command! El_C 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I'm proposing move to the Operation Summer Rains due to following reasons:

1. it's proper name.
2. it's used in newspaper. I've checked 3 Israeli English newspaper and all of them using today proper translation.
3. I haven't seen on BBC, CNN, Reuters and some other news sites any use of the name of operation at all.

Therefore, according to my understanding single argument voiced yesterday is failing. If you could disprove my reasons I'd be glad to hear it. Regards, -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I concur. PRC translators agree. As does Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, The Telegraph, and many others. That "rains" has one third the news.google hits is far from decisive. Therefore, we should opt for accuracy over counting google hits. El_C 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NAME and why we don't use proper names, but rather english names. For those who can't be bothered, allow me to sum up: Wikipedia is not a propoganda arm of the Israeli Army and thus their preference doesn't dictate our usage. Please bring this point up again when the most common english term is Operation Summer Rains. WilyD 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is English name!!! Most common one! Didn't you read two previous comments? -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's getting harder to say. Looks like my dialect is using Summer Rain, but others may be switching - but I can't find much from reputable large english language sources. WilyD 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking google news again, I find Rain and Rains in a dead heat. It may thus be acceptable (if unpreferable) to move it. WilyD 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And it has nothing to do with propaganda. I find it digusting when people see conspiracy everywhere. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see propoganda at wiktionary.org if you're unfamiliar with the use of the word. WilyD 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need dictionary to see what you're doing. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you need a dictionary to see what I'm doing. I inferred from your statement you were unfamiliar with the meaning of the word propoganda and thus suggested a natural remedy. I meant no offence, I only was trying to offer a helpful solution. WilyD 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, Israeli Southern Command first named the operation 'recusing Shalit,' or something to that effect, then the Israeli General Staff went with Operation Summer Rains — they decided to call it that and someone mistranslated it as Summer Rain (גשם קייצי). Which is mildly amusing, almost as much as WD's hyperbolic rational. Okay, enough with that. El_C 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what WD is talking about, but I favor moving the page to the correctly translated title. --Leifern 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I warned WD to shape up and cease from making pedantic (& in my view, highly confused) comments that do not add to the debate. El_C 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If people are confused by my comments, why are you trying to make them less clear? WilyD 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone made your comments any more unclear than the inflammatory & superficial manner they were expressed. El_C 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst tact may not be my strong suit, I'm not sure how you can arguing that explaining what I said when my meaning was clearly misunderstood doesn't make me more clear. Conversely, removing explainations of what I said would make me less clear. In any event, I dropped my object already to the move - while it still goes against WP:NAME, it may be salvagable now under WP:BOLD or break all the rules ~ I just don't appreciate being accused of things I'm clearly not guilty of. WilyD 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why even post here asking if you are not gonig to consider peoples comments, not take into consideration people already voted against it above, then ignore it, start a new section, and not take those into account. I do not care personally one way or the other, but your actions are rude and dismissive. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely inclined to move it now, on account of all these emotional no-sense, no reasons comments. El_C 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its already been moved ... hence the comment above ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Leifern beat me to it. A "vote" were uninformed editors make decisions is one thing; arguing for the sakes of arguing is another. El_C 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop replying to me if you are not addressing me. I didnt argue for or against it, what are you talking about? My comment specifically states "I do not care personally one way or the other" however I find it rude that anyone would move an article while its still being discussed, dismissing other views completly, hence the comment I made to that effect. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where and what are these views. No, I'm not subordinate to your command and am not obliged to obey your orders. El_C 14:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

my action are justified. Recent comments were taken into account and as I pointed out - common translation has been changed. I don't understand why you're calling it rude or dismissive. I didn't move page. Though I do support that move. -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is totally inappropriate to move the article before concensus is reached - no one can argue otherwise in good faith. However, I've already noted that I've withdrawn my objection that moving the article is unacceptable, as the two terms seem to have comparable credibility in english at the moment. It's at best a silly action, but it's not intolerable, probly justifiable under WP:BOLD and break all the rules, IF a concensus is reached. WilyD

I did not move the page. Don't tell it to me. And stop talking as if you're a template writer. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to offer a formal apology for clicking minor edit on the page move. This was a genuine misclick, and I apologise deeply for the misunderstandings it may cause. I'm sorry, it happened, and hope that we can look past it and address the issues at hand - i.e. finding concensus. WilyD 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You'd rather offered appologies for moving the page. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my reason for moving the page was unclear. Moving the page is not appropriate while the issue is debated, it should only be done once a concensus is reach. Thus, I revert the move because it was premature. I myself have come around to a neutral view on whether the page ought to be moved. But I stick by WP:Consensus. WilyD 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa for moving the page, and I was right to do it. There was no legitimate objection to the move, as it didn't involve any changes in the meaning - it simply reflected the correct translation of a Hebrew phrase. I'm not going to move it again, but its continued title only discredits Wikipedia. --Leifern 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against move at this time - I think discussing a page move at this time is a waste of time. We are talking about a change of one letter in the title. Surely our efforts can be better applied elsewhere for the time being. We can revisit this issue in a month or so when there are more articles published about the event and we can be surer of what is the most common title. Johntex\^talk 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You underestimate wikipedia. Of course if this title stays will be more articles with with this name! -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not my problem. Our title is defensible as a name that was first reported in English and is still being used approximately as must as any other article. Johntex\^talk 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read my first post correctly I have asked to provide some confirmation of your words, 'cause my obervation revealed different picture. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've invited everyone who's objected in the past to comment on the issue (excepting myself, obviously). Hopefully we can settle this quickly. I don't think the need for a page move has been demonstrated, but my news searchs indicate about a 50-50 split in usage, suggesting to me that both titles may be equally valid - thus I really have no opinion on the page move. That said, I will reiterate that the Hebrew name is not in any way significant to what this page is named, this is the English Wikipedia, and thus only english usage is important. It may form a better tiebreaker than a coinflip, however. Media usage likely is our best guide to usage, but I'm open to other suggests here. WilyD 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

English usage it this particular case is a direct translation from Hebrew. Is that so hard to comprehend? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keeping a wrong translation makes WP look uninformed. That's the need for it. And I haven't seen a coherent objection to the move - other some vague stuff about propaganda that makes absolutely no sense to me (nor, I would wager, to anyone else). Does this mean that we can rename the article on Anwar Sadat to Alvin Sadat because we think that sounds better in English? (It's the English Wikipedia, after all); this is just silly.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer than Articles are titled by their most common name in english. Please see WP:NAME WilyD 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Everyone was able to see your link to naming convention immense number of times. My first post is saying that Rains IS the most used name in current available to me newspaper and other news websites. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of everyone bickering, how about you two just provide sources to determine if any news agencies have agreed on a particular spelling. What does CNN, BBC, al Jazeera, Hareetz etc have it listed as primarily? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read carefully my first post. I wrote, that haven't seen CNN, BBC (and btw al Jazeera) using this name at all. Haaretz is using proper name. As do ynetnews.com and jerusalem post. *oh, my. I'm getting tired of repeating myself* -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the direct translation from Hebrew would be pluralised. Please see WP:NAME on naming conventions for articles - it remains the case that articles are given their most common name in english - and that what they might be called in other languages is not important. The english languages affords no protection to translations. The Hebrew name may translate as Rains but if the English name is Rain then that's how the article is titled. If the Hebrew named translated as Operation Pig in a Poke, this article would still be titled Operation Summer Rain. The article title is not the translation of the Hebrew name, it is the English name. WilyD 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not most common names. Please stop insert unconfirmed claims! It is translation, and it has nothing to do with some idiot who doesn't know language well, but had luck to be first translator. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a translation, to begin with. Lots of english words derive from poor translations, for an example, see Canada. But the people who are using it now are not using it by translating it, they're using an english name - this should be fairly obvious, otherwise a mistranslation would quickly disappear. WilyD 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's say like this, guys!: "The name 'Operation Summer Rain' is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew name, but was still used by many newspapers, where the people already got used to the name and didn't want to change it." I mean,.... well, take the plural version because it's the correct translation, but also note that it's used in singular here and where because of a mistranslation. Thank you, Shandris^{the azylean} 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand what all the drama is about, I personally think we should use the correct name, Operation Summer Rains. Just make Operation Summer Rain redirect to it. Why use a name that is wrong? just because its popular? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have read all this before my comment below. Good grief! I completely concur: use the right translation, since that is what would happen in-article. The cited policy is being quoted correctly, but incompletely here, since (near the top) it says that in the end common sense is allowed to prevail. Rename, redirect the error. And there is no need for mentioning the error at all in the article text (everyone makes mistakes, particularly Wikipedia). mdf 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

shall we vote?

So far i've seen only Johntex objecting move. Who else? -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, if you feel he is wrong in assuming its the most popular name in the newspapers and appropriate sources, just provide counter sources. Not everything has to be a battle, a concensus can easily be reached if people choose to present evidence instead of arguing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

haven't i presented enough of them? Than could you please explain how not reached consensus became an excuse in non-democratic wikipedia? and why you yourself didn't move page to the proper name? -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt move it because someone has a complaint, I dont move pages while they are in contention. A vote would not address their issue either. Just because they dont write on here as often as you doesnt mean they should be ignored either. And finally Wikipedia is not a democracy. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, what someone's complains has to do with correcteness of articles? -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They advanced a wiki policy on naming, stating the portion relevant to most popular english name. Just address the issue instead of attempting to vote over their issue. Why are you so combative when asked to debate the issue with the person concerned. This is how revert wars occur, this article was moved and they moved it back before. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue if you haven't noticed. So far I've seen only Johntex objecting. I wanted to make clear if we could conclude a consensus or voting is needed. *gosh* -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have two people who disagree, the other being WilyD then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the plural name. re: most popular english name, this might be true for words that have an unclear meaning, or don't translate well, but here it's a direct simple translation. Just because a newspaper made a mistake, doesn't mean wikipedia should too. People do make mistakes, doing so doesn't automatically make their mistake 'the most popular name'. (Aluminum would be an example of where a mistake did become the common name, but it's way too early to decide that for here, right now the articles name should be the correct translation, and not some mistake by a newspaper.) 71.199.123.24 20:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let google decide :-) Cema 13:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Operation Summer Rains but it was moved back. Gaza is NOT a country go the current name is Israeli POV. Robin Hood 1212 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Planned in advance?

Is there a source for the statement that "[t]he operation to arrest these Hamas officials was reportedly planned several weeks before and was met then with the approval of Israel's Attorney General, Menachem Mazuz"? Theshibboleth 09:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

there is a reference to that paragraph. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

לדברי מקורות מדיניים, הפעולה תוכננה לפני כמה שבועות, וקיבלה את אישורו של היועץ המשפטי לממשלה, מני מזוז. שלשום הציג ראש השב"כ, יובל דיסקין, את רשימת השמות של המיועדים למעצר לאישורו של ראש הממשלה, אהוד אולמרט.

Which translates into:

According, to political sources, the operation was planned several weeks ago, and recieved the apporval of the Attorney Genera;, Meni Mazuz. Yesterday, the head of the Shabak, Yuval Diskin, presented the names of those proposed for arrest to the approval of Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. ^{19. ^ a b (in Hebrew) "IDF begins arrests of officials in the Strip", Haaretz, 2006-06-29 (section two, paragraph 1).}

It can be safely assumed that the IDF has many objectives that it collects intelligence on and prepares for weeks, if not months in advance. Thus it is very effective in acting on its objectives when opprotunites permit. The kidnapping of a soldier (at an observation post outside of the gaza strip) and relocation of that solider (reportly) into the strip, provides Israel an ability to place action on an extremly large number of its objectives it would otherwise find very difficult. --mitrebox 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for the translation. Theshibboleth 10:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pamphlet

The image for the pamphlet is kinda weird. Since it's not a scan of an actual pamphlet, wouldn't it be better to have the pamphlet's text (and translation) on the page? I apologize if there's a legitimate reason to have it there, I just couldn't figure out a reason. --Polkapunk 13:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just bothered reading the footers... -- Polkapunk 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If my knowledge of the IDF serves me right, it was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Arabic, then back to Hebrew, then English. El_C 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The original image should be restored -- with translation -- unless this exact English version was also used by the IDF. mdf 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are both from the IDF website. As I said above, it's likely it was first written in Hebrew at command level, then translated to Arabic (the pamphlets thesmselve), then retranslated into Hebrew (press), & finally English (which may explain the typos in the latter two). El_C 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I though you were joking! And why would the IDF host a translation they did not create themselves? Anyways, the tag-line for this image says this pamphlet was "distributed to Gaza residents by the IDF". Was the English version displayed actually distributed as claimed? If not, at least the tag-line should be fixed, but I think posting the original with an easily editable translation would be best. mdf 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They would create it themlseves, my example implied — with four different translators! I wasn't joking in that sense, the IDF is highly bureaucratic, so these types of irrationalities (and much worse) happen and are to be expected, not that I'm claiming that is what actually happned (and it was indeed of a tongue in cheek). Anyway, the pamphlets were likely only printed in Arabic. But it dosen't matter either way, the IDF is the publisher/translator/internet host of both the Hebrew and English versions (images here). El_C 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, it's fine to call either translation (if the Hebrew is a retranslation from Arabic — as mentioned, tragico-comically, it is definitely possible!) "the pamphlet distributed..." And the IDF translation did not change anything that I noticed in a glance (I'll double check later) beyond cleaning some of the grammatical issues that the Hebrew version suffered from (in the source — though I purposfuly chose not to go with a loose translation, which I usually do, which appears to have made things worse on that front). Oh, and they removed the bold, except for Yigal Shalit. But I digress. Any other questions? El_C 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: on 2nd read, this wasn't (just) pamphlets but the contents of the announcement, presumably broadcasted through other means, so I removed it and quoted the text and cited the pertinent ref (i.e. the whole thing was clumsyness on my part). El_C 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Google search on name

Findings

• "Operation Summer Rain" - about 16,000
• Operation Summer Rains - about 24,000

My guess is that number two will grow in the coming days. But hey, if there are editors here who want to hold on to an absurd position just for the fun of it, I'm not going to get in their way. --Leifern 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It should have been renamed when the error was pointed out. Even if the everyone was still using the singular, there is goodness in Wikipedia being right (backed up by references of course). mdf 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was renamed when the error was pointed out, just someone decided that being correct is not important at all. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[8] 56 News Stories using Summer Rain

[9] 54 News Storeies using Summer Rains

I think overall we show that the two names are equally used. WilyD 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to take a look on who is using proper name and who is not. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to view further moves to singular as disruption, and am ready to impose administrative sanctions to that effect. If need be, I am fully prepared to save everyone time & energy and justify that stance before the Arbitration Committee directly. El_C 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to arbitration committee, I feel more than justified in enforcing WP:Consensus. If I get suspended or banned for adhering to the principles therein, I will sleep soundly. WilyD 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a consensus! stop it wily. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, WilD, you will be blocked, so you may feel free to take it to arbitration committee, I feel more than justified in enforcing WP:Ccommon sense. If I get suspended or banned for adhering to the principles therein, I will sleep soundly. El_C 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that admins are usually asked not to ban people in conflicts they themselves are directly involved with? Your threats to block this user unless he complies with the concensus, one with only 6 people voicing their opinion, 2 against it seems WilyD and Johntex and 1 neutral, myself and 3 for it, you Tasc and another, seems to not be the proper route in reaching a concensus. While it may be frustrating to deal with people at times, lord knows how many times I wished I ruled the world, we should attempt to reach a middleground or concensus. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a neutral 3rd party is appropriate to simmer things down, perhaps an admin you are unfamiliar with? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I read it Shandris and Johntex are opposed. I no longer maintain a preference for either name, I only insist the name not be changed until a concensus is reached. Please do not consider me a barrior to a concensus of either Rain or Rains as the main article, I believe at this point their usages are roughly equal, and thus neither has a good case for precendence over the other. WilyD 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for mistating your view. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I too agree the plural name should be the correct one. 71.199.123.24 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My reason for supporting the singular was because that was the way I originally saw it (I did make this article), and for most of the sources I found it was stated as Rain, not Rains. If this has changed since then, so be it. My personal preference is still Rain, simply because it sounds more natural to me. This really isnt a reason that can hold up to others, so I dont really mind either way. Rangeley 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Shandris is not opposed. At least if I still can read some English. -- tasc ^words_deeds 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I believe you're right there, it looks like I was mistaken. Sorry. WilyD 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my experiece that 'operation names' are always singular (possibly to avoid confusion?)--mitrebox 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Mitrebox, perhaps the best I've heard so far in favour of singular. I still think Leifern's decision should be upheld for now, but this dosen't mean the debate is over. I only wish to to see it conducted in respectful & intelligent terms. Thanks. El_C 07:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this one is not. -- tasc ^words_deeds 07:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, they could have chosen to call it (גשם קייצי) instead of (גשמי קיץ) — note that, in English, the IDF uses both the singular and plural forms (and on the same page, even). Which, at the very least, underscores that it dosen't particularly cares (nor do I, really). El_C 08:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

rain in the summer in Israel

If I remember correctly, it never rains in Israel in the summer. So what (if anything) is the IDF trying to say with this code name? 71.199.123.24 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That the bombs are going to fall like raindrops on the population of the Gaza strip?PerDaniel 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I kinda knew you were going to post something like that.

Except, shouldn't that say: nonexistant bombs are going to fall like the nonexistant drops of rain in the summer? Or did you miss the part about there being no rain in the summer? 71.199.123.24 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No I did not miss that part, you misunderstood me. I meant that they might be saying that the bombs would fall as densely as raindrops or as lightly as raindrops ( in places and seasons where it does rain).PerDaniel 10:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Its going to be the first rain in a summer, and *in a scary voice* be bombs raining down!!!!! --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's non-existent, not nonexistant!! Shandris^{the azylean} 12:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know the IDF use a computer program that has a list of thousands of words and names and it choose the name. It probably has some sort of algorithm.
P.S. summer rain is rare but it does happen. --TheYmode 04:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Symbolism - for farmers (speaking from a southern american perspective) summer rains are typically seen as a relief from a cipiling heat wave, though the storms they are brought by can be rather dramatic. --mitrebox 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

2 Israeli casualties and other motivations for the operation

Two soldiers were killed and one was abducted. Shouldn’t those two soldiers be included in the casualties ( or as a pretext for the operation)?Spoil29

---

A blogger gives more reasons for the attack. Should any more be incorporated into the article?

1) the breach of the Israeli border along Gaza by Islamic terrorists with ties to Hamas with a 300 foot long tunnel;

2) in the ensuing battle, two Israeli soldiers were killed, and Shalit was captured;

3) the incessant missile and rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza by terrorist groups including Hamas, AAMB, PIJ, Fatah, and the PRCs;

4) the kidnapping and murder of at least one Israeli since Shalit was captured;

5) the ongoing refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel and continued calls for Israel's destruction coming from both Hamas and Fatah;

6) claims that the Palestinian terrorist groups have WMD (though unconfirmed - we must honor the threat that they might actually have them and aren't simply posturing and making empty threats);

7) claims that the same Palestinian terrorists launched one such chemical warhead shell into Israel - again unconfirmed but this comes from the Palestinian terrorists spokespeople;

8) Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself from such threats;

9) Israel has been infinitely patient with the ongoing terrorism and attacks against the sovereign nation of Israel; - 10) Israel's response has been extremely measured and limited thus far, unlike the terrorists who continue to provoke Israel into taking far harsher steps. - 72.83.84.202 05:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are known to be a subjective way to express the blogger's views and may be biased. Its still better to get the hard facts from news articles or qualified experts in the area. The usage of the word "claim" means that the user is cynical. --Terrancommander 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, I would avoid using blogs as sources. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

blogs

The blog can not be used as source. However, everything he/she lists is correct. So we should find sources that confirm his words and add the info from these sources to the article. Also some of my additions (sourced) were reverted but I don't feel like engaing in edit war but I hope some of thise material can be found usefull to the article. Zeq 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Background: casualty figures

The section on the background of the conflict mentions both the Quassam rocket attacks against Israeli cities and similar attacks against Palestinian areas, along with Gaza beach incident. Setting things up this way suggests, I think, that the two sides are equally culpable for the subsequent conflict since they were equally bellicose. In order to give readers some way to weigh this question for themselves, it seems like it might be a good idea to give at least approximate casualty figures for both sides during the month leading up the capture of the IDF soldier. So (1) does this sound like a good idea? and (2) does anyone happen to have access to any casualty figures for the Quassam rocket attacks? I have only had any luck finding figures for the Palestinian casualties thus far: the Gaza beach incident killed 8 civilians and injured an additional 32 (incl. 13 children); the missile attack on the Gaza highway on 13 June killed 11 (incl. 2 children) and injured 30; and the missle attack on 20 June killed 3 (all children) and wounded 15. (My source for these figures is the PCHR: http://www.pchrgaza.org/) Thanks to everyone who's done such fine work on this article so far. --RobinJ 15:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not give the correct picture. Israel uses must stronger weapon (it is a military power) so casulaty figures on the Palestinian side are always higher. (In this light it is surprzing than since the start of the operation the number of casulaties on the Pal side are very low) . So if you want to give accurate measures you should look at intentions, such as : to where the sides aim the weapon they have ? At what frequancy they use their weapon ? etc... Also to measure israel violation of int'l law you should compare Israel to smililar operations such as Russions in Checnyia or americans in Faluga - where half of the city was destroyed) Zeq 15:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Your point, if I understand you correctly, seems to be that we should not include the casualty figures for the month preceeding the capture of the IDF soldier because the presence of these figures would mislead readers. I gather that your rationale for this stems from the assumption (which I share) that there have very likely been no Israeli fatalities at all during June as a result of the Quassam rocket attacks (as I recall, there have only been five Israeli fatalities as a result of Quassam rocket attacks during the last three years), and that this will dramatically contrast with the 16-24 Palestinian deaths (including those of several children) during June alone. This information might well lead people to infer, at the very least, that when Israel justifies the current incursions by claiming that they are merely responding to Palestinian violence, rather than instigating and perpetuating the conflict, they are not being quite truthful. I am guessing that you find this outcome undesirable because you think that the actions of the Israeli miliatary (in this case or in general) are legitimate. I have no interest in arguing over the moral legitimacy or the legality of the IDF's actions, and even if I did wish to have such a discussion, this would not be the appropriate forum. Fortunately, as authors of an encyclopedia, you and I don't need to agree on whether or not Israel is in the right. By the same token, we cannot censor pieces of information purely because they support or detract from our view about whether Israel in the right. In some contexts, we might be persuaded by arguments that people are sometimes better off not knowing things; but that anti-intellectual (in a neutral sense) position is surely the opposite of the mission of an encyclopedia, which is founded on the idea that the more people know, the better. It seems to me that there can only be two possible kinds of objections to including the information I suggested: either (1) the information is false (which I gather is not the problem here, since the figures I provided above are widely-agreed upon and documented by reference to a source that is reputable, impartial, and has direct access to the relevant facts), or (2) the information is not relevant to the article. I explained above why I thought the information was relevant, and since it seems equally, if not more, relevant than what we have in the "Background" section already, I don't see what would prevent us from including it. I will, of course, wait to see if there are any other objections before I make any edits. --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

don't you think that it would imply that Israel is to blame for Gaza beach blast for example? -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, since the Gaza beach incident is subject to some dispute. But I am just suggesting that we add the figures for the casualties suffered on both sides as a result of the conflict during the period leading up to the current incursion (that is, casualties for June). Such an addition (at least as I conceive it), would not make any analytical points at all about who is responsible for what deaths in what way. Any reader who wanted to know the circumstances surrounding the Gaza beach incident could click on the link to the perfectly adequate article on the subject and learn what the various disputes about the incident are. In other words, the only kind of reader who would be misled into making the inference you're concerned about, and whose state of error would persist, would be a reader who was unwilling to just click over to the article on the topic and find out for himself. We do not, I think, need in general to burden ourselves (thankfully) with the task of hunting down the wilfully ignorant. In this case, I think we can assume that our readers are rational enough not to impute to us inferences we have not, in fact, drawn. But if you really deem it necessary to obstruct such inferences, and you will not agree to including the information otherwise, we could certainly just add a parenthetical remark to the effect that the responsibility for the Gaza beach casualties is disputed. Would this satisfy you? --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should have an account of individual casualties in a section on its own, so I've hidden it for now. We do need to find a way to ensure the infobox casualty rate refs are updated, I added some hidden comments to that effect. El_C 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I gather you're talking about the casualties during this sequence of events, rather than the casualties leading up to these events during the month of June. Perhaps this comment and the ensuing discussion should have its own section? --RobinJ 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important to show individual casualties to show dead militants vs. dead civilians. And how they died, example: militants using human shields,etc. Maybe there should be a separate page for individual casualties. (also see: Operation Days of Penitence). --Spoil29 03:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the casualties should be correspondent to just "Operation Summer Rains". Military and Civilian casualties on both sides should be reported separately for both sides.

Agreed, but El_C removed the casualties section completely.--Spoil29 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW- Since only my IP used to appear, I created a Wikipedia account so my new User ID will be available for Talk.

This is not wikinews, is the problem with keeping track of the specific events surrounding each individual casualty, esp. if they becomes significant. El_C 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It’s more like daily briefs on the casualties of the operation. You don’t think its significant? --Spoil29 04:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Daily briefs are problematic on an encyclopedia entry (as opposed to wikinews); I think major events, including casualties, should be integrated into the body of the article, as part of the overall narrative. El_C 04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

casualty section would be good. The article seems too disorganized, casualy's can help since it is structured. I for one would like to know what happened on say the second or third day of operation as opposed to a general figure. --24.185.16.246 04:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source like wikinews. If established editors (editors with considerable experience on Wikipedia) disagree with my position, I will not object, though. El_C 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

reason for operation

"Israel's official reason for the operation is rescuing (or pressuring for the release) of an Israeli soldier, corporal Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Palestinian militants into Israeli territory, but the escalating conflict is about more than just one kidnapped soldier. It was launched After Palestinian groups launched more than 600 rockets on Israeli towns along the border in the last year, 170 of them during the last month, resulting in an increased domestic pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to do something to stop the attacks on Israeli civilian targets." Zeq 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Zeq: the Israelis are clearly acting on plans drawn up before Shalit's capture, and this operation is not principally a reaction to that capture. I'm just not sure how you want the article changed to reflect that. — JEREMY 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how article doest not reflect that opinion! -- tasc ^words_deeds 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I agree, and I wasn't intending to suggest otherwise. I'm just trying to find out what exactly Zeq wants changed. — JEREMY 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

{"::::I agree that with both Jeremy and Tsac that the lead covers the points raised by Zeq. I prefer the current narrative since it's more concise & has a better flow; the rest appears to be covered in the background section. El_C 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah; I see now what Zeq wants to do (ie. he wants to insert the text he quotes above), and I agree with El C's evaluation. — JEREMY

Noam Chomsky claims (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/146258 search for paragraph starting with "Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24") that Israel abducted a Palestinian doctor and the doctor's brother on June 24th. The implication (as far as I can tell) is that the kidnapping of Shalit was at least partially in response to this. I couldn't find anything about this alleged event elsewhere. Anybody know more about this? I think this is relevant to the "early moments" portion of the article, but I'm not sure if the above implication is clear enough. --srostami 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added (clearly indicating 'claim' nature) sentence and reference to section "Raids and arrests" directly under alternate characterization of same event. --srostami 19:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to do this. But even with the word claim I don't think that citing Noam Chomsky or democracynow.org adheres to NPOV. Both Chomsky and democracynow.org define the words American Far Left and would say these things to further their position. I just don't think it's very reliable in this article. Now if I had a question on linguistics, psychology and development, or wanted a thrashing debate on leftist politics this is the man I'd come running to. I just wouldn't ask him who to blame for what in this case, even though he is a self-proclaimed zionist. Njjones 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

“When I say everything, I mean everything” vs “No Matter What, the Violence Will Never Stop”

Israeli PM: "My government has instructed the IDF (army) and the security establishment to do everything in order to bring Gilad back home... and when I say everything, I mean everything," http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19662888%255E1702,00.html

Hamas: “No Matter What, the Violence Will Never Stop” http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1653

let's all sing along.. what a wonderful wooooooooooooooorld..

References

Is it possible for anyone to get references from Palestine newspapers? Having many Israeli references and no Palestine references could result in a slight bias towards the Israeli side, as newspapers may not be objective all the time. --Terrancommander 14:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, give us some names of palestinian newspapers. -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, I am not able to get any, so can somebody do it (if possible)? --Terrancommander 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

May be there is none? -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't you just say there are no/few Palestinian newspapers or say it is difficult to find or just not reply? Your reply does not help at all. --Terrancommander 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your posts do not help either. You're trying to implicate some bias in non-Palestinian mass media, but fail to show which one exactly. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just exactly how has it ever occured to you that I am anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli when I ask for Palestinian sources? Have you ever done any essays or reports before? You should know that you have to take positive points and negative points and compare them. Think before you speak, and assume good faith, tasc. --Terrancommander 13:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only palestinian "newspapers" I found can't really be called newspapers ince they are pretty much just extremely biased propaganda written up nicely and published. So I think it's better to stick to international newspapers and Israeli newspapers. For more of the arab view maybe we should take a look at russian newspapers which are usually somewhat pro-palestinian/pro-arab. --LongKong 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few good options for English-language Palestinian/Arab media like [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], www.electronicintifada.net, [[13]], and[[14]]. It should be noted that al-Jazeera broke the story on the first Israeli soldier to be killed in the operation, hours before any Israeli media got around to telling the public anything about it.Tiamut

The falsehood of no Israeli casulaties

This article does not mention the civilian Elihu Asheri which was kidnapped as well to presuure Israel to halt the operation. hew was excuted short time after abdaction.

Two israeli soldiers were killed before this operation - they are not mention as well.

Two palestinians died as a result of mines they prepared in gaza on the 1st and 2nd day of the operation - they are not mentioned as well.

Zeq 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

many people were killed and wounded in road accident across Israel. don't you think that it's a good idea to mention them too? -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

what kind of question is this ? Is this your way of telling us about yourself ? Zeq 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a way of telling you that you don't understand the essense of 'casuality in operation' thing. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, This is now clear. However, This article does not mention the civilian Elihu Asheri which was kidnapped as well to presure Israel to halt the operation. hew was excuted short time after abdaction.

Two israeli soldiers were killed before this operation - they are not mention as well.

Two palestinians died as a result of mines they prepared in gaza on the 1st and 2nd day of the operation - they are not mentioned as well. Zeq 15:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if tasc can please stop giving one sentence replies sarcastically snubbing our efforts to make the article better and actually do something about it. Can't you just put your points forward straightforwardly and give evidence as to why you are for or against it? --Terrancommander 15:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me. I don't see even your intention of being helpfull. The fact that you're raising some points doesn't automatically mean that it's is neccessary/helpfull/worthwhile to discuss. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, are you reading current version of an article? because I see all that information there! -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zeq, the 2 dead and 1 injured tank craw of Gilad Shalit as well as Elihu Asheri kidnapping and murder should be in this article probably in the Background section but not as casualty of the operation like tasc said. --TheYmode 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say so. FTW is going on? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tasc. I remind you about WP:civil don't use the "F" word (as in FTW) and don't make fun of other editors concern like you did mine. Also familiarize yourself with WP:NPA for what you wrote earlier today[15]. Thank You. Zeq 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like when my worst are being twisted. do you? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I don't see you giving warning to other editors, posting such comments as giving one sentence replies sarcastically snubbing! -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

tasc, I see now, the comment giving one sentence replies sarcastically snubbing, is equal to using that word? The term, snubbing, refers to you turning down our comments without much thought, and is not a personal attack. Wikipedia states certain leaders snubbing suggestions, does this mean Wikipedia has a personal vendetta against these leaders? It seems to me, if I may point out, that whoever gives a suggestion, you are against it, but you do not give your reasons. Either that, or you are against the author. Please do so, thank you.

I would also like to point out that the NPA policy is about personal attacks, not about your actions. Condemning your actions do not fall under this category and is henceforth allowed, especially when it is true. Please re-read the policy before making blind assumptions. --Terrancommander 13:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was misunderstood, you said (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the two Israeli soldiers and civilian Elihu Asheri are not 'casualty in operation', and I was agreeing with you about that. --TheYmode 16:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that first you wrote 'I agree with Zeq' and than 'but not as casualty of the operation like tasc said' confused me (since I was disagreeing with Zeq, I read the second part as attributed to me words). Anyway, my deepest apologies. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this hasnt been said, those casualties were prior to the operation, and not during. Therefore they cannot be casualties of this operation. Rangeley 17:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the timing. one is after it started. Zeq 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But in a West Bank! -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did check the timing, they announced they had him on the 28th, he was found dead shortly thereafter - autopsy revealing he had been killed by a gunshot on the 25th. This was 3 days prior. The other died of a natural cause. And ofcourse, the people that died in the original raid died before the operation. Rangeley 20:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I went to the official IDF site in english, [16], and found that they refer to it as Summer Rain. They are a better authority then Newspapers on its official English Translation, so should we switch back to the singular name? Rangeley 17:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd, an earlier article [17] shows it as plural. I guess they arent sure either. Rangeley 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Third headline from the top Summary of "Summer Rains" Events during the Weekend. I don't think that it's a good reason to swith back. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, they dont seem to consistently use Summer Rain. Rangeley 17:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In summary of the operation [18] they also use rains. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

reactions etc.

Interesting survey of left-wing Israeli reactions as well as public opinion can be found in this Al-Jazeera article. Don't have time to add it myself now, sorry link Dsol 17:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Intentions

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733634.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5139108.stm Zeq 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Ban

Can someone ban Mieciu K for vandalism because he keeps taking out the links from the bottom. He is accusing me of spamming - which is not truth because I have added other links from other website in the past. He obviously does not like the information from the link and I see this as a problem. ~~ Roberto

• There are dozens if not hundreds of english language websites covering "Operation Summer Rains" news. What makes your link so special? Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Adding links to the same website to several articles in a short period of time is called spamming. And asuming my bad faith is against WikiquetteMieciu K 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes ynet so special? what makes Aljeezera special? why don't you delete them? Just admit it, you just disagree with the analysis of the website. By the way, I don't even own that website and it isn't a commercial website because they sure are not selling anything. 68.160.202.171 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Roberto

Aljazeera is a popular Arab news site, Ynet is a popular Israeli news site. They are the involved groups in this, so its logical to link to them. How is a socialist webpage going to be relevant, in any way? Rangeley 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ynetnews link is a good source for ongoing updates (BTW the article from Aljeezera is based on an article from Ynetnews[19]). --TheYmode 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ynet and alJazerra are valid news sources. Is the socialist website a news agency or a blog or a external group? As fro inclusion in relevant links, possibly just take a vote or something? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • That they don't sell anything that dosen't mean you can post that link everywhere you like. I cannot "disagree with the analysis of the website" beacause I didin't read it - I just don't think this author/analisys/website is notable enough. The other websites have either new information (like photographs in ynet). Aljeezera is special because many million viewers watch it and agree/are influenced by its opinions.(autorevert). Mieciu K 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, that is a pretty bad faith assessment. This individual undoubtedly sees linking to the socialist website as beneficial to Wikipedia, hence he placed it there. But the simple truth is that that webpage is not relevant, or notable enough, to be helpful. Both of you were close to, or exceeded, 3 reverts, which is ofcourse against the rules, so lay off that for a while.

Rangeley 00:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • I never had trouble adding an external link to a page. I mean was with it? There are many people who agree with the analysis of the website - those on the Left in the United States and in general in the world. Just because this website is a socialist website doesn't make it irrevelent. 68.160.202.171 Roberto
      • It dosen't matter to me if is conservative, liberal or socialist this website is simply not notable. Mieciu K 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well I think it is notable. 68.160.202.171 Roberto
        • Because it is socialist? It is just as notable as hundreds of other websites. Others will say "You have a link to some socialist website why can't I add a link to my ______ website? Are you discriminating us?". And if we add websites "notable" like yours in a matter of a week we will have dozens of links. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Mieciu K 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think is notable because it reflects a different viewpoint of those on the Left - especially here in the United States. 68.160.202.171 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Roberto
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not interested in opinions, they are interested in facts. Mieciu K 01:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have added the neutrality tag as the article describes Palestinians as "abducting" people, and yet Israelis "seize" people, these are terms which evoke different emotions portraying the same action. - FrancisTyers · 08:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are not the 'same action'. Israel and Palestinian militants are not equal entities. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. It is quite odd though, as we have a soldier being "abducted", and yet two civilians being "seized", if anything it should be the other way round. - FrancisTyers · 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, Israel had judges to sign the arrest warrants, regardless of the international legality or lack thereof of these. El_C 08:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Largely irrelevant. I'll refrain from making analogies :) - FrancisTyers · 08:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess it suggests to a more clandestine framework (outside of a formal legal system). I don't have a strong opinion on this, though. El_C 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do who is being abducted/seized, but rather who abducted/seized those persons. Isn't it obvious that since non-legitimate (even in palestinian authority POV) forces did it, they are kidnappers. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, in the best interests of the project (this being an ITN-featured article), I ask that you revert back to FT's version, so we would not have that disruptive npov template distracting our readership. Thank you in advance. El_C 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

After having judges sign arrest warrants, on 24 June, in an overnight raid into the southern Gaza Strip, Israeli forces seized Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, sons of Hamas activist Ali Muamar. According to an Israeli army spokesman the two men taken were Hamas militants intending to carry out imminent attacks on Israel. This was denied by Hamas, which claimed that the men were not members of the organization.[9]

On June 25, a joint military wing of Hamas - the Popular Resistance Committees and Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam) - led a raid on an Israeli military post near Kerem Shalom in Israel.[10] Two Israeli soldiers were killed, four more injured and an IDF corporal, Gilad Shalit, was captured. Three of the Palestinian assailants were killed in the raid as well. The death of the IDF soldiers was exceptional, since the last time an Israeli soldier was killed in or around the Gaza Strip was in June 2005.

How is that? I would also be happy with replacing "abducted" with "taken prisoner" rather than "captured". - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it would probably be better to use "taken prisoner" for both.

Israeli forces took prisoner Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar

four more injured and an IDF corporal, Gilad Shalit, was taken prisoner

He wasn't taken prisoners! He was seized or captured, but in no way he was taken as a prisoner. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to using captured for both, but "taken prisoner" is more NPOV. - FrancisTyers · 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As I already said. And you already ignored. Israel and Palestinian militans are NOT equal entities. This is why one side can nab and another only kidnap. Shalit wasn't taken prisoner. And use of equal term is inappropriate. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, I'd ask that you don't remove a disputed tag while the article is still disputed. - FrancisTyers · 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis, please, don't accuse me of things i didn't do. I didn't remove tag. Yes, I did not readded it either, but it's not the same. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Effectively you removed the tag, you knew it was in place, it was removed, you then selectively restored. - FrancisTyers · 09:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I also know that this tag is your POV. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that one should generally avoid using tags that are nominated for deletion, certainly on an ITN-featured article. But it was removed quickly enough (which I again thank you for), so no harm done. El_C 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one should avoid using tag especially if one voted for deletion of that tag. Don't you agree Francis? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. - FrancisTyers · 09:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Who would've thought. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard about Israeli goverment threatening Palestinians over abduction of members of parliament. I haven't and there is no such threats. The reason for it is that Israeli and PNA are not equal entities. (not to mention militants). Therefore any attempts to use equal terms ARE pov. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Immediate suggestion

Whatever happens, please remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing. El_C 09:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to my second suggestion and remove the tag for now. - FrancisTyers · 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, anything. Just remove the tag, please. Thaks. El_C 09:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion. Why to change it? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It was changed as a condition of removing the pov tag. If you wish to revert back, please revert back to the version with the POV tag. I find it slightly concerning that you are not attempting to reach a compromise here. I have offered several suggestions and yet you don't seem to be engaging. Am I perhaps doing something wrong? Taking the wrong approach? If you'd respond more constructively to another approach, please let me know. - FrancisTyers · 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to reach compromiss? You're ignoring my argument, and I'm not attempting to reach a compromiss. Now this is a clear position. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring your argument, in fact I'm trying not to have an argument with you. - FrancisTyers · 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your failing to do so, since you're pushing pov. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make accusations, thats exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. I haven't accused you of anything. - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by that? El_C 09:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Meant that since there is no solution/consensus wording should remain original! -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try and relax, this is clearly quite an emotive issue for you. Try and work with me to find a consensus rather than disregarding all my suggestions. - FrancisTyers · 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, I don't particularly care either way, I just note that this isn't the first time this issue came up. El_C 09:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Strike that, I misattributed that. I do though recall it being raised in the article. El_C 09:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, as a matter of fact, raise this point before. I received no response, and then Francis removed my comments, for reasons I don't quite understand. It's especially odd, since we seem to agree that the use of "arrest" to describe Israeli actions and "abduct" to describe Palestinian actions is POV (since the former suggests a legitimate, legal exercise of state authority, whereas the latter suggests a criminal operation by a non-state entity--in other words, to reply to your earlier position on this issue, the choice of terminology prejudges the question of legality rather than neutrally setting it aside). In any case, I apologise if my now deleted comment was inappropriate in some way; if it was, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know how. --RobinJ 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yargh! That was an accident, sorry I was going to move your comments down to this section, but subsequently got caught in an edit conflict. Give me a sec and I'll restore them. Sorry again! - FrancisTyers · 12:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just glad to know that I didn't do anything inappropriate. Thanks for the swift reply. --RobinJ 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Question, how is "taken prisoner" not appropriate for both sides? - FrancisTyers · 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By this, I mean, can we refute the fact that both sides actions can be described as "taking prisoner[s]" ? - FrancisTyers · 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not refute it. But the wave of arrests was an elaborate operation of an historical significance; not that you changed that section... El_C 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy with the current wording? - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine by me. El_C 09:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro: "abducted" or "captured"?

[section moved by. - FrancisTyers · 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)]

This is a similar point to the issue raised about the use of the word "arrest" above, but I was wondering whether it might not be a bit more NPOV to replace "abducted" with "captured" in the second paragraph of the intro. I say this because we usually use the word "abduct" to refer to crimes such as kidnapping, but when one military group takes custody of a soldier from the opposite military group we usually use the more neutral term "capture," which, after all, has a precise meaning in the laws of war. Among other things, this allows us to distinguish the capture of the IDF soldier from the abduction of the young settler we mention later in the article; the two incidents are clearly distinct, however much settlers (just like any heavily armed, fanatical paramilitary group) have a somewhat ambiguous status as "civilians." --RobinJ 12:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with this suggestion for reasons of accuracy and distinction. Jobrahms 16:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I diagree, the only group capable of claiming a link to being a "military group" would be the armed wing of Hamas, however the Hamas government has already stated they knew nothing of these actions nor anything of the location of the soldier and did not plan no condone the action. That leaves it to being simply people that may belong to Hamas military wing, not the political wing taking a hostage. If this was a sanctioned act, or if the government condoned it, or knew where the soldier was, etc, then it may fly. But right now the government is saying this person is acting outside their control. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see how the military wing of Hamas being outside of the official government's control (or even, for that matter, it being directly controlled by persons or groups in another country) would mean that they would cease to be a "miliatry group" in much the same sense that the IDF is. But in any case, the contrast I was trying to draw was between two kinds of victims, namely soldiers versus civilians. It is, after all, part of a soldier's job (however lamentable) to risk death or capture, and a soldier typically goes into battle of his own free will knowing perfectly well that those things are possibilities; in the normal course of any miliatry conflict, soldiers on either side can be captured (regardless of how we want to characterize the two sides), and I don't see why Israeli soldiers should receive the special dispensation of being treated as if they were innocent victims of a criminal act rather than what they are--an occupying army in a violent conflict with the indigenous population. The Israeli settler, by contrast, is not a soldier, however militant he may be, and so it makes sense to distinguish his case by calling it an abduction. I could well understand arguing that the settler should be regarded as a soldier as well, and that therefore both cases should be referred to by the word 'capture,' but it seems to me very counterintuitive to suggest that both cases are abductions, that a soldier taken prisoner in the normal course of waging an armed conflict is somehow the victim of a kidnapping. --RobinJ 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well argued RobinJ. I agree that it is important to make a distinction between the soldier and settler's cases. --Jobrahms 13:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an armed conflict of standard measures, which is why actions such as those need to be explained specifically. This soldier was not engaged in armed conflict, because the people who attacked him are of no recognized military. Shooting and killing a soldier at a guard post does not make the shooter not a murderer. "Soldiers" are military personnel, including militias, in recognizable uniforms, and they fight according to the Geneva Convention. You are basically stating that any Palestinian can attack an outpost and grab a soldier, since they only stop being civilian when they open fire, and that soldier is considered "captured". However that lacks a point of difference between who soldiers are and are not. Wouldnt any Palestinian killed then be a casualty of war, if they are all to be considered soldiers instead of civilians? The difference between being captured of kidnapped is the legality of the situation. Considering the soldiers life has been threatened, its now an illegal action. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Any Palestinian can attack an outpost and grab a soldier. This is the right to resist occupation. As long as he carries his arms openly he is an lawful combatant. -- Petri Krohn 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This would hold true if the soldier was held as a POW. He is not. He is being held incommunicado, in a secret location. Thus, the proper description of him is as a hostage, and the action is kidnapping.Isarig 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disclosing the location of POW camps to the enemy is not a requirement of the Geneva Conventions. As to the status of the captured solder, he is a prisoner of war, not an unlawful combatant. -- Petri Krohn 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

False. Article 48 reads:

Article 48: In the event of transfer, prisoners of war shall be officially advised of their departure and of their new postal address. Such notifications shall be given in time for them to pack their luggage and inform their next of kin.

Further, holding a POW incommunicado is clearly forbidden. This soldier is not a POW, he is a hostage Isarig 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It states that POW camps should have a PO box and the prisoner should be made aware of it. This has no bearing on the status of the prisoner. -- Petri Krohn 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Petri, what "occupation" are you talking about? Gilad Shalit was guarding his county's legally recognised border. Cymruisrael 06:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamas Commanders

Should we list the Hamas commmander as Mohammed Deif and Khaled Meishal? Hamas' military wing usually have independent cells operating without a central commanding authority. While they are influenced to attack or refrain from attacking by directives from their leaders (both from Damascus and in Gaza which further complicates of who is in charge)they tend to act without much coordination per se. There is really no central CO for all Hamas forces as you could say there is in Hezbollah with Nasrallah.

Wrong Aerial Strike Image

The image provided of the airstrike on Ismail_Haniya's office seems to be wrong to my untrained eye (see image #53628). It doesn't seem to be an airstrike in the heart of a Gaza city, but rather some other recent aerial strike on some road in the Gaza Strip. For comparison, see this [20] aerial strike on some building, dated 16.7.2005 (see [21]). I have failed to locate the original news report accompanying the given image, thus I rather not remove the image before the matter is discussed. --Lior 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[22] Rangeley 19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashkelon

Ashkelon is home to the Rutenberg power plant and its port contains one of the largest fuel depots in Israel. Both facilities have been frequently targetted and, if hit, could cause the disruption of electricity in Israel and the loss of many civilian lives respectively. I've just corrected some spelling and clarified the wording in this paragraph, but do we have a source for this information? --Jobrahms 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you doubt? Information about power plant? or fuel depots? or the claim that broken power plant does not produce electricity? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"could cause ... the loss of many civilian lives respectively" is speculation and should only be included if it was made by someone whose speculation is notable (i.e. an official or expert). For now I am removing it. Dsol 09:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dsol. Jobrahms 09:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

tasc - It's not really a question of whether I doubt it or not - the statement needs to have a cited source. As far as I can see there are a few claims in this paragraph which, in my opinion, require a source:

(1) that Ashkelon's port contains one of the largest fuel depots in Israel;

(2) that the port and power plant have been frequently targetted;

(3) that when hit by Qassam rockets it causes the disruption of electricity in Israel and the loss of many civilian lives respectively - have these events occurred? Currently there is no information for the reader of the article. Jobrahms 09:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No response to my request for a source for this info. This BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5149308.stm however states: While Qassams regularly strike another small Israeli town, Sderot, Ashkelon - with about 120,000 inhabitants - is further away from Gaza and has been spared direct hits until now. Therefore I'm removing the claim that Ashkelon has been "frequently targetted".

Additionally, the first two sources (http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/viii/280620061 and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/15/international/i025402D49.DTL) do not mention Ashkelon, the third (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/06/09/isrlpa11106.htm) states that Ashkelon has been hit only once; and the fourth also does not mention the city (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3257913,00.html).

There has now (at 1900 July 4) been a Qassam attack on Ashkelon and this should be added in the appropriate place. Jobrahms 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the original poster of this issue and i would like to help to clarify things. im sorry i didnt supply any sources like i usually do but you need to understand that we have a simple problem here. There is an obvious lack of english sources describing qassam rockets attacks on israel in general since the western press does not report about it unless people are killed en masse. I have assembled here hebrew sources found in one of israels 3 most popular newspapers, Maariv. the articles detail events of qassam rockets hitting ashkelon. the utter majority of the rockets landed in ashkelons industrial zone which is where there are 3 strategic sites. the rutenberg power plant, an oil pipeline and a water desalination facility. All the articles discuss the strategic sites and this is a widely known issue in israel. it is by far not a speculation.

here are the sources and i am willing to translate them or ask you to use a translation software to see that they are true however you will have trouble finding english sources. this does prove more than anything that the palestinians attacking ashkelons strategic facilities in a frequent manner:

25.8.03 First time a qassam falls near ashkelon. a qassam rocket falls in zikim beach a few kms from ashkelon. heres a translation of a part of the article : "military officials estimated yesterday that the rocket that fell at the beach was supposed to hit ashkelons power plant in an attempt to disrupt israel's power supply". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/529/608.html

28.8.03 a qassam rocket falls in ashkelons industrial zone. heres a short translation: "state officials based on the reports of our security forces, reported this evening that the firing of the rockets towards the power plant of ashkelon and the oil facilities in the ashkelon-eilat oil pipeline. according to their words, the targetting of ashkelon is crossing a red line and israel will respond harshly. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/531/341.html

7.9.04 one of six qassam rockets fired at israel lands in an open area just south of ashkelon. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/779/396.html

19.12.05 "for the second time in 3 days a qassam rocket has landed in ashkelons industrial area where there are sensitive infrastructure facilities" the palestinian resistence commitee said: "we will keep trying to hit facilities and increase the range of our rockets" and "the defense department fears the horror scenario when infrastructure facilities will be hit, which are concetrated in the area." http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/021/900.html

22.12.2005 one rocket lands in an open area south of ashkelons industrial zone. a second rocket lands in a military base south of ashkelon and injures 5 israeli soldiers. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/023/933.html

8.2.06 2 qassam rockets landed in an open area south of ashkelon. on the current day a rocket hit ashkelons industrial zone. the article gives the casual stuff about defense officials being worried about strategic facilities. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/045/369.html

14.2.06 two rockets hit ashkelons industrial zone. one lands near a strategic site, one hits a factory damaging it. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/048/084.html

3.3.06 five rockets launched from gaza one lands in ashkelons industrial area near a strategic facility. 2 israelis treated for shock. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/055/510.html

5.7.2006 a video from a security camera showing the first qassam rocket hitting a school in the midst of central ashkelon. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/444/919.html

thats all i could find in nrg but obviously there are more in the time lapses. i understand that the western media does not report about this because israel has little injuries. but thats not an excuse that it did not happen. qassams are constantly growing in effectiveness and its only a matter of time before they will take a heavy civilian toll.

i hope this helps clearing the issue. feel free to ask if you have any questions.

i hope you would approve me mentioning ashkelon in the article. --NightyBeta.

Thanks NightyBeta for supplying these sources. I think it should be fine to include these references to non-English sites. Wikipedia:Verifiability states: English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources - in this case there seem to be no English sources, therefore the Hebrew sources can be used. I think it is important, however, to give Ashkelon its own paragraph, or (at least) sentence, and not include it with densely populated areas sych as Sderot. It should also be made clear that it is the industrial area that has reportedly been targetted. Jobrahms 09:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you. I will try to make the distinction between the populized areas and the industrial area very clear. thank you for lending an ear, i will glean some english sources to put on the article. ~~NightyBeta

BTW, would you describe targeting infrastructure facilities as "terrorism"? -- Petri Krohn 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Background

Related to the above item, the article read:

Israel responded with warning shots, firing artillery shells into unpopulated areas of the Gaza Strip, reportedly at a rate of several thousand in June alone.

Looking at the supplied reference, the unit of time is a "week", so I added it. However, it looks like the reference of this statement is one of capability, not an actual event (as the article implies). Does anyone know if, in fact, Israel was lobbing shells into Gaza at that rate? mdf 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it as per month, to be precise per the month of June. Probably clearer to remove the word "rate" altogether as it, as you say, is imprecise. Jobrahms 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to firing several thousand ... in June. The source's point seems to be that the rate has increased, however, so perhaps the following might be better:

Israel responded by firing artillery shells into unpopulated areas of the Gaza Strip, whose rate of fire reportedly increased from single figures per day at the start of June to more than a thousand per week by the end of the month.

I think also that the word warning should go: it is not for us to either guess the reason for the shelling. If it can be cited, then this should be quoted from an IDF source. Jobrahms 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this article [23]and many others, Israeli troops fired over 5,100 shells into Gaza between the end of March and the end of May 2006. That's an average of roughly 85 shells per day. This was the approximate rate of fire up until the beach bombing on 9 June, when a short break was declared by Peretz and then the firing resumed, remaining active all the way up to and into this latest operation. Tiamut 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

TT news quote from Islam Online

The IOL article with the quote from Persson mentions TT news. I'm guessing this was a TV interview or press conference, but I can't find anything searching google or tt.se. Does anyone know where we can get his entire statement in Swedish or english? Dsol 13:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote (In swedish) can be found here [24]. I might add the the translation is accurate albeit the source claims that the news agency is named "ITT" instead of "TT" (tidningarnas telegrambyrå). andreas_td 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC+2)

Commanders

The level of involvment of Khaled Mashal in commanding Hamas in the Gaza Strip is very much into dispute. Moreover, Mohammed Deif, althrough he is indeed the commander of the Ezzedeen-al-qassam brigades, is only in command of one of the several groups involved in fighting the Israeli forces. Bottom line is, we might want to review the "commanders" section on the Palestinian side, as it may carry the false impression of a unified and clearly identified command structure.

Qassam on Ashkelon - hit a school

luckly only 1 injury so i doubt it will make the world press. Zeq 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3271207,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/734605.html

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/05/eng20060705_280038.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5149308.stm - btw BBC is wrong the school was not empty at the time.

All these four sources say there were no injuries; the BBC article states The rocket hit an empty school yard (not an empty school) which is inline with the others (Haaretz: an empty parking lot). Jobrahms 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1 injury. It is lucky the place was not full of kids (summer vacation) Zeq 15:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have re-read all four these sources: all say there were no injuries. Could you please state a source for your claim that there was one injury so that we can include this info. Jobrahms 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I have changed certain words in the artcile to make the article NPOV. The use of the words terrorist and abducted have been changed to militants and captured to bring it into line with the international media.

Why !? The word millitant is not correct here terorist is. "In French the term "militant" retains a more moderate meaning of "activist" which it formerly had in English." , Militant is a more POV term, it should be changed ( in this case ) to terrorist. It should also be pointed out that the international media is very POV so siteing them does not help your case. Just to clairfy when a civilian boy, Eliyahu Asheri is 'kidnaped' and murdered. Why is this not terrorisim ?--yisraeldov 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

terrorist is POV, militant is not. The article is in English, not French. --Jobrahms 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree see Honestreportings.com, if using the word terrorist is siding with the Israelis, militant is siding with the palestinians.--69.114.174.131 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox casualty rates

Despite my hidden comments to source changes to the figures, the source has not been updated whereas the figures have. Suggestions? El_C 03:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through it two days ago, and checked the casualty section to count the number that were wounded or died according to the sources, and I ended up actually adding a few to the infobox total. Rather than update the source at the infobox, every casualty should be stated in the casualty section so that it can be checked in this manner. Rangeley 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

West Bank incident

Operation_Summer_Rains#West_Bank_front On 5 July... - This is currently taken verbatim from the Jerusalem Post article and should be rewritten. Jobrahms 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to make a whole section for the West Bank. The operation section is set up in a sort of chronological order, there is a bit of overlap, but for the most part each section takes place after the previous. Thats how other things are, thats what makes sense, and thats how it should remain. Rangeley 14:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we count the 2 Islamic Jihad members killed on a "work accident" (their bomb blew up prematurely) in the total casualty fugures? Richardmiami 01:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How much BS can wikipedia take

[25]

A lot when it comes from the palastinian lies origization. --mitrebox 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please. There are more Zionist on Wikipedia. 68.160.244.82 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Roberto

Two Qassam rockets slam into southern Ashkelon

4 injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs)

Source? I dont see anything saying anyone was injured. Rangeley 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Gaza (formerly 'Weasal words')

unhelpful heading changed by Jobrahms 09:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The impact of the strike in Gaza City: More than half of the 600,000 residents are without water, and at least two-thirds lack power. The power plant hit by Israeli forces does more than provide energy to more than half of the Gaza Strip's 1.3 million residents; it also fuels critical water and sewage pumps as Gaza heads into another Mediterranean coast summer.

Is this an Enclopedia or place to popragate nonsense. The water in their cups didn't turn to blood as this happened. Come on. And they live right next to the sea! 210.84.35.104 19:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

hi user 210, yes this an encyclopedia thats how we know that you can't drink sea water. If you want to then you have to use desalination plants, these use a lot of power, as does pumping water around. Yes the people of Gaza will have thier own personal emergency supplies of water but humans under normal conditions need 2 liters a day. With the heat this could be as much as 4 liters a day in the Mediterranean coast summer. And as for sewage, this can be a killer especially in hot conditions if it is left lying around untreated. Now that what i call "critical water and sewage pumps", hope that helps you 210.Hypnosadist 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did any one mention that the arabs attaced the Israeli Power Plants that was supplying them with Electricity ?--yisraeldov 10:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the relevant page? This page is not designed for a full discusion of all the things that both sides of the conflict have ever done. Me lkjhgfdsa 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

nature of this article

a lot of things in this article, esp. the combat box at the top right, suggest it is really about the whole conflict as opposed to simply the Israeli operation. The present title suggests that the topic is the operation itself, but in fact considerable activity from both sides of the conflict is documented. Would another name be more appropriate? Dsol 19:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the operation, not the Arab Israeli conflict in general. Rangeley 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a debate about the use of Operation names going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history at the moment, it would be useful to talk there. This page currently in my view predominantly about the Israeli military operation, but as time goes on more external events (like rocket attacks) get added turning this into a history of a few days in the Arab Israeli conflict. Maybe fork pages like Effects of OSR, political and media responces to OSR are in order?Hypnosadist 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Just keep it here, there is absolutely no need to complicate things. Rangeley 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Qassam on Sderot

3 civilians wounded Zeq 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq - your comments here will not make it into the article unless you post your sources. As above, I am happy to add your information if you let us know a citeable source for it. Jobrahms 11:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

POV: 'settler' vs 'civilian'

Yisraeldov has edited settler to civilian on the grounds that Settler is POV. I would argue for the reinstatement of settler. There is a fundamental difference here in that a settler is knowingly violating international law by choosing to live in the occupied territories. It's not POV to point out this distinction. I will, however, not change it back until others have a chance to comment. --Jobrahms 11:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Civilian is a civilian is a civilian. Zeq 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that choosing to live in the occupied territories is an act of aggression, therefore a settler is not a civilian. --Jobrahms 11:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So you have just prooved the term settler IS POV. The boy was born there, his parents made the choce for him. Settlers need to be moved back to Israel not be kidnapped and shot excusion style.

BTW, what about such civilians who choose to stand behind a palestinian worrier ? [26] are they "civilians' when they are shot ?Zeq 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting "debate", this young man appears to be of legal age(18+?) and as he lives on occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Conventions. It is in the view of many people and lawyers that this makes him a participent in the occupation or even a combatant as opposed to a civilian as if he lived in say Tel Aviv. The use of the word Settler is best IMHO as it allows the reader to decide this POV for themselves, and provides extra factual information that Civilian simply does not. His being a settler was why he was on that street when he was kidnapped, and should be noted.Hypnosadist 12:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the "settlements" and "settlers" is not in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and if you read up on the issue with an honest attitude you'll see why. And even if it were, this does not justify kidnapping and murder. According to the Geneva Conventions - if they even apply - he was a protected person. --69.10.75.162 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. He was a national of the occupying power, it is the Palestinians who are defined as the Protected Persons. Fourth_Geneva_Convention Just to clarify: no-one here, as far as I can tell, is justifying kidnapping and murder, or even arguing about whether or not the man was a "legitimate target" - this discussion is about whether the use of the term settler to describe him is POV. --Jobrahms 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the are civilians until they pic up a weapon, thier stupidity is thier problem.Hypnosadist 12:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First off > 18 year old arabs who live in a home with Terrorists, would you point that out ? You said it is the "view of many people", their are many people who hold the oposing view, therefore it is POV. Also the term "settler" as you are intending it is a misnomer, there are plenty of settlements inside of the 'green line' . The boy and the soldier were led though arab streets and not one of the Arab "civians" botherd to inform the athorities. Settler and Settlement have negetave POV connotations...--yisraeldov 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Put quite simply, Arabs over the age of 18 living with "terrorists" would be assumed as "terrorists" or "militants" themselves... An assumption that, I'm sure, is often made (eg. when calculating fatalities). In any instance, this is irrelevant to the question in hand. 69.140.65.251 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The precise rights and wrongs of the settlements are POV opinions but the fact that he is a settler and the place he lives is part of why he died is important information that this Encyclpedia should put across, let see if we can find a wording that can do this.Hypnosadist 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply, no need to mention that he lived in a city in the shamron. No need to mention "Teritories" , "Settlements", let the reader, ressearch those topics independantly. I don't see though how this affected his murder ( he was murdered, that is the reason that he died ), when he was kidnapped they had no way of knowing where he lived, remember he was not in his house at the time, he was on a public road.--yisraeldov 16:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please clarify this comment yisraeldov - I am not quite sure what you are suggesting. --Jobrahms 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Say "An israeli boy was kidnapped and murdered, he lived in Itamar" -- Let the reader look up Itamar on their own and decide if he was a civialian or not.

I agree with Hypnosadist. I do not accept that the term settler is inherently POV; it provides information about Eliyahu Asheri that the term civilian does not and that is relevant to the circumstances of his death. It is a term widely applied to Israeli citizens living in the occupied territories by virtually all commentators and media, both Israeli and otherwise (with the possible exception of extreme Zionists).

Additionally, the cited source for the information (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268533,00.html) itself uses the term settler.

I would like to assume good faith, however I do question the motives of those who argue against using settler: why should the article not give the reader this information? --Jobrahms 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jobrahms that we should stick to "settler." The term, as far as I know, does not have derisive connotations (it clearly doesn't here), and it makes quite clear, after all, the main aim of the movement, which is to settle the lands that they regard as theirs by right and to displace the current occupants of those lands (the Palestinians). The use of this term seems to me so uncontroversial that I'm frankly surprised that anyone objects to it. In any event, anyone born in a settler community would count as a settler, regardless of their age and regardless of the extent to which they decided to live in the community, in the same way that anyone who was born in a Mennonite community would ipso facto be a Mennonite. Also, we do not need to decide here on the legitimacy or legality of the actions of the settlers; the term is a netural description of their explicitly stated aims and does not have any suggestion whatsoever of taking a position on the legality of the settlements. The legal question, after all, would be whether or not the settlements are legal, not whether or not they are settlements. The term "settler" also has no effect on whether or not they are counted as civilians; since they are nationals of Israel and not members of its regularly constituted armed forces, they are civilians, by virtue of the normal usage of that word, regardless of how militant or well-armed they are. There is no dispute here that I can see about whether or not the young man in question counts as a civilian. So let's stick with "settler." --RobinJ 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The very way that you described a settler shows that it does have a conotation- "displace the current occupants" , If you look above some of the comments imply that he was not a civilian because he was a settler... --yisraeldov 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right that there were suggestions above that "civilian" and "settler" were mutually exclusive terms--my apologies (that's what I get for reading too fast). I gather that the rationale behind the claim was that calling someone a civilian often amounts to designating them as, at least, a non-combatant, and often as someone simply innocent of perpetuating the conflict, neither of which are very accurate descriptions of settlers, who are bellicose, heavily armed and occupying Palestinian land. I would maintain, though, that we ought to use "civilian" in the sense of someone who is not a member of the regularly constituted armed forces of a state, because it seems worth distingushing the capture of a soldier from the abduction of a non-solider, just as there is a distinction between attacking a miliatry facility and attacking a city bus (the first, after all, is a legitimate form of resistance to occupation, and is perfectly legal under international law, whereas attacking civilians, even civilians engaged in criminal activity, is not). In any case, I never denied that the word "settler" has connotations (don't all words have connotations?), and the connotation you list I did indeed specifically attribute to the word. The point is that displacing the current occupants of the land east of the 1967 border is their stated aim. In other words, it's a description that the settlers themselves would be perfectly happy with, and if they would be happy with it I don't see what reasonable complaint there could be from anyone else about it. Perhaps an example would clarify my point. If I were editing an article on a neo-Nazi group and I described them as having "anti-semitic" views, this would be a netural description, as long as their stated aims involved the destruction of the jews or whatever; in that case the term would be NPOV, whereas in many other contexts labelling a person or a group "anti-semitic" might well be POV (as when anyone who criticizes Israel is, absurdly, called an anti-semite). Neo-Nazis, in other words, would not be offended by being called anti-semites. --RobinJ 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First major mobilization, not ground entrance

I just wanted to explain an edit I just made that I forget to title. I changes the intro from first "ground entrance" of the IDF to first "major mobilization" of the IDF because Israeli commandos made an arrest into Gaza on 24 June 2006, one day before Gilad was kidnapped. This arrest raid which predated the kidnapping was actually the first entry of IDF troops into Gaza since the disengagement. This was reported in the "World Brief" section of the Observer on the 25 June 2006 and is documented in this article [27] by Johnathan Cook. Tiamut 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists

The kidnapping of Shalit is an act of terrorism. Militant is the wrong word choice. Militant is defined on dictionary.com as "having a combative character" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant). This definition barely explains what is really going on. The kidnapping of Shalit is much more than an aggressive act. By the way, remember the Munich Massacre...just about the entire Western World views the kidnappings and massacre as "terrorism" not militant. I don't see how this is any different (it is not even known if Shalit is alive). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs).

The capture of soldiers is a normal part of any ongoing war; you see terrorists, others see freedom fighters. Your analogy to Munich is far from obvious: that took place far from the war zone, and involved civilians. — JEREMY 07:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The word "militant" is being used in this article as a noun; the definition you obtained from dictionary.com (not, I would hasten to add, the most reliable reference work for the English language--try the Oxford English Dictionary) is for the word "militant" used as an adjective and it is completely irrelevant here. The relevant definition in the OED reads "A person who strongly espouses a cause, esp. one who is aggressively active in pursuing a political or social cause. In later use also: spec. a member of an ideologically or politically motivated faction or force." This is plainly accurate in this context, and it is less POV than "terrorist." Moreover, as an encyclopedia (not an organ of propaganda for the IDF, or settlers, or refuseniks or anybody), we ought to adopt the most common usage in major media organs unless (1) we establish that there is a good reason to depart from standard usage and (2) we achieve consensus on the issue. It seems to me that there has been a long-standing consensus here that "militant" is the appropriate word, and you will need convince some of the rest of us if you want the article to say something else. Also, please make sure to sign your comments by putting four tildes (~) in a row. --RobinJ 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a pretty weak argument. These terrorists who kidnapped Shalit are the same people who fired Quassam missiles into Israel and into the city of Ashkelon. Aren't the residents of Ashkelon civilians? Well, this only further proves my point that these are terrorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs).

The act of attacking civilians is not in itself a definition of terrorism; by that logic we would have to refer also to every army in the world, including the IDF, as terrorists. I would argue that the term is in fact defined politically, not semantically. It is, therefore, inherently POV and should not be used other than in direct quotes. --Jobrahms 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title POV

While it has been developing, the Operation name has been a reasonable placeholder for a neutral title for the article. It has become clear now that this is a long-term invasion and possibly re-occupation of the strip, and as such continuing to use the Israelis' chosen designation has become POV. I suggest we need to discuss other possible titles, such as "2006 invasion of the Gaza strip". — JEREMY 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That title is way too unbalanced. You have to keep in mind who started this recent conflict. The terror groups have fired constantly into Ashkelon and kidnapped Shalit. Your title implies that Israel initiated this conflict.

Thanks for your input anon, i think we now need 3 linked articles;1) the Kidnapping of Shalit 2)Operation Summer Rains 3)Responce to Operation Summer Rains . If this turns into a re-occupation then we should add a forth article "2006 occupation of the Gaza strip" and also link that back to the gaza pullout.Hypnosadist 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that just makes the whole article confusing by separating it into different pieces. Also, there is no indication that Israel's response is an indication of any form of occupation. To suggest it would be completely inaccurate. Any nation has a right to defend itself and its citizens. Israel is merely responding to the kidnapping of Shalit and the firing of Qassam missiles into Israeli cities (and thus civilians). This makes me wonder if the title of the article should then be "Israel's Response to Palestinian Terrorism in 2006" Keep in mind that Israel gave up the Gaza Strip last year, but the Palestinians have yet to cease their terror attacks...thus it would be illegtimate to suggest that Israel initiated this recent conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would we split this article? It makes no sense. Its like making two articles on a boxing match, one detailing the actions of one, and the other detailing the response by the opponent. We dont do this. Operation Barbarossa details the Nazi operation into Russia, along with the Russian responses during the duration of the operation. This article, Operation Summer Rains, will include the Israeli Operation, along with the Palestinian response during the duration of the operation. Rangeley 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence for a reoccupation is indeed mounting... the language of creating a "buffer zone" in norther Gaza clearly indicates at least a partial reoccupation that will continue beyond the current incursion. However I see no reason to change the title at this time, and I feel that it is beneficial to keep the article in one piece at least until the final fate of the captured soldier is determined. 69.140.65.251 15:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should (at least at this stage) remain as one article, and I think the title is accurate enough also. I think it does need quite a bit of work, however.

1. The background section doesn't deal in any detail with the capture of Shalit; and the capture by Israel of two Hamas members on 24 June is not mentioned at all. I would propose adding a new (sub)section perhaps titled Abductions within Background to deal with these incidents.

2. I also think a new subsection is needed for the Asheri kidnapping: at the moment this is in IDF enters Southern Gaza

3. I also propose renaming Ground Invasion of Northern Gaza Strip to Reoccupation of Northern Gaza Strip

4. I wonder whether the Casualties section should be in some way integrated into the rest? At the moment it seems to be becoming a list of incidents without much narrative. This will be difficult to do - perhaps it can wait a little longer.

5. Due in part to the speed with which the article has been put together, some of the source references have become separated from their respective material, and some have been duplicated. A lot of these need to be checked. (Is there a way to remove duplicate sources but keep their references?)

Opinions please on these suggestions.

As an aside, I would like to comment that it is difficult to do anything about the overall article when every time I come back to it I have to spend half an hour reverting POV vandalism such as changing militant to terrorist... --Jobrahms 16:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there JoBrahms! Noticed your hard work on this article and appreciate it. You should note that previous versions of this article (July 5 or so) had an extensive background section. Someone linked to it on the talk page as reference (28). It could be cut and paste from there. It was very good. Though I think it was deleted a couple of days ago, I couldn't wade through the edits to determine who did it or why. About the casualties, I think they shoulds be integrated into the article too and they should include more detail about the circumstances of each death. I tried to do that for July 7 deaths. Once the opertion is over, this will be easier since we will have thorough reports from the Palestine Red Crescent Society [www.palestinercs.org] and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights [www.pchr.org]. Tiamut 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Note

1. This is part of the Israeli-Arab conflict as Hamas is funded by Iran and Hamas' head leader is in Syria. To ignore the "Arab" part of the conflict is inaccurate.

2. Please read the background of this article. This proves that the "casus belli" is the capture of Shalit and heavy Qassam firing.

3. Israel reluctantly mobilized its forces. Israel did not enter Gaza immediately, it waited a few days. It gave the Palestinians a chance to free Shalit and cease Qassam firing.

4. Please tell me how the attacks on Israeli citizens is any different from the Americans who were killed in 9/11. And please don't tell me that it's because this is Israel or Israel started it, because that is irrelevant and a completely different topic. We don't call 9/11 a "militant attack"...instead it is called a "terrorist attack" Please keep in mind that Hamas is a terrorist group (by the US, EU, and Israel). So to use the term militants is innacurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.188.56 (talk • contribs).

Firstly, and hopefully for the last time, please sign your posts on talk pages!

1. By this logic, we should call it the US-Arab conflict as Israel is funded by the US.

2. At the start of the operation Israel cited only the capture of Shalit as the reason for the incursion. The reference to Qassam rockets came later.

3. reluctantly is POV: we report what happened.

4. See above to continue the discussion regarding militant vs terrorist --Jobrahms 17:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you see, although the U.S. is supporting Israel by funding them, it does not necessarily mean the U.S. is against or has a conflict with the Arab countries in general. If you could get some sources to prove your point, that'd be great. --Terrancommander 19:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the category for these sort of conflicts are labelled "Arab-Israeli", and not "Arab-U.S.". The U.S. is only an ally of Israel and helps in its capacity as an ally. Unless you want to change the whole category to fit in... I don't think many people would support that notion. --Terrancommander 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrancommander - you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting we recategorize this as an Arab-US conflict: I was just responding to 68.1.188.56's edit of the infobox from Part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which has since been reverted). At this stage, at least, only the Palestinians are involved in hostilities, not the wider Arab world. --Jobrahms 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In response:

1. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is about 99% of why there is an Arab-Israeli conflict. The only reason why there is an Arab-Israeli conflict is because most Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel or make peace with it. Some even seek its complete destruction.

2. At the start of the operation, Israel was solely concerned about saving Shalit. The media had reported increasing numbers of Qassam missiles in the days prior to the Shalit's capture. Israel was simply reinforcing the fact that Qassam missiles and Shalit's capture resulted in this operation.

3. Well, if you want to report what happens...Israel did not enter Gaza for about a couple of days. Israel gave the Palestinians a chance to free Shalit. Israel did not enter Gaza immediately...therefore the word "reluctantly" is very appropriate.

4. If you choose to define this as "militant" please change it accordingly on the page for 9/11. Also, Hamas is a terrorist group. Since they are involved in this, this is a terror attack. --68.1.182.215 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties and POV

I would like to open a place for discussion of the listing of casualty figures. I have been adding to this section for some time now and have had my edits repeatedly changed. I had always posted using mainstream sources up to the last two edits when I used cources from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, who have the most detailed background info on the casualties I have seen to date. Their info differentiates between civilians and militants. Please see: [28], and [29]. Could we come to some sort of compromise and try to match the mainstream Israeli accounts cited now against the Palestinian ones instead of erasing one another's posts? We could for example write that, "Israeli sources claim ..... and Palestinians claim ...." on the circumstances of the deaths listed. I prefer this approach to edit warring. Anyone with me? Tiamut 18:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It just seems humorous that you removed info from hundreds of sources and replacing it with one (biased) source. Not wonder it was reverted as fast as it did. --24.185.16.246 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, we can simply do two things. 1: Dont embellish things. "One young Israeli soldier, who had a dog named Skip, was shot by a live bullet to the throat. He remained consious as he gasped for air for several minutes, as medics attempted to stop the profuse bleeding." This could all be entirely true, but the nature in which it is presented is clearly meant to create sympathy for the soldier. All deaths are terrible things, but we as an encyclopedia have to present them not to get a reaction, but to state that someone was killed, or wounded, or whatever. Your edits did this, and that is one reason they were reverted. 2: Dont use unreliable sources. Information from "Zionists for a Better Future" or "Hope for a United Palestine" is not what is to be relied on. Use information from reputable news sources. This is not to say the information you got from your source is wrong necessarilly, but we cant just take stuff from any and every blog, or page out there. By keeping it from the more mainstream press, there is much more reliability. Rangeley 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But what you keep doing is removing other militant casualties and replacing them with civilian casualties. The thing is, if the civilian casualties are true, then they are probably different events from the militant casualties. So by removing militant casualties it gives an impression that mostly civilians were killed, which is false. --Spoil29 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that's false? And I do mention that militants were killed, as does the PCHR source I cited (see below). It just so happens that the majority of those killed on 7 July were civilians. On the 6 July, the PCHR source indicates more militants than civilians, which supports their impartiality. See [[30] Tiamut 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that your only source is the PCHR, which is completely different then every mainstream report. --Spoil29 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost every mainstream report fails to give enough detail that would allow us to compare them against the PCHR report. Names, times and the places of deaths are usually not mentioned in the mainstream reports which by the way, in the case of the ones you currently have listed, rely largely on Israeli sources for information. What makes Israeli military sources less POV than a Palestinian human rights group? Shouldn't we at least mention both? Tiamut 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong,mainstream reports almost always get their info from Palestinian "witnesses" and Palestinian hospital officials. All the Israeli sources do is confirm the reports. --Spoil29 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but that's not at all correct. Take a look at the first article cited in the July 7 causlaties section. [31] “Palestinian security forces…” are paraphrased twice, once saying that Israeli missiles hit a target in northern Gaza and once as confirming that a “terror operative” had been killed in an IDF strike. Nothing further from them. Then you have “The IDF spokesman's office said … that the IDF was preventing the firing of Kassam rockets…” Then there is a bunch of unattributed information that sounds like an IDF press release. Then, “IDF sources reported that a Paratrooper battalion...” Then, more unattributed information that sounds like the IDF again. There is also a paragraph that alludes to the killing of civilian Mohammed Atat in his home by anti-tank fire without mentioning that anyone was actually killed. Finally, “the army” is quoted, and the last paragraph quotes a report from “Army Radio”. That’s just the first article cited in the July 7 section. There are no reports from “Palestinian witnesses or hospital sources.” Frankly, I don’t see how this article even fits NPOV. It fails to mention a civilian death that in confirmed in other sources, it quotes heavily from Israeli army sources and seems to put words in the mouths of Palestinians security forces whom I am quite sure did not characterize the death of a militant as that of a “terror operative”. Tiamut 20:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good case against the Jerusalem Post. Perhaps stick to international news wires, AP, Reuters etc. PCHR seems to be a contentious source at this time (hopefully other sources will start to corroborate their details), you are also citing too much detail that is cluttering the article. Names, maybe... but life stories are unnecessary! 69.140.65.251 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Rangeley. I would add though that the Palestinian Center for Human Rights is not a blog, nor is it a political party, it is a registered NGO and human rights organization whose job it is to collect data on human rights violations in the Gaza Strip. They have the most detailed information available and cite names, places, and circumstances of each death. I would argue that this information is important is determining how many civilians have been killed, because the difference between a civilian and combatant often depends upon whether they were firing at incoming Israeli troops or say, sitting in their home with their family. These details matter. Would you mind outlining which of the details is inappropriate? This is the source, [[32] and here is my post:

• At approximately 12:40, IDF troops opened fired on Palestinian civilians in the al-Atatra area. Motaz Mohammed Abdul Qader al-Fairi, from Beit Lahia, was killed by a live bullet to the abdomen. Others were wounded by live bullets and shrapnel from artillery shells, among them Hamdi al-Khour, 29, cameraman for the Turkish news agency Ikhlas who was injured while photographing in the al-Salateen area of Beit Lahia.
• At approximately 13:50, IDF troops killed Shadi Yousef Omar, a 16-year old who was deaf, shooting him in the chest as he walked near the al-Twam intersection, which leads to al-Israa' neighbourhood in Gaza City.
• At approximately 15:30, an IDF drone fired a missile at Palestinian militants, killing Abdul Naseer Eissa Abu Hwaidi, 42, Abdul Jabbar Muneer al-Husari, 20, and Khalil Ibrahim al-Hajjar, 22, and wounding a number of others. *At approximately 17:00, IDF troops positioned in a local home in Gaza City was firing at Palestinian civilians. Tha'er Te'ma al-Tanani, 22, was killed by a live bullet to the chest, near a mosque in the al-Israa' neighborhood. A number of other civilians were also wounded.
• At approximately 17:50, IDF forces fired artillery shells at Palestinian civilians in the al-Atatra area. Musbah Fayez al-'Attar, 25, was killed, and a number of other civilians were wounded. IDF forces refused to allow medical crews to evacuate the victim's body for more than one hour, firing at ambulances and forcing them back.
• At approximately 21:00, medical sources at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City declared that Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12, from Beit Hanoun, had died after being hit by a live bullet to the head fired by IDF near the Erez industrial zone on July 5, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said I knew it was false, but I did say we dont know its true. So stick to reputable sources for news, not this source. And when you do post, dont embellish things. Rangeley 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not embellished anything, I summarized the PCHR report very accurately, so please refrain from making baseless accusations. PCHR is a reputable source and it's based in Gaza so it has first-hand information on what is happening, not just AP wire reports made by deadline pressed journalists. PCHR is "an independent legal body based in Gaza City dedicated to protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law and upholding democratic principles in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It holds Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the United Nations and is an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists, the Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH), and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. PCHR is a recipient of the 1996 French Republic Award for Human Rights." Can you explain how PCHR is less reputable or reliable than say the Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz who are quoted heavily throughout this article? Tiamut 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the things that it is claiming, that the IDF is purposely killing civilians (even firing at ambulances!), is a claim that Al Jazeera, BBC, and other sources are not making. I have never heard of this organization, its site does not look professional, and its claims seem to be highly biased against Israel. If the stories are true that Israel is purposely killing innocent people, you should have no problem finding mainstream sources saying this as well. If they are not true, then we will not mislead people into thinking that it is true by representing a biased sources claims as facts. And the things you added were embellished, whether done by you or done by them. Rangeley 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the IDF deliberately targets civilians is well-documented and has been attested to by any number of impartial NGOs (Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, &c.). Observations to that effect are not, therefore, a prima facie reason for imagining that the PCHR is unreliable. Given their association with the UN, and given that their standards of evidence and documentation are dramatically higher than any newspaper (newspapers generally do not provide any documentation for their factual claims at all, and they often make false claims--remember the whole brouhaha about Iraq having WMD?), it makes sense to regard the PCHR as a plausible source. If anything, they're likely to be more reliable than the mainstream Israeli media, since the Israeli media are large profit-making corporations and so, under standard free market assumptions, are not likely to array their information in such a way that they might alienate their sources of revenue (advertisers) or their sources of information (the government). But Tiamut's original proposal was, in fact, an extremely reasonable and conciliatory one: give both sets of figures and provide sources for them. It is contrary to the mission of an ecyclopedia to imagine that people should have less information rather than more. --RobinJ 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Oaks of Bashan

I've removed the line

Now renamed Operation Oaks of Bashan.

pending provision of evidence that this is actually the new name of the military operation. I just googled "Operation Oaks of Bashan" and received one single hit. Sir Paul 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is peculiar, I am surprised I didnt find anything about this until today. A search on google news shows quite a few saying it was renamed, however the IDF site does not state this. We should wait to see what develops though, perhaps this is a seperate, or smaller operation within Summer Rains. Rangeley 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Found it, [33], "The military response is called "Alonei Bashan," an operation within the framework of Operation Summer Rain. Relatively large forces took control of the ruins of the settlements in the northern Gaza Strip." It is the incursion into Northern Gaza, that began the 6th. Not a rename, but a part within this. Rangeley 18:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On arutz 7 the operation was called bashan oaks and there may be more [israeli] sources that use this name--69.114.174.131 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Footnotes

Footnotes 67-69 all point to the same article, and none of them seem related to the items which contain those footnotes. Specifically, the article is about a suspected friendly fire Israeli death. StuRat 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamas and Terrorism

Hamas is a terrorist organization (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hamas). Hamas, a terrorist organization, is also responsible for recent attacks against Israel. Therefore the term "terrorist" is justified here. This is not debatable as several countries have labeled the group as "terrorist." If someone disagrees, please write that "al-Qaeda" is not a terror group. For further clarification on terrorism, please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Terrorism. The definition provided best fits this conflict. --68.1.182.215 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No one would make that change to "al-Qaeda", that would be going against Wikipedia's point policy. Anyway, the Hamas article says that it is listed as a terrorist organisation in several countries, and is banned in Jordan. This does not necessarily mean that the whole world (or the United Nations) considers it a terrorist organisation. Hamas must be a first of its kind then - a political terrorist organisation operating openly. --Terrancommander 06:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Read Sinn Fein/IRA. That was a pretty open secret. Also ETA in Spain are now moving into politics... Not to mention the Nazis in Germany, going from an attempted military coop to mainstream politics. I'm sure there are many other examples (eg. in South America)... It depends on your definition of terrorists. 69.140.65.251 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, 68.1.182.125: you're not just an anonymous POV-pusher; my apologies. You are, however, wrong about the way wikipedia reports contentious issues — ie. we don't simply accept self-serving labels from so-called State Actors — and trying to claim that this event is part of a wider Arab-Israel conflict, and that all the Palestinians involved are terrorists, simply makes you seem biased. (Why not get a wikipedia account, btw? It would make your edits seem a lot less suspicious.) — JEREMY 10:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of al-Qaeda http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Al-Qaeda. It states that the SAME countries deem it as a terrorist organization as for Hamas. This is no different. I would easily argue that you're biased against Israel because you are choosing to use "different" terminology. Just because Hamas is elected to a government does not make it any less of a terror organization. A truly unbiased version would be to treat this page in the same manner as though it were any other page. Secondly, I never stated that all Palestinians are terrorists. I just said that the groups that captured Shalit are terrorists (i.e. Hamas).

The duly elected government of Palestine (however limited the sovereignty of Palestine may be) is not a terrorist organization in the normal usage of the word because terrorist organizations are usually defined as non-governmental (see, for example, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)). When governments commit acts of terrorism, then we are talking about State terrorism, which is a different phenomenon. And, needless to say, Israel is also guilty of state terrorism, even if we limited ourselves to the undisputed facts in this article alone. If you wish to relabel Hamas as engaging in state terrorism, then you ought to revise the article to use the same term for Israel. Please note that it is not selective criticism of Israel to refuse to label the duly elected government of Palestine a terrorist organization (we are, after all, not talking about Israel); but choosing to so label the Palestinian government is selective criticism, since it would be the only duly elected government in the world so designated. As a matter of rudimentary politeness, you should stop altering the article until we reach some kind of consensus on this issue. Also, please sign your discussion posts; you have been asked to do so several times now. --RobinJ 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In response:

First, A quick visit to the United States Department of State website ((http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm)) will inidcate that Hamas is STILL deemed a terrorist organization. It is simply running its operations both within and outside of the Palestinian government. I also feel that my changes should NOT be altered until I find credible government (i.e. US, EU, etc) sources indicating that Hamas is NOT a terrorist organization. Hamas should be treated no differently than al-Qaeda. Keep in mind that Hamas seeks Israel's complete destruction. Israel only wishes for peace, and Hamas rejects that notion. Hamas as a terrorist group is not subject to a consensus vote on wikipedia, because it is officially deemed a terrorist group by an overwhelming large number of countries. This encyclopedia is only for recording facts, not voting what the facts should be.

Secondly, Israel has not initiated this conflict and many other conflicts. The Gaza Strip was obtained during the Six Day War when Egypt's Nasser closed off sea access to Israel and withdrew a UN force near the Egypt-Israel border. It was through Egyptian agression that the Six Day War began, and subsquently led to Israel's capture of the Gaza Strip. Israel is only trying to defend itself from terrorism and from those who seek its destruction. There is no state terrorism. Surely you can't blame Israel for defending its right to exist. Keep in mind that Israel gave up the Gaza Strip, only to find that Palestinian terrorists launched even more Qassam missiles. --68.1.182.215 15:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your second paragraph is a completely irrelevant summary of the Zionist line on Israeli history, and surely you are aware that almost all of the statements you make are seriously contested in the scholarly literature (those who are interested in the other side might want to have a look at Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; or see the recent work of Benny Morris for a view more sympathetic to the Zionist cause). The only question here is whether we ought to use the inflammatory label "terrorist" or the netural label "militant" to describe the Palestinians combatants in the conflict with Israel. The fact that the US labels Hamas a terrorist organization has no bearing on what label we should use (this is an encyclopedia, not an instrument of US propaganda); and the fact that so labelling Hamas is inconsistent with the defintion of terrorism in the US Code should suggest that the US government's practice here is not one to emulate. (Not to mention the fact that, since Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US aid--the US government spends more money per capita on Israeli citizens than on US citizens--the US has an obvious interest in supporting Israel's official positions, to the extent that doing so does not conflict with other US interests.) The label "terrorist" is clearly inflammatory, and an encyclopedia should avoid inflammatory language (this is a main feature of the NPOV policy). And yes, we do things by consensus here; there is no other way to do a project of this kind. --RobinJ 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any political or religious belief. I am a true believer in having facts. You can't just decide well this fact shouldn't be recorded. Everyone should have access to ALL information that is accurate. It doesn't matter whether you agree with the United States government, because the current fact is the US labels Hamas as a terrorist organization. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you have a right to hide the truth from the public. Furthermore, if you read the other articles I cited, the European Union and Canada also deem Hamas as a terrorist organization (among a few others). Therefore, this has nothing to do with US and Israeli relations. Europe and Israel have strained relations for the most part, but the EU still deems Hamas a terrori organization. Additionally, I would like to see you change the word "terrorism" from every existing page on wikipedia that refers to it and change it to "militant." The fact that you choose to do this only on this article indicates that you have a bias against Israel, and unfortunately this site is for as unbiased views as possible. --68.1.182.215 02:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I accept 68.1.182.215's point (get a username, please!) that some States label Hamas a terrorist organisation, and I would be surprised not to find that well-documented in the Hamas article, one click away. However, "terrorist" has become a political attack-term (a secular equivalent to "evil") and using it as a label in a scholarly article serves no purpose beyond well poisoning. The argument that terrorist groups participated in Shalit's capture and therefore it is a terrorist act is specious at best — it would appear to be making the claim that any action by Palestinians against the military forces of their occupiers is terrorism and therefore effectively evil. (Note that "if we do such-and-such we must change all of wikipedia for consistency" is a well-worn manifestation of WP:POINT.) — JEREMY 03:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your point about overstatement. Perhaps if we use the word "terrorism" just once (just in the first paragraph); I think it'll be sufficient. When I use terrorism, I don't mean to refer to Palestinians collectively, but specific groups (i.e. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) I'll make one change on the first paragraph, and hopefully this will satisfy everyone. By using "terrorist" once in the first paragraph, I believe the point is made, and the rest I'll leave alone as it would imply "terrorist" --68.1.182.215 04:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this, 68.1.182.215. If you feel it's necessary for the article to refer to Palestinians as terrorists (which I don't accept, but which I think might be preferable to edit-warring), how about this:

Israel maintains that it mobilized thousands of troops in order to suppress Qassam rocket fire against its civilian population and to secure the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit, who was captured when Palestinians Israel considers terrorists raided his army post in an attack which killed two of his fellow soldiers. Israel has stated that it will withdraw from Gaza and end the operation as soon as Shalit is released.

I'm not 100% in love with the wording (although I've spent some time trying to make it flow), but it also allows the inclusion of the targeting civilian population thing without it sticking out like a debating point. Feedback welcome from all. — JEREMY 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok...one very minor flow change...

Israel maintains that it mobilized thousands of troops in order to suppress Qassam rocket fire against its civilian population and to secure the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit, who was captured when several Palestinians (considered terrorists by much of the Western Hemisphere) raided his army post in an attack which killed two of his fellow soldiers. Israel has stated that it will withdraw from Gaza and end the operation as soon as Shalit is released. --68.1.182.215 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, terrorist is POV.. many people's POV is that Israel are terrorists (what does low flying, screaming jets do while you are trying to sleep?) . should we mention it?

Non NPOV Lead

The lead says "and to suppress Qassam rocket fire"

• This is missing the point. The Kassam are targeted at civilian population and many have been terrorized by it for months. Most kasssam are fired at 7:30-8:00 targeting the time kids were going to school. (now it is summer vacation). In any case by far more than 5 people were wounded from the attacks. Zeq 10:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, would you be able give an alternative suggestion as to how it should be rephrased then? Thanks. --Terrancommander 10:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead is not intended to explore issues in that way; such in-depth analysis should be positioned lower in the article. "[T]o suppress Qassam rocket fire" is a precise description of the claims made by the Israelis; what about that phrase is POV? — JEREMY 11:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that from the safty of Australia or Boston this may not seem like a big issue but for the people of Sderot, who everyday get bombarded by Kassam the fact that those Qaassam rockets carry enough explosives to demolish significant part of their homes (one just did so this morning) or would people driving in their cars to work (one just wounded this mornning) the fact that kassam are targeted at civilian population is worth mentioning.... Zeq 11:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

see this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/736221.html

"Tensions had been high for some time in Israel due to Qassam rocket attacks launched by Palestinians into densely populated areas such as the Israeli city of Sderot, reported to have exceeded 800 rockets in the past seven months," would seem to cover your concerns. It is the first sentence following the lead. — JEREMY 12:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Qassam rocket attacks launched by Palestinians into densely populated areas " should be in the lead. The lead should stand on it's own as a mini article see WP:Lead Zeq 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The point being made is that the initial stated aim of the operation was soley to return Cpl Shalit. The Qassam rockets are a sideline and should be stated as such. 69.140.65.251 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cpl Shalit is in the south Gaza. Qassamn are fired from North. israel is operating in the north and says it wants the qassam stopped.... Zeq 18:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

====Lead is still not NPOV====. Zeq 10:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I’ve edit the lead according to your suggestion. --TheYmode 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kasam photos

[34]

Good photo...please post on the page...it will give some balance to show the damages caused by Palestinians, not just the Israelis.

Photo request

Does anybody know where I can get a large version of the photo that was originally in the Operation summer rains info box? The one with the soldiers runniong to reload n artillary piece. Its' a really good photo. Mysticflame 08:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

next step

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3273273,00.html

Hamas lies

15 days ago Hamas leader says there 1000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. Yesterday he said 9000. Today he says 10,000. I wasn't monitoring from 15 days ago till yesterday so I am sure he could of made a lot more lies. This should be pointed out. 203.214.153.235 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

203 you need to provide the sources for those figures if you want them added to the article.Hypnosadist 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

there were about 8500 two weeks ago. since that time israel arrested 500 more. Zeq 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

reason for the operation

"PM Ehud Olmert said there was no other way to stop "the fear, the shocks, the lack of security" of Israeli civilians facing daily rocket attacks from Gaza. " [35]

Category:War crimes

I removed it. Can anyone cite Operation Summer Rains is a war crime? Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes: Amnesty International has described it as such. This is quoted in the article. But of course you've read that... --Jobrahms 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Others have said it without using that exact wording: "humanitarian crime" - Fatah, "incompatible with international law" - Sweden, "[Israel] has not taken the precautions required of it in international law" - Switzerland and the UN urgeing "all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law". Me lkjhgfdsa 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (yes I did get all of that from one section of the artical)

You must note the war crimes committed by Hamas. Remember that the world is afraid of angering the Arab countries because of oil flow and prices. Remember the Yom Kippur War? If not, read the article and see how OPAC caused high gas prices in response to support for Israel.

Debka File

While this info [36] is correct I suggest not using Debka File as source. They have some correct info with a lot of non proven info. Zeq 16:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Netivot is 12 K'M EAST of gaza border. Zeq 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source Zeq? Otherwise I'll remove it. --Jobrahms 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll find in Hebrew cause the world press only reports on what Israel does not what it absorbes. Zeq 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[37] - it sais: After Ashkelon, now netivot is getting Kasam. Zeq 16:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

or tey this: [38] - but this is a non neutral source. Zeq 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already provided sources for this claim from Haartez and Yediot (Ynet) Isarig 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Negev residents - section removed

For residents in the Negev (southern Israel) this operation has given them the message that Israel will provide them security, thogh this has been doubted since qassam rockets are still fired at them, and it wont undo the damage the rockets have already caused.

I have removed this section - not because I don't believe there has been an impact, but because it was very badly written and unsourced. --Jobrahms 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Negev residents

Its true you wont find many sources on this, thats because CNN, BBC,etc. wont talk about the impact because they side with the Palestinians [see Honestreportings.com] --69.114.174.131 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The casaulties r one-sided

Zionists try to cover-up their crimes. Robin Hood 1212 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what you mean and how the Casualties section is one-sided? --TheYmode 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It ignores the civilians and Israel's war crimes. Robin Hood 1212 11:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I don't see you proposing labeling Hamas unrestricted targeting of civilians of Israeli cities with their rockets as "war crimes"? Why is that? RichardmiamirichardmiamiRichardmiami

We should talk abt residents who fled

Robin Hood 1212 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

they came back home since IDF left that area. But for NPOv you should talk about israeli who left Sderot and did not come back yet. Zeq 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The southern residents that fled. Robin Hood 1212 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Since there was no disagreement with the statements suggested in the Hamas and Terrorism section of the discussion for the past 36 hours (and there has been plenty of user activity going on), the changes have been made and are officially agreed upon. Please do not change the first couple of paragaphs until another discussion has been held. --68.1.182.215 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Even UN draft resolution mention:

"The new draft added language expressing "grave concern" about the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and condemning "all acts of violence, terror and destruction" including the recent abduction and killing of an Israeli civilian in the West Bank." Zeq 04:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Operation Summer Rains

Should we expand the entry of Operation Summer Rains to include Hezbollah actions. That is, should we include the casualties in the Israel-Hezbollah warfare to the total for Operation Summer Rains? Perhaps the IDF will issue a new Operation name in regards to Lebanon.

Yea, I honestly do not know right now. They havent named it yet, or stated it as a part of this Operation. For now, lets keep an open mind for both possibilities. Rangeley 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

War crimes

What Israel during against Palestinian civilias is war crimes. The Israeli forces had shot and murder civilias, The have destroy power station, hospitol and hydroelectric power station. Now must the Palestinian civilas live on dirty water who have deadly bacterium. They have also kidnapped and tortured civilans. Do not they lock like war crimes and Israeli war criminals. Even the government of Switzerland, UN and many other peace-organizations thinks it is war crimes. Killerman2 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask you a question: Is the indiscriminate launching of rockets into populated cities a war crime? Should Hamas leaders be called war criminals because their forces keep launching rockets into Israeli civilians? Please answer this simple question. Richardmiami

it was Israel who starting the war. Hamas have armistice to the Israeli forces attack to civilians on a beach on Gaza and Hamas kidnapped the soldiers becorse Israel have 1000 palestinian civilians on prisone. The government of Israel dont want peace and Israeli war crimes is more war crimes then Hamas war crimes. Killerman2 15:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel had to resort to bombing Gaza because Hamas was rocketing Israeli civilians which according to you is a war crime. So because of that, some Gaza civilians were harmed. You claims are nonsense. Israel fully withdrew from Gaza Strip and the whole world agreed that Israel had withdrawn. Right after that, Hamas and Fatah started shooting each other as the animals they are. They shot rockets into Israeli civilians first, remember. They committed war crimes first as per your definition. Regarding the Palestinians in Israeli jails, they are not civilians. They are terrorists/militants who were arrested for plotting or actually committing attacks against Israel. They are given fair trials, provided with attorneys and are able to receive family visitations. Will Hamas let Gilad Shalit's parents visit him? What about the Red Cross? No they don't. These shows Hamas to behave as war criminals. Your words are baseless as Baghdad Bob words during the Iraqi war in 2003. Richardmiami

Of course it is civilans who are prisoner. What is Hamas desire to free the soldier is at Israel free 1000 woman and children, Children who be tortured and slaved by the Israeli, like the nazis doing against the jews. Attack against civilians is everyday food in Palestine. Killerman2 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, just because someone is a woman does not make it a civilian. So if an Israeli woman strapped a bomb and was ready to detonate it in a civilian place, is she supposed to be freed because she is a woman? Those women are incarcerated because they terrorists who were planning or already carried out attacks against Israel. Children?? These are young adults (16-18 years old) who also attempted to kill other Israelis. Even in the U.S. a 16 year old can be made to stand trial as an adult. Tortured and slaved??? These militants are provided with rights guaranteed by Israeli law, they are provided attorneys, they are not kept in isolation, and are allowed to be visited by their relatives? When Hamas let the Red Cross, let alone, Gilad Shalit's parents visit him, then come back and tell me about rights. Until then, your words are empty. You don't even know what the Nazis are. Had Israel done 1/100 of what the Nazis practiced, there would not be Gaza anymore. Unfortunately you are too brainwashed by the crazy Mullahs that you fail to see reality. Again slowly. Israel withdrew from Gaza.Ok. The UN agreed that Israel withdrew.Ok. Hamas response: rockets against civilians in Israel. Ok. Israel has right to respond. Ok. Hamas hides behinds civilians. Ok. (even they will tell you so). Sometimes when they hide behind civilians, civilians can get caught in the crossfire. Ok. Hamas crossed into Israel and kidnaps a soldier. Ok. Result: Hamas is a terrorist organization which does not want peace. Richardmiami

I totally agree with every statement you said, Richardmiami! I suggest that Killerman2 read up on his history before making such statements. Clearly he holds a double standard against Israel. He seems to ignore what has happened (i.e. the truth). Perhaps Killerman2 should criticize many Arab regimes for failing to give women full rights. --68.1.182.215 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he will criticize any Arab or Muslim regime. For this kind of posters does not matter that the Hashemite Kingdom exterminated 10,000 Palestinians in Black September 1970. They don't care that Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of his own people and gased fellow Muslims (Kurds). They don't care that in Darfur Muslim Arabs are committing genocide against other Black Muslims. It is this hypocrisy that keeps the Islamic world as the most backward region in this earth. Richardmiami

I dont think you have to be 'brainwashed by crazy mullah's' to think like killerman2 many news stations fail to mention all the facts, are baised, to take the palestinian side of the conflict [see honestreportings.com]--69.114.174.131 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcorse I criticize many Arab regime too. Saddam was a bastard, The arab government of Sudan is like Nazi Germany was. Ther idea about honour killing is sick. Ther are psychopaths and sociopaths everyone. Killerman2 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

operation vs. warfront

as israel will be waging war against hizbullah terrorists and the possibility of syria being drawn in is high [see debka] and some in israel are calling for an attack against iran (for backing hizbullah) [see Arutz7] also iran earlier threatend israel therefore this isnt just an operation its one front in this war (israel did call up its reserves)--69.114.174.131 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff like this, [39], touts the Lebanon thing as a "second front" in a war, but what war? I think its a bit early to be able to tell. Rangeley 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

true its to early to see what will happen, and how it will happen, but the chances of a third party difusing the situation are nil. did any third party stop 'summer rains'? and these third parties did have a chance to do so [olmert "gave diplomacy a chance"] as of now there are no responsible third parties, America apparently took the middle east off its to do list [due to the war in iraq and other issues] this leaves a vacum for other countries to try to difuse the situation but i highly doubt they will be successful--69.114.174.131 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if (more like when) Israel does more, we should consider this Operation to be a part of a larger war, I wonder what it would be called... Rangeley 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If iran and syria join it will be called WW3 as it will all kick off completely.Hypnosadist 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of doubtful, as there have been regional wars here in the past that have not qualified as a World War. Also, Israel has fought up to five armies simultaneously, but since it has a truce with Egypt and Jordan, it seems unlikely that the conflict will expand past three. Additionally, there is small chance that Israel will want to engage Iran right now unless Iran jumps in, so it seems that Syria would be the farthest the diret conflict would escalate to.

I have to agree, I do not see Egypt getting involved especially. However if it does escalate then I see it becoming WWIII. The problem I guess is the power of militias in Arab cultures. Many countries try to expel such forces, but in the middle east it seems these groups are major players and get absorbed into the political process, the problem is that the government does not recognize them as part of itself. This creates a military that you cannot attack technically, how do you fight a militia in a country where if you bomb anything you are directly starting a war? I think the 4th Geneva Convention states militias are part of the governments who land they occupy. Hostages they take are the responcibility of the government of whos land they are on. So while Syria may not want to take responcibility I think the convention says they do not have an option. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Created war article

2006_Arab-Israeli_War

Unless someone can come up with a better name, the press thinks its all related. Cwolfsheep 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Name was changed! 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That name implies that all Arab nations (or at least most) are at war with Israel. They are not. Even Lebanon seems to be leaving the battle between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorists for now, so there really isn't any Arab government which is currently waging war against Israel. StuRat 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A case could be made for 2006 Palestine-Israeli War, as Hamas has declared war on Israel, and was then elected to lead Palestine, and has since canceled the cease-fire. This isn't quite a formal declaration of war by Palestine, but comes pretty close. Israel hasn't declared war, either, but both sides have clearly committed "acts of war". StuRat 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the link at the top of this section, you will see there is already a poll going on about whether the new article should be deleted, with some (including me) suggesting that it be renamed. I would not favor Palestine-Israeli War as that suggests (1) there is a State of Palestine, which there isn't, and (2) all of those involved fighting Israel are Palestinians, which is probably not the case after Israel's action against Lebanon. 6SJ7 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine isn't a full country, but it is an autonomous region. And the vast majority of the combatants opposing Israel are Palestinians. Perhaps 2006 Palestinian-Israeli War would make the distinction between Palestinians and the theoretical nation of Palestine clear. StuRat 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

...should be changed, like in 2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict. POV and Israeli-sided--TheFEARgod 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

no should not. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote on the Israel-Hamas page, the MilHist project has a guideline that suggests not using operation names as article titles.

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.

I don't personally have a strong opinion, but I lean towards geographic/time names when possible. Thanks, TheronJ 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So, should 2006 Gaza crisis work?--TheFEARgod 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, but let's wait to see if we can get a consensus. What do the other editors think? TheronJ 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't really what Wikipedia editors think - what does the media refer to it as? I've never seen them call it 'Summer Rains' here. I think '2006 Gaza crisis' would do fine, though I actually haven't noticed what people call this. The BBC refers to it as the 'Israeli offensive', but that's hardly neutral, is it? Joffeloff 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As this is detailing the Israeli Operation, there is no reason to move it. Rangeley 16:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd. This is not a Gaza Crisis...this more like an Israeli Crisis. Remember who started it!! Read the casus belli. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.148.154.104 (talk • contribs).

It's an Israeli crisis too, but major combat operations are taking place in Gaza. It's a geographical name, not a POV name. Joffeloff 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the current name is OK as a temporary name, but once a name catches on with the media, we should redirect from here to an article under that name. StuRat 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Post a picture of damage caused to Israelis

What about the destruction caused by rockets or the soldiers that were killed/wounded. Show those photos. The photos presented are too biased as they are all Israeli responses to attacks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.148.154.104 (talk • contribs).

I agree. StuRat 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestineans Captured

I am not sure where this should go. A extremist group says they have captured two palestineans. [40] Hello32020 17:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would hold on for a few hours to see whether anyone else (outside this alleged group, not just other media) says that this happened. 6SJ7 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And I am not sure what article it should go in, either. It allegedly happened in Jerusalem, but the group is naming itself after the soldier captured near Gaza. There is an article at 2006 Arab-Israeli War although hopefully that will be renamed soon. 6SJ7 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does "Operation Summer Rains" include Lebanon ?

Or is that under another code name ? In the first case, they should be in the same article, in the second, there should be two linked articles. StuRat 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the answer, the Lebanon portion is called Operation Just Reward. StuRat 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They are both a part of a conflict for which we are currently calling the 2006 Arab-Israeli War, though I proposed that we rename it 2006 Arab-Israeli Conflict. Operation Summer Rains is strictly the Gaza operation, whereas Operation Just Reward is strictly the Lebanon portion, for now atleast. Rangeley 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Seperation

How come we don't seperate civilian casualties from militant, military or terrorist casualties in the overview window? Like they do in the Just Reward article? I think that would help alot.

Title

I believe the title should remain as it is. However, the reference in the side should say, part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict" as this is not yet a war. I think that proposed title would cover everything that has happened so far. --68.1.182.215 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strength?

As in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis page, where does that number about the strength of the IDF come from? What does it refer to? should be removed unless some source is cited. --darkskyz 22:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[41] Rangeley 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing there on the strength of the IDF, other then "thousands of troops", which is far from being an accurate count of the force deployed. Removing until some proper citation is found for that number, or more accurate numbers are reported. --darkskyz 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd, the google news preview of it said 3,000. Here is another source though, that does have it (I checked this time) [42] Rangeley 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated news

• Yahoo News, 7-14-2006
• Christian Science Monitor article, 7-14-2006

The Yahoo articles are linking the events, and the CSM article has people calling the situation a "war." Cwolfsheep 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Just flipping through an saw that yall had 128 refs. Most impressive. My hat off to you. American Patriot 1776 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds leaving Gaza and crossing border into Egypt

Hundreds are crossing the Gaza-Egypt border after Palestineans blew a hole in the wall seperating Gaza and Egypt.(Associated Press) Hello32020 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it goes Hello32020 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not at the end of Impact on Strip residents section just before the Concern for potential humanitarian crisis section.Hypnosadist 15:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought Egypt sent like 10,000 officers to the border to stop that kind of thing? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the best idea is that noone occupies the Gaza Strip. but thats just my own personal opinion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay i added it as a subsection to Impact on Gaza residents. Hello32020 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There are reports that hundreds of Palestinians from Egypt are entering into Gaza.

Yea, hundreds are entering Gaza, not leaving. Supposedly they are coming to show solidarity with the Palestinians, or coming to fight Israel. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Aircrafts strike Hamas Economic Ministry

Early Saturday morning(IST) Israeli aircraft bombed the Hamas Economic Minsitry in Gaza. Hamas says that there are no casualties. This is all according to Reuters news service.

(On a side note I feel this page is being neglected in favor of the Lebanon-Israeli crisis page, I hope this is just my anxiety and that this situation doesn't get swept under the rug so to speak) Njjones 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

We can't just depend on Israeli sources only. That's it. --Lanov 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Any particular grievances that you have? I realize that there are a lot of references to JP and Ynet. But most are to Associated Press, Reuters, or BBC. Most if not all of the reports from Israeli sources can also be found and confirmed via Western news sources. I'd love to have sources from the other side, but my arabic just isn't that good, (it is in fact non-existant save from being able to recognise some prayers and words that end in -llah) Njjones 04:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

not true, in that section most references are to JP, Ynet and Haaretz. I'm not saying that these sources are giving wrong information, but depending on them only make this section not neutral.

I will suggest one "English Arabic" source: Aljazeera. --Lanov 04:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've been jumping about so many Arab-Israeli pages I seem to have lost my place. Indeed aljazeera english could be a very good source. It like all major news outlets has its bias, but as a respected outlet in the Arab world, I'm sure it would be easy to take the facts from the articles and place them hear and on the Israeli-Lebanon 2006 War page. Just used to using the BBC or CNN and the like. It seems like lemonde.fr could also be a source that would counter Ynet and JP. I'm all for using AlJazeera for reporting on situations in Gaza and Lebanon, but perhaps the reports on attacks from the Qassam rockets into Israel should be taken from Israeli sources so as to balance out the ineveitable POV-counter POV. This situation is dificult and I'm afraid any answer offered will not solve the problem. So as the public gets the gist of the article and can walk away to make their own decisions I will be happy. Njjones 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read of Al-Jazeera, they are highly biased, even regularly publishing bizarre conspiracy theories, like this gem claiming the 9-11 attacks were done by Jews: [43]. I fear this is true of most Arab news source, which don't seem to value the truth as much as supporting their side. That makes them propaganda sites, not news sites, and unworthy of quoting. StuRat 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found (actually it's been in my news bookmarks for some time) a decent Arab news source. It's what I used in Dubai when I couldn't get my hands on a Times or Guardian. It's called The Gulf Today and is based in the UAE and is associated with GoDubai. http://www.godubai.com/gulftoday/ Njjones 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, this not Aljazeera channel's website which is Aljazeera.net. --Lanov 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also consider Al Ahram in Cairo (the weekly edition is in English) and the Daily Star in Lebanon ([44]).

How is this a POV problem? NPOV is about the text not the sources used. Removing tag. 203.158.35.252 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the captured soldier be consisted in Casualties?

I don't want to compare, but in 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis infobox in the casualties area, two captive soldiers are listed. Should Gilad Shalit be written there in the Israeli side as "1 captive soldier" ? Máfiàg 12:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Gilad Shalit has his own page and he is the casus belli. If you read the article you'll understand this. Though I would be weary just to take my two sense on the issue. We should check to see what the 2006 Israel-Lebanon page has discussed about that issue, because I know their infobox has changed numerous times. Njjones 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference between here and there is that this article is about the operation by Israel that began on June 28th, whereas the Lebanon thing is about the conflict that began when Hezbollah attacked Israel and took the soldiers. While in that case it is a part of the conflict, in this case it is only the cause, but occured prior. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but the casualties in the Israeli side are 3. One killed during the operation, two killed in the assault on Kerem Shalom, in which Gilad Shalit was captured. It must be either written as 1 killed, X wounded and so on, or 3 killed, 1 captured and so on. You get my point? Máfiàg 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

YES! Israel has had a lot more casualties than 1. Would someone update the number? 203.158.35.252 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the name of Hamas' operation in Kerem Shalom?

We should write it. Robin Hood 1212 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

any reasons to think that it ever existed? -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamas gave a new to their operation but I don't know it's translation to English. Robin Hood 1212 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

rename page - 2006 Gaza conflict

• Operation Summer Rains → 2006 Gaza conflict … Rationale: A non-POV title - Operation Summer Rains - is the Israeli operation in response to the Hamas attack.

After which, 2006 Israel-Hamas crisis should be merged into it. —132.205.44.134 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes

No. It isn't only Israel-Gaza. 203.158.35.252 07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. the 2006 gaza comflict is more NPOV and covers all the info needed for this topic.Hypnosadist 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No - The page covers the operation by Isreal. Changing the name to 2006 Gaza Conflict is not very detailed, especially considering this is not the first, nor wil it be the last I am sure, "conflct" over gaza. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No Gaza is NOT a country or an entity separate from tne W#B. Robin Hood 1212 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

NO (changed-original message) This is the 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict. If this conflict ends and a new one begins it could then be call July 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict. It is more wide reaching and NPOV, and it would help have the article fall in line with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict. Njjones 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) --- With the change in the situation and expansion of conflict in the West Bank, for now the name should revert back to Operation Summer Rains. (It should never have changed according to the vote) Njjones 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No - Its not POV to name the article after the operation name as it mainly describe the Israeli operation that took place after the kidnapping. Its not taking place just in Gaza, but in the WB too. There are other articles like this naming after there respected operation (Operation Accountability, Operation Grapes of Wrath, Operation Defensive Shield, Operation Rainbow and Operation Days of Penitence) just as there articles with a Palestinians name (Al-Aqsa Intifada and First Intifada). --TheYmode 12:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, The article mainly explains the Israeli operation and activity in Gaza (and also in the West Bank, which only makes it harder to call it "2006 Gaza conflict") and therefore should be named after the Israeli name. This is not POV. Like TheYMode said - other operations are named after the Israeli military activity. Máfiàg 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Proper title of the article is Operation Summer Rains. -- tasc ^words_deeds 06:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Do not change the name. - Little Spike 7:20pm EST, July 17th, 2006

But the conflict started on June 25, only Summer Rains started on 28, so this article only covers the conflict from the Israeli response onwards. (or so goes the infobox and the title). Shouldn't this cover the Hamas operation that started everything as well? 132.205.44.134 23:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The operation is bigger than the actual cause of it. So, I suggest to you to create a paragraph on how it started and if anyone complains to you about it I will have your back. - Little Spike 7:50pm EST, July 17th, 2006

I think it would be a more widesweeping page if it was called 2006 Israel-Gaza Conflict or something along those lines. We need to keep in mind that this article could very well show up on the front page again due to, well ongoing events, and I think it would be best to model it like the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict article. Many people will check out both articles and it would be good if they had relatively the same layout and scope. My favorite part about that article is that it shows attacks by both sides in seperate sub sections and not by days. The name should be changed as well as the layout. Njjones 05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Israel-Gaza conflict is a much wider topic, and it didn't start in 2006. If anything it is part of the wider Israel - Arab conflict which is an ongoing conflict since at least 1948, if not earlier. Keep the name as it is, and let's try to keep the article focused. Cymruisrael 06:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is part of the Arab/Isreali confict that has been going on forever hence why 2006 is important in the title as it places it in a timeline of events in Gaza. ie after Isreal left. Njjones is right aswll that it would help bring this page inline with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict article.Hypnosadist 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: this user did two page moves on the article's title before the voting finished. I tried to revert it to "Operation Summer Rains," but it didn't work. Crumbsucker 11:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't move it because Operation Summer Rains already exist. There are two options:

• An administrator has to delete that page, and the movement will be able.
• This one is kinda messy and egoistic to do: Copy the whole article to "Operation Summer Rains", and make this page a redirect page; but again this is not a good move, and we must consider the other wikipeds that do not wish to revert the name.

Máfiàg 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the vote is NOT over. Why is the name changed? Máfiàg 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, is Gaza a country? Robin Hood 1212 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I will rechange the name. Robin Hood 1212 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell ?!? it has been like a week after the vote is over, with a huge majority for Operation Summer Rains, but still, the article is named 2006 Israel Gaza conflict. Does the rules of Wikipedia still exist, or may anyone do what he wants? There was a vote! I would really appreciate if some one could change the name. Máfiàg 07:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT THE F***!?

Can someone ban this person [45]? 203.158.35.252 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it was a bad edit, you should refrain from personal attacks - see WP:NPA. I have ammended your comment. Megapixie 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I don't remember attacking any person. 203.158.35.252 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Except just now below. 203.158.35.252 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling people "Morons" is a personal attack. Megapixie 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay would someone ban the j***s?

Yet again someone vandalizes the numbers. [46] Would someone do something about it already? 203.158.35.252 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with length/segmenting off a portion

This article is, impressively, getting too long. How would people feel about putting the timeline in a separate article? --Carwil 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah let's do it. Njjones 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent news

See Arab world fed up with Hezbullah ! 203.158.35.252 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Don't assume it is propoganda. Page 2 is full of references. 203.158.35.252 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CASUALTIES NUMBER

When have the Palestinians killed 24 Israelis? Why are the casualties from the conflict with Hezbollah being added here?--TheFEARgod 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is part of Summer Rains. 203.158.35.252 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it's not--TheFEARgod 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bloody read the source? 203.158.35.252 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No we have another article that deals with it--TheFEARgod 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ReliefWeb has a good list over statistics:

• ReliefWeb

What is going on here?

Why is this article less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a daily news blog? This is inappropriate. Furthermore, the casuality list is grossly unneutral, it emphasizes Israeli definitions (not everybody the Israeli army claims to be a 'militant' is in fact so according to non-IDF sources)and neglects mention of a significant number of civilians killed. In any case, this article may be put up for deletion if it continues to be a daily news blog, grossly biased or not. Ramallite ^(talk) 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't delete it though. I would require that all posts must be facts of what has happened without having a slant towards either side. Just state what happened. For instance, many say that Israel is stepping up its attacks in Gaza and many are suffering. There is no doubt that people are suffering; however, a fair, honest, and accurate reporting would be "Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip, which Israel withdrew, attacked an Israeli base and resulted in great Palestinian suffering." This explains exactly who is repsonsible and who caused what and explains why certain events are occurring. It does not beat around the bush...it tells what happened! Not what a reporter thinks because then that is biased. --68.1.182.215 07:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Everybody seems to be referring to this article as Operation Summer Rains, but the title is Operation summer rains. Should I take that the reason is that Operation Summer Rains already exists? If so, we could contact an admin to do the move. fetofs ^Hello! 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, there has been a recent.....heated......discussion about using operational titles instead of more descriptive alternatives. Please see here and the tamer (;-)) second discussion. SoLando (Talk) 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis should not be on capitalization and operation names. They are subject to change, and I don't think that the world is focused on this particular issue. --68.1.182.215 07:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Cross

Does anyone know if the Red Cross has requested access to the Israeli "prisioners" that Hamas and Hezbollah has admitted to holding? If not, why not? If they have, can someone cite a reference? --user:mnw2000 19:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE

The main picture in this article has been deleted. It is extremely biased and does not portray the events accurately. Israel did not just launch any random operation. Several Palestinian terrorists raided an Israeli based killed several soldiers and kidnapped one. As a result of this act, Israel entered the Gaza Strip. Keep in mind that Israel withdrew the Gaza Strip in hopes of peace in August of 2005. Apparently, it seems that terrorism is more prevalent since Israel left, and that Hamas does NOT seek peace with Israel. Once hate education ceases and once Arab countries agree to recognize and make peace with Israel, will there be peace. Therefore, the main picture should show Gilad Shalit or the base that was raided. --68.1.182.215 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

israel is biased. yeah hate education you mean the bombing and terrorizing of the palistinians by the jews!!! israel = terrorism

Where is Hamas?

This is an Israel-Hamas conflict. Gaza is simply a location. In fact, Hamas is not even mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. This is misleading.

Maybe the best way to solve the question of the title for this conflict and the one with Hezbollah going on in northern Israel and in Lebanon, is to go to expand the title as follow:

Israeli-Hamas-Gaza conflict

The other conflict could be renamed as follows:

Israeli-Hezbollah-Lebanon conflict

The main participants should be in the name of the conflict.

Years after the conflict is over, the naming may reflect a more historical outlook that may even include other countries that are we will learn as fact were involved. Some even say this all may be part of a World War that is being directed from elsewhere. However, we need to leave that to history. --user:mnw2000 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Those other examples are too convoluted or risk inaccuracy, I find. This is a conflict which is taking place in Gaza and Israel, respectively. El_C 16:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If this was a conflict between the armed forces of Israel against the armed forces of Gaza (which does not officially exist), then Israel-Gaza conflict makes sense. But this is a conflict between Israel and an entity called Hamas that functions in Gaza. Hamas is a MAJOR participant in the conflict. In fact, it can be seen as bias to mention Israel and not to be mention Hamas in the article title?

We need to come up with a guideline for this and any other conflict that may arise in the future. --user:mnw2000 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli party says exchange offer was for women and children

A member of the national executive of a (left wing, with seats in parliament) Israeli party says on their website "Analysts looking for the answer to how we got here ought to recall the initial demand from the Palestinian militias for the release of female prisoners and children in exchange for Gilad Shalit's safe return. In our rush to declare that we won't negotiate with terrorists (never mind that we have done so in the past and will inevitably end up doing so again this time) no one bothered to consider how it is that hundreds of Palestinian women and children are languishing in Israeli jails." http://www.myparty.org.il/main-branch/EN/articles/4513.html I think it's obvious such information deserves verification and if proved correct, inclusion in the article. --fs 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Gaza Strip Residents

I removed a blatant copyvio that appears to have been in the article for some time, two paragraphs copied directly from the following source. I wasn't able to locate the editor who originally copied this verbatim, but please don't do this. KWH 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Damage to power plant to have lingering impact for Gaza residents". San Jose Mercury News. 2006-07-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Attention! Article Name

A week ago there was a suggestion to move the article's name to 2006 Israel Gaza conflict. A vote was made and a majority of seven out of eight disagreed. However, someone has decided to change the name even though the majority said no. And since then, the name is still changed. The problem is that you can't change back the name because Operation Summer Rains already exist. So can anyone here please contact an administrator so he could do something about it? Thanks in advance, Máfiàg 07:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the name should be that of the operation, like the previous (see campaignbox)--TheFEARgod 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of al-Aqsa intifada?

See Al-Aqsa Intifada page. ->2006 headline --TheFEARgod 11:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning Phone Calls

Raji Serrani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), which has collected several examples of the tactic, described it as "psychological warfare", adding: "Since when did Israel feel the need to warn people that they were about to bomb their homes? They are simply playing with people's minds and inflicting a new panic in Gaza." [47]

Oddly enough I am sure if these calls were made they would complain that Israel is bombing civilian locations with civs still in side without warning. No winning in some eyes, I know they just not blow the building up, but then again rebels could just stop storing rockets in them as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kidnapping vs Capture

As some of you know, in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict we refer to prisioners of either side as "captured" after reaching a hard consensus for NPOV reasons. I think this article might be well served by adopting the convention. In particular regarding the contentious facts regarding the origin of the current conflict.--Cerejota 09:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no concensus. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the overwhelming majority of edits supports this use? That is the very definition of consensus. --Cerejota 00:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Don't Shoot the Messenger"

John Berger, Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter, and José Saramago claims in an an open letter that the two Palestinians captured by Israeli operatives on June 24 was "a doctor and his brother". Could we put that in instead of just refering to them as Palestinians. Or, if anyone knows their names, use them. --Bergerons 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i put in a link to Muamar family detention incident. There's still very little info on them - it would be good to add more info if anyone has reliable info. Boud 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are the Israeli Civilian Casualties

The infobox is keeping a tally of all civilians killed or injured, but it seems that only the Palestinian civilians are getting counted. What about the Israelis being wounded in the Qassam rocket attacks? Just recently 2 children were injured in Sderot. Unless they are counted as well, I suggest not add any civilian wounded from both sides. Richardmiami 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Find the sources and edit. You already mentioned those to children. You can do do it, oyu have permission to edit! I do oppose categoricaly the deletion of palestinian civilian figures simply because the figures from israel are not forthcoming: what we should do rather that delete information is add the information. So go ahead and do it!--Cerejota 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To let all know, I shall be keeping track of the casualties on both sides and will be updating them. I've already updated it today. The source I'm using is this website. It has links to sites which tally the death and injured scores from both sides. (Afgan42 21:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC))