Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Dummy missiles

I am not an expert on weaponry. Are you? NY Times says that 'newly designed Israeli weapon'..., all the rest seems like speculations and OR. I don't see reason not to say that Israel developed and used specifically designed bomb designated not to explode. But you know what? I'll be fair. Provide us prove that Israel had this air-fighter used bomb designed merely to frighten and that she used it before and I will leave it along. I'll go even further. Show us other Air-Forces had and used similar types of dummies on F-16 or similar fighters and I will comply to delete those words. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I'm not sure whether you have included enough info for people to respond. Are you talking about something already in the article ? If so, which bit ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got carried away. There is a sort of dispute around this sentence: 'A specifically designed missile designated not to explode and aimed at empty areas of the roofs was then used to frighten residents into leaving the buildings' from Israeli offensive-air strikes section. The word 'specifically' is mine interim compromise, even though my source says 'A new Israeli weapon, meanwhile, is tailored to the Hamas tactic of asking civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings so Israeli pilots will not bomb.' The other editor claims that dummy missiles is nothing new, thus those words should be omitted. I consider this to be speculation. However, if we are provided with evidence that dummy missiles on F-16 or similar fighters, used in order to merely frighten targets exist and was used before, I will reword the sentence in the following way: 'Missile designated not to...'. If no evidence presented, the sentence will be changed to 'A newly designed Israeli missile designated not to...'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Roof_knocking - The term roof knocking or "a knock on the roof" has also been used to describe the IDF practice of firing a non-explosive missile at a roof to get people there to leave.[6][7]

Duh! the sentence that you removed in order to insert the one you preferred for no Encyclopedic value. Cryptonio (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking practice, in the sense of warning the inhabitants, was practiced since 2006. However, the non-explosive missile is reported only now, and [6] from the Roof-knocking article is no other than Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery. I still don't see evidence this kind of missile was used before. If I am right, and this is newly-designed weapon, a means to spare lives - it is highly valuable encyclopedic data. Wanna another try? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the information more valuable and encyclopedic than information about the weapons systems that killed 1400 people ? If so how come ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is. You know, weapon kills... Yet, I personally never heard of weapons tailored to spare lives....--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What about CIWS? --JGGardiner (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Blanks. Generally speaking I think it's fair to say that modern armies try to minimise civilian casualties nowadays. People can argue about how effective they are but I don't think it's unusual. The IDF having ways to avoid killing people standing on the roof of their house in their town/city seems like the kind of thing most modern armies would do. I think what is notable from the Wikipedia perspective and what perhaps sets the IDF apart from the norm when it comes to things like this is the extent to which they explain their efforts to the public with claims like 'the most moral soldiers in the world' and the unusual fact that they are authorised to attack people standing on the roof of their house because they are legally categorised as willing human shields=illegal combatants (...they may be unique in this regard). I think these kind of things are at least as notable if not more notable than the dummy missles themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

With such attitude (and I mean primarily comrade Cryptonio) I wonder how did the paragraph as a whole survived? Sources deleted, sentence about sound bomb deleted, wording changed without discussion... Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has touched the para, just the wording. It is very easy to include such information like this without the commentaries. That is notable(the missile etc) then go ahead and mention it in the roof knocking article. Simple. Cryptonio (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The weapons used to kill 1400 are important. The first use of certain tactics is also noteworthy. Potential illegal use of munitions is important and use intended to spare lives is important. I don't see any concern with including such info.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I read CIWS Blanks but failed to understand how is it close or similar to missile designated not to explode, sent deliberately at the roof where people gathered, to frighten them and to spare their lives. As I said, I am not an expert on weaponry, but still...NY Times say it is a new designed weapon. Can anyone prove me otherwise?

Now Sean, I totally disagree with you. 'I don't think it's unusual', 'The IDF having ways to avoid killing people standing on the roof of their house in their town/city seems like the kind of thing most modern armies would do.' - these are speculations, unbased. Show me. One thing is for sure - you will hardly find evidencies of Russian Army (definitely modern army) goes this far to spare Chechnians. 'unusual fact that they are authorised to attack people standing on the roof of their house because they are legally categorised as willing human shields ' - Sean, this standing on the roof to prevent attack falls within the IL definition of human shielding and is illegal. Not because IDF says so, because IL says so. Do you need a proof? It will take me less than 5 minutes. Maybe I need to remind they were standing in the way of attack on legal target - a house with ammunition storage, and got warning in advance? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, it's true that they are just speculations based to a large extent on what I see on TV where spokespeople for the military explain how they took every effort to avoid civilian casualities and "oops we killed lots of them, sorry". The missile appears to have a similar purpose to blanks to me i.e. to disperse civilians while sparing lives and soldiers firing blanks at civilians is very popular with the army where I live. I'm all for including it if you would like to research it but I kinda wish that you had the same keenness to include something about about a weapon that is designed to kill people e.g. drones. Regarding IL, do you believe that my standing on my roof to protect my house and family in my town, in my country, from attack by an foreign invading army "falls within the IL definition of human shielding and is illegal" just because that foreign invading army decides that I might have weapons under my house ? International law doesn't legally oblige people to stand aside and let invading armies kill them and destroy their property because they say it's a military target. The My Lai Massacre for example wasn't a military operation that complied with IL. Under Israeli law, standing on a roof of something designated as a military target by the IDF is treated as being actively engaged in hostilities. You become a terrorist. That is unique as far as I know. Forcing someone to be a human shield is of course illegal. If my house is a genuine military target and I die in the attack then it is just tough shit for me IL-wise because I'm just collatoral damage (although legal opinions differ on that) until the after-the-fact review of the legality of an attack which I guess rarely happens and in Israel is a secret closed door process with the HCJ from what I've read in their rulings. With respect Sceptic, it's almost as if you believe that people are obliged by IL to just step aside and let armies do their work. That seems like an odd way of looking at IL which is designed to protect cililians. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

→Sean, let the IL speak first: '7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.' So, in case when you (or me) stand on the roof of your house, that was marked as a legitimate target (because someone stores weapons with or against your consent) in an attempt to render your house immune from attack - you lose your immunity. And if, after the warning, your are shot first with dummy missile - that does sound like extraodinary means to save your life. Next, if someone asks your kindly to stand on the roof with him and you willingly (not by force) agree - that someone commits crime and you, again, is no immune from the attack. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I assume you understand what that means. The phrases "shall not be used" and "The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement" = my phrase "Forcing someone to be a human shield is of course illegal" ? It's not saying that it is against IL for civilians to try to shield their house and family by getting in the way of an invading army who they believe have mistakenly designated their family and property as a military target or who are carrying out wanton acts of destruction. e.g. it wouldn't have been against IL for Dr Abu al-Aish to try to shield his daughters and niece from the IDF tank that designated their building as a military target.

Your phrase "you lose your immunity" in effect is the same as my phrase "is just tough shit for me IL-wise because I'm just collatoral damage". Again, Dr Abu al-Aish is a good example. IL in practice in cases like this means that it's just tough shit that the "reasonable" actions (according to the IDF) resulted in civilian deaths. Civilians breaking IL or losing immunity doesn't come into it. Civilians only lose their immunity while engaged in hostilities (which of course they are perfectly entitled to engage in under IL to defend against invading armies if they so choose but we aren't talking about that). If non-combatant civilians die in an attack against a designated military target (setting aside proportionality issues) then so be it. No one is breaking IL unless someone can demonstrate that it was actually a deliberate attack against civilians rather than a legitimate military target. Civilians aren't breaking IL simply by standing on a roof that an invading army want to destroy and they don't lose their immunity. It's just that the military advantage has to outweigh their immunity for it to be legal.

What I find puzzling about the way you are looking at this is that it is based on the premise that the actions of the IDF as an invading army or indeed any army are inherently legitimate and protected by IL. Perhaps if you pictured Hezbollah or the Syrian army invading Israel and designating your house or let's say an Israeli settlement with potentially armed settlers as a "legitimate military target" you might find another way of looking at it. Legitimacy isn't in the eye of the invader. Marking something as a legitimate military target doesn't make it legitimate as all of the legality debate over the police cadets shows. That lone guy standing in front of the tanks in Tienamen Square trying to stop the army dealing with a "legitimate military target" wasn't breaking IL and didn't lose his immunity. Not sure about the dummy missile being an "extraordinary means" to save lives if you step back to get a broader view and compare it to not carrying out large scale military operations in urban environments full of civilians and pursuing peace negotiations instead. Dummy missles are cool but I haven't noticed the likes of HRW, the UN etc etc asking Israel to get more dummy missiles. But all of this chatting is for nothing because IL is almost never applied and I've already said that I'm fine with you adding dummy missle stuff either here (or in Roof Knocking). :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I am glad that in general we reached similar understanding of IL on this issue. One reservation to your post. 'What I find puzzling about the way you are looking at this is that it is based on the premise that the actions of the IDF as an invading army or indeed any army are inherently legitimate and protected by IL.' - you completely misunderstand my objectives here. I assure you that whenever I see a violation or crime by my side - it will be condemned. But having some intimate knowledge of the conflict as a whole and of this war in particular, I merely try to put things in proper context. Finally, another side remark. If Syria would attack Ashdod, I won't be standing on the roof, for two reasons - I can't imagine Syrian Shin-Bet calls me and gives me 10 minutes to evacuate; I can't imagine my presence would avert Syrian pilot to call the attack off. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood but the chance of a Syrian pilot reaching your house is about 0% so my analogy was silly. Maybe if he walked with his hands up he might make it. You could then ask him why he hasn't been working on a Wikipedia page about Syrian propaganda posters. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - we were talking about IDF tactics. Here (I mean Israel), army takes orders from the government, not the other way round. So, if you think that peace talks were more appropriate than opening full-scale military operation in a densely-populated area - your reservations should go to the Israeli government, not the IDF. The moment IDF were given orders, the only thing it could do - minimize the damage to the local populations. To what extent IDF failed or succeeded to do so, is debatable and this is exactly what we are doing here - bringing arguments for both sides of the story. And no, I don't think that IDF actions were inherently legitimate and lawful - but so far, after studying it intensively, apart from some separate controversail cases surrounding WP (and maybe fletchettes) and apart from some most regretful mistakes that happen during war (like the doctor's daughters and striking the wrong house) and maybe unnecessary vandalism somewhere - I do not see major flaws in the way IDF acted in Gaza (or the orders government issued to it for that matter). I guess we will continue this sort of discussions when debating the IL section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

→Cordesman report, p. 17: 'It (IAF) developed small 10-20 kilogram bombs that could be used as both warning shots – sometimes referred to a "knocking on the roof" - and as weapons that could be used against small open targets.' So, it is not merely an invention of NY Times reporter. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In common military parlance, the word missile describes a powered, guided munition, whilst the unpowered munitions are known as bombs. Both NY Times and Cordesman talk about the same practice. Stop wasting time with sophistry. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

back to disputed figures

I restored partially the debated paragraph, I believe it suits the 'disputed figures' section fine. BTW, there is a fine piece of article, indicating that there are people who do it in a partisan way - identifying civil policemen as militants, but this is nothing new since we know the Elder of Ziyon does the same. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And it was promptly reverted. Cryptonio (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's supported by a reliable source and is general knowledge. Palestinians have never been good at math. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, probably best to keep Elders of Zion+not good at math chatter to a minimum. If you are interested in these matters I would encourage to head over to Talk:Jew where a guy is concerned that the Jewish Agency is promoting antisemitic hate by mentioning that 40% of Jews fought for the Red Army. Frankly I find this so very offensive (given that we probably wouldn't even have a Wikipedia without the efforts of the Red Army including the Jews who fought for them) that I don't want to get involved anymore after reverting the guy once but you guys may want to have look and comment now that he has gone to talk mode. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what does Talk:Hew or Jewish Agency groups have to do with the real findings of misleading/fabricated casualty figures? I consider that offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Really ? Well no offense intended wikifan and I apologise if you were offended. I also happen to be offended by sweeping racist statements like 'Palestinians have never been good at math' but I can live with it because it's just your way and I like you because you have a sense of humour. What's the connection? Racism is the connection. My point was simply that if there is an interest in racist matters, which seems self evident from the mention of Elders of Zion and the actual fact of making racist anti-Palestinian statements then it would be better to go to a page where there is a genuine need for assistance on these matters, not here. I'm not being disingenuous. I genuinely think you guys could help whereas I am likely to say something rude and dismissive. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, by Palestinians I was referring to the Palestinian leadership and their lengthy history of falsifying casualties and infating/deflating population census. Surely you understand that reference? Am I really being racist? Ok, Palestinians are mathematical geniuses. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I grew up in the UK so comic remarks have no rules or limits. Just trying to put a potential fire out. Yes, I understand you and thank you for the clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with this one? 'The PCHR representative argued that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.'--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We can expand the Israeli dispute with specific names. According to the NPR link (more credible than Pal #s?), the PCHR registered unarmed and uninvolved recognized terrorists/militants, like Nizar Rayan, as civilians. If Israel challenged Pal claims they must have offered some sort of document that in the least describes said challenge. Did they just say "We challenge you!!" Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses, everyone. I am asking a simple question, with a desire to get simple answer. What do you, editors of the encyclopedian article, think about inserting the following sentence in the 'disputed figures' section? 'The PCHR representative argued that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already a lengthy entry in the Inter Law section already. And under casualties, the policemen are counted as civilians. Cryptonio (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reference that confirms these were actually policeman outside of Hamas? I mean, they are policeman, but many policeman double as militants/fighters/etc....it's all Hamas. They aren't civil servants independent from the general terrorist/freedom fighters/military/whatever group. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, Wikifan. We'll get to it shortly. I am asking again - we have 'disputed figures' subsection. For what purpose? For fun? No, because there is a hot ongoing debate whether all of those who were categorized as cvilians, including policemen but not only policemen, were civilians indeed. Otherwise, we don't need this subsection, we could simply say 'the number of fatalities are...', 'UN representative stated that the PMoH figures have not been seriously challenged' and that's it. However, this is an encyclopedian article, of the still ongoing debate. Inter Law section is of no help here, it says whether or not the attacks on police were legal. I see the 'disputed figures' subsection as a place to explain why Palestinians count in one way and Israelis - in another. This is why the sentence is important. 'The PCHR representative argued that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The logic for including policemen as civilians or non-combatants IS under Inter Law where it belongs. Cryptonio (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We were discussing it more than once, Cryptonio, and you were the one who agreed the HRW statement was misquoted. HRW says, that according to IL, there are cases when it is legal to attack police and there are cases when they should be counted as militants. Remember? 'HRW has stated that "under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities' - your edit from the article. So, this logic of PCHR, which you try to advocate, may be flawed under certain circumstancies. This is why it is essential to say in the 'disputed figures' how each side counts. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make an inch worth of sense. Here is something you may have read before. "The logic for including policemen as civilians or non-combatants IS under Inter Law where it belongs." Cryptonio (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am looking back and forth at the IL section and can not find the logic for including policemen as civilians or non-combatants. I could only think of couple of speculations, that do not provide with a clear-cut answer what was the precise reason that guided PCHR to include those policemen as civilians. This is not a quiz, words of a PCHR representative could be useful. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then expand the Inter Law section. Cryptonio (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I will. After finished with this one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

→This is a proposed addition, I guess Wikifan wil support it (actually it was there before Cryptonio deleted it):

The PCHR representative argued that Israel wrongly classified 255 police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians.

Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report stating that during Gaza War, many alleged civil policemen served at the same time as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence "that during Gaza War, many alleged civil policemen served at the same time as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing. Of course, as stated per the source. Weren't you the one who stated, that Israel's rationale for the attack on Policemen were due to Israel's classification, and not based on individual information of certain policemen?. Were all of these pictures taken during the operation? Meaning that Israel photograph the people mentioned, in both police and military gear? And did they fought in both gears? and when they were killed, did they have both gears on? And Palestinian authorities counted all of the people mentioned in the report as policemen? Out of the 6 or 7 names provided, who among them was counted as a civilian? Cryptonio (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns." http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/01/world/fg-gaza-scene1

'Where is the evidence "that during Gaza War, many alleged civil policemen served at the same time as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing' - there are 4 exampes of double simultaneous affiliation. How much do you need? 44? 144? These examples merely reveal the pattern. This particular report reveals 4, but in fact many more such examples exist.

'Weren't you the one who stated, that Israel's rationale for the attack on Policemen were due to Israel's classification, and not based on individual information of certain policemen?.' - This report has nothing to do with the rationale behind the attack, but deals with the aftermath - 'Overview - 1. As part of the anti-Israeli propaganda campaign which followed Operation Cast Lead, Hamas and human rights organizations often include the number of policemen and other internal security servicemen killed during the operation in the civilian death toll (as opposed to the combatant death toll). Their claim is that the internal security forces are civilian by nature, as they provide services to civilians and are not military-operative apparatuses such as Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades).'

'Were all of these pictures taken during the operation? Meaning that Israel photograph the people mentioned, in both police and military gear?' - these photos are authentic obituaries, found on different Palestinian i-forums and websites.

'who among them was counted as a civilian?' - I couldn't care less. We are not supposed to do OR, don't we? Besides, as said, those are merely 4 examples, and if you do your OR, I'll show you another OR with tens of similar examples of simultaneous double affiliation, and most were counted as civilians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you are bringing this up as OR then why not bring that other secret letter that you have on this as well?

"This report has nothing to do with the rationale behind the attack, but deals with the aftermath"? Ah? Cryptonio (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made mention(by your count) that four members were listed in the report. Cryptonio (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stating 4 waters it down. Per 2 sources it is "many". They also mention the reason Israel attacked during the opening stages of this particular conflict was due to this affiliation. It is directly related to this conflict and the term many has been used. Maybe I don't understand the reason this information is being disputed.Cptnono (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This info is disputed, Cptnon, cause Cryptonio tries to ridicule everything (or anybody) that is against his perception. Hard to believe, but he actually did it - the sentence in the article says now that 'Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center compiled a report alleging that during Gaza War (and in ordinary times) four members of Hamas’s internal security forces were incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and had double affiliation, both as policemen and as militants'. Well, I got news for Cryptonio - ITIC didn't compile report to say there were 4 policemen who were at the same time Hamas fighters. They merely bring 4 examples to show the pattern. What the report does say is 'Many casualties which Hamas portrays as policemen tasked with enforcing public order and internal security in the Gaza Strip were at the same time operatives of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades'. It is also interesting to note that 'Several days before the beginning of the ground phase of the operation, Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan said that police forces had been clearly instructed by the leadership to fight against IDF forces. He added that senior police officers had drawn up action plans and that the police and the security forces were on high alert for any emergency or a ground assault. He further noted that the police forces had received clear-cut instructions from the leadership to fight the enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip (AFP, January 1, 2009 ).' ITIC claim this is one of the evidencies that police in Gaza is actually integrated in Hamas' military wing. Again, connotation is important - they say that facts on the ground during the war show police and policemen were indeed legitimate target, i.e. ITIC justify IDF attacks on the police a posteriori, not a priori. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason sentence about ITIC report must stay as it, after PCHR statement, is that 'As part of the anti-Israeli propaganda campaign which followed Operation Cast Lead, Hamas and human rights organizations often include the number of policemen and other internal security servicemen killed during the operation in the civilian death toll (as opposed to the combatant death toll).' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of nothing this is. Cryptonio (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing you guys contradict yourselves is more precious in this case than the actual article. It is magic. Cryptonio (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Flechettes

Not that it hurt my feelings or something, Cptnono. However, it should be noted that usage of this type of ammo is not prohibited. Amnesty International assert that it should not be used in the densely populated area, but that in itself is not a prohibition. So, despite the controversy, I think this issue is not eligible to be put into IL section in the first place, unless of course cases of deliberate usage against civilians would surface, but this is true to any weapon. You said, that the types of weapons used to kill people are worthy to mention - no problem, let's construct a separate section or even article on weapons and ammo used from both sides. But unless the legality under IL is questioned - I suggest we keep it out of the section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I had similar concerns as you but it needs to go somewhere. So perhaps this is an argument for a weapons/tactics section that would include the dummy missile of eternal friendship, flechettes (very cheap), P-based weapons, DU and whatever else is around in the article + new material ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I would eventually like to see. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is fine. It was randomly given its own subsection a month or so ago. It is more of a style concern and a little bit of a weight issue since it has a big bold heading while most of the other IL allegations do not. I just don't like the heading (unless we are going to give headings to every allegation, which is OK with me, too)Cptnono (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify and make sure we are on the same page, it sounds like you reverted to ensure the information is kept in. My edit did not remove the info just the heading. Does anyone see getting rid of it as a concern?Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you kept the info intact, I merely wanted to move it away from the IL section. Why wouldn't we start right away a new section, weapons? Cordesman report could be useful - it has some info about Hamas weapons on p.7-8 of the report (p.11-12 of the file) and p.16-17 and further about IDF weapons. BTW, I think there was at some point a mention of inert dense metal bomb. What happened to it? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a common enough weapon i think the only noteworthy info about it in this conflict is that human rights observers are concerned with its use and even allege that it is in breach of international laws. It could be worked into a paragraph regarding allegations of disproportionate force (one of the sources goes into detail on WP, tank shells, and flachettes)

I do think a weaponry section or at least adding more info preexisting sections (ie: Opened up with bombings from F-16s or something similar).Cptnono (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. I am not an expert on weaponry, but I thought DIME is an experimantal weapon, and not so commonly used. And yes, it is controversial one, just as flechettes, cause on the one hand it reduces collateral damage (and thus can be viewed as means of spaing lives), on the other hand it might have very unpleasant side effects for those who got affected. So go ahead, start a section (it can grow then in separate article) and each will contribute something. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Separate from the possibility of a new section, is a separate subsection still needed for flachechettes paragraph?Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but please don't insert in the IL section. Maybe in the meantime to Israel-ground invasion, if you like. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is already a subsection of the IL section. I just want to get rid of the subsection header. Also (as a very secondary note), flachettes are common so it may not be noteworthy enough for a general weaponry section and RS only discusses it in an allegation of incorrect use.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I like it, but... we will not start a war over this one. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

violence against dissenters

• • old rfc

Is Hamas violence against dissenters during the war relevant to the article? Is current sentence NPOV? —Sceptic Ashdod (via posting script) 08:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dissenters meaning ordinary people, not Fatah-affiliated.

The paragraph in the article focuses on Hamas political violence against Fatah-affiliated members and alleged collaborators. To what extent is the following sentence, based on 3 different sources, relevant?

'Testimonies from Gaza civilians imply that no one dares to speak out openly against Hamas; those who tried to object were shot by Hamas operatives'. 238 239 240 --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Hamas violence against dissenters during the war relevant to the article? - Clearly it is since it was during the war but it's much more relevant to the subarticle.

Is current sentence NPOV? - Well, I suppose that 'imply that no one' is not a very scientific conclusion and therefore doesn't seem very encyclopedic. The Spiegel piece is an interview with a tiny sample of the population so giving it undue weight would be entirely inappropriate in my view. I like the 239 source for a specific instance but if that goes anywhere it should be the subarticle I think. 240 reads like propaganda to me (remembering that propaganda doesn't imply that it's untrue). :) Call me cynical but this looks dangerously close to synth to draw unsubstantiated general conclusions about an entire population. I'm also not keen of relying on Israeli media sources to talk about Hamas if there are better alternatives for the same reasons that I don't like to get all of my news about China from China Daily (even though apparently everything they print is certified to be true...which is comforting to know). I'd rather we didn't say anything sweeping about the general situation regarding political violence against the population in this article unless it comes from a decent study/source and then just the headline. Sean.hoyland - talk

Two small remarks to Sean's post and then I'll let others speak. First, 'no one dares to speak out' could (and maybe should) be changed to 'people (or some people?) are afraid to speak out...'.

Second. [240] comes from Jerusalem Post, but it is important to notice that it is based on the report from Cremonesi here. For those who do not read Italian, here is the English translation, I wasn't sure it qualifies as RS, so I refrained from providing it as source. Maybe Sean meant [239], but still it is important to notice that it is based on a Palestinian Media Watch report which is based on article from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2009. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prove that in any of the sources you provided for this sentence, those attacked were attacked because of their political views(against Hamas). The sources used in the Fatah section, are used not because it says Fatah, but because the sources addresses the conflict between Hamas and Fatah in political terms and grounds. One of your sources says a family objected because Hamas took over their homes to attack israel(political?). Another source quotes a civilian saying no one dares speak up against Hamas, for fear of reprisal, it is taken out of context because the civilian was not referring to Hamas political actions, but it had reservations on how Hamas was fighting against Israel. And then, to connect three sources, and blanket it in a statement, as if every Gazan was against Hamas, politically, is to overextend three sources. Cryptonio (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment; not everything that happened during the period of this conflict is relevant to this conflict or needs to be in this article. If people were attacked for collaborating, or being suspected of collaborating, that is certainly relevant. If people were attacked because of things not related to this conflict, such as long standing disputes with other factions or whatever, that does not belong. People being afraid to speak out against Hamas is related to this how? It could go in a number of articles, such as Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority or most relevantly 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. But here it just seems to be loosely if at all related to coverage of this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We are taking the POV of Hamas. No reliable source has said Hamas is simply silencing "dissenters." They're killing off and torturing those deemed "collaborators" (basically everyone who happens to be Fatah) with Israel. They aren't "dissenters." Yeah, Hamas basically has a green flag to go after enemies with impunity, regardless of their involvement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather peculiar remark, Wikifan. Did you read this: 'Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip.' here --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, "If people were attacked because of things not related to this conflict, such as long standing disputes with other factions or whatever" - do you realize that the 'whatever' was threatening and shooting at ordinary people who tried to prevent Hamas operatives from using their houses and apartments from launching rockets or making sniper posts? It is more than relevant to the conflict and is relevant to the war. Everyone want to remove it away to subarticle - I can accept that but at least please, do not start this doulethink, we have enough of this with Cryptonio. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely and utterly irrelevant. This page is about the Gaza war not internal Gaza politics hat had zero military consequences. Factsontheground (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Zero military consequences? Who knows... If people were less afraid of Hamas and had enough power to prevent Hamas operatives to use their houses, maybe IDF would have been less provoked and eventually less civilians killed. Following your logic, Under Cover of War is also useless to the article, unless of course you have evidence to support that those Fatah members who escaped from the prison were indeed collaborating with Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly relevant: it is an aspect of the subject. Of course inclusion requires importance as well.

To answer the other question, I don't think it is NPOV because it characterizes what is actually said in the sources. People speak out against Hamas. Mohammed Sadala is named in the Spiegel article for example. The first JPost article says some people who objected were shot but the second one says people who objected were merely berated or vaguely threatened.

NPOV says we should let the facts speak for themselves. In this instance there are allegations that Hamas attacked and killed people who opposed having fighters in their homes. It seems as though that was combined with the "anyone who stands up to them is killed" sentiment (from the Mirror) in a bit of synth and hyperbole. But it could be rewritten in an NPOV way. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of doublethink there Sceptic, you can't possibly believe that Israel's actions are dependent on Palestinians, and Palestinian's are based on actions by Mars. This is funny though, your attempt at rationality. Cryptonio (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel doesn't shoot the knees of the political opposition. Of course Israel military policy is dependent on Palestinian actions, whereas Palestinians have two fronts: The Jews, and themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have political opposition to shoot in the knees. Arab Parties were banned(and you are going to provide us with the rationale, I'm sure) from entering the elections. The rest is yayaya meble bleh blah. Not only are you blind, you are also biased against what you can't see. Cryptonio (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio must have been under a lot of pressure lately, otherwise he would not have confused Israel with Spain. Spain's highest court has upheld a ban on the radical Basque separatist party, Batasuna. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If Arab parties were indeed banned, then maybe someone can explain to me how come that on April 20, 2009, Balad chairman MK Jamal Zahalka, attending Durban II, addressed the crowd at the NGO Civil Society Forum March in Geneva on Sunday, presenting himself as a Palestinian victim of "Israeli racist apartheid" (take a look where this victim of apartheid got his academic degrees)? here --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Military occupation?

Many argue that Israel is in fact occupying the Gaza-strip as Israeli military forces control the air-space, territorial waters and large parts of the border of the Gaza-strip. The question if this constitutes an occupation of the kind that invoke on Israel the obligations of an occupying power is not straight forward, however. I would like to add a sentence (to the section: International Law > Israelis) reflecting that there is a debate about this. As of now, the assertion that Israel is occupying the Gaza-strip is not balanced by other views and hence the actual controversy of these claims is diminished.

According to "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State”:

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.”

(See article 42 in the source)

It seems pretty clear that the Gaza-strip is not under the established authority of the IDF but very much so of Hamas’ de facto government in the Gaza-strip. Is there consensus for adding a sentence or two about this definition of “military occupation” to balance the claims of Israel being an occupying power?--BLeT (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The article already makes the situation clear that there is a difference in opinion. Actually it probably creates a false balance of views but nevertheless this article is not the place discuss whether or not the Gaza Strip is occupied. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

At least, Sean, be consistent. Either we remove all the intro to IL section(Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation.[281] Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[282][283] However, the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch disagree and consider Israel an occupying power.[284] Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters.), or provide the actual definition of the occupation above.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't you the one who wanted to insert drones, 'a symbol of ongoing occupation' by HRW?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. I thought I was being consistent.."The article already makes the situation clear that there is a difference in opinion". I'm just trying to avoid legal justifications and explanation of the differences in opinion being added for either side because I don't think they belong here. Perhaps you mean "Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters" should be moved elsewhere in the article ? That would be fine by me. As for the drones, you're confusing me with HRW. It's easily done. :) I wanted the drone stuff added because it's use is notable. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

...it's a bit of a tricky issue because although Israel's position is that Gaza isn't under belligerent occupation anymore the High Court of Justice do acknowledge legal obligations that "derive from the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel over the border crossings between it and the Gaza Strip, as well as from the relationship that was created between Israel and the territory of the Gaza Strip after the years of Israeli military rule in the territory, as a result of which the Gaza Strip is currently almost completely dependent upon the supply of electricity from Israel"....etc[1]. So the degree of control is legally relevant I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hence it could be an advantage to have an elaboration about this topic in the article. The point being that accusations like this are not made based on mere opinions.

I believe that the quote from the High Court of Justice stating that there is a certain level of obligations "that derive from the degree of control excercised by the state of Israel...." shows why some disagree with the pretty clear definition of a military occupation.

However, just to add to the complexity of this question, an occupying power does not have duties only - it also has rights:

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Hence if Israel is defined as the "occupying power", infringements of the security of the occupying power are treated as crimes. I repeat a part of the definition that started this discussion:

The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.

Even if Israel is defined as the occupying power, as long as Hamas is in charge on the Gaza-strip, Israel would most likely not be able to assert its rights as such.

A paragraph containing all these three quotes would reveal the complexity of this question to the readers without taking sides for or against a party in question. BLeT (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but why do we want to "reveal the complexity" of this issue in this article ? X says the status is occupied, Y says it isn't. That's all we need to know for the purposes of this article isn't it ? There's already a vast article that explains all this stuff in detail. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, is this relevant? If we include this, then we have to couch in disagreeing crap from the Israeli government, opinions from notable experts, etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly...we'd be forced to include notable experts like Eyal Benvenisti saying without any hint of irony "I was struck by the fact that most contemporary occupants ignored their status"....sorry, I love that quote despite the likelyhood of Mr Benvenisti prosecuting me for taking it out of context. Finally it seems wikifan and I agree on something. Let peace prevail throughout this land. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. As long as sentences like 'Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation' appear in the article, it is relevant. I might have suggested, to extend the Sean's line of thinking, to remove the 'occupation' issue completely from the preface to IL section, merely providing link to article that addresses aspects of the issue. However, as long as such article 'Is Gaza occupied or not?' doesn't exist (or does it?), it is important in my view to provide a definition of the occupation that BLeT raised. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The dreaded horrible international law section. The alleged occupation deserves a couple lines but, unless it has changed just recently, the paragraph is lacking sources directly related to this event. Other sources already used mention it so it should be easy to put in "so and so says and it is related to this conflict because but so and so says otherwise" since that puts the debate in an appropriate frame.Cptnono (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Cptnono, the moment I am done with all the other corrections I wanted to make, we will start working more extensively on the IL section. Perhaps what I would like to see eventually is a separate section, or even article, exploring the question whether Gaza is occupied by Israel or not.

In a partial answer to Sean's previous posts, the fact that Israel sees itself as obliged to Gaza doesn't prove it has actual duties because of IL.

There is a nice paragraph in one of my sources that I can't resist to cite a bit: 'The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of another “High Contracting Party” (i.e., a state party to the convention) and the occupier “exercises the functions of government” in the occupied territory. Yet, the Gaza Strip is not territory of another state party to the convention - Egypt, which previously controlled Gaza, is a party to the convention, but Gaza was never Egyptian territory. And Israel does not exercise the functions of government in the territory. It is clear to all that the elected Hamas government is the de facto sovereign of the Gaza Strip and does not take direction from Israel, or any other state.' '...If Israel were indeed properly considered an occupier, under Article 43 of the regulations attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, Israel would be required to take “all the measures in [its] power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.” Thus, those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias.'...Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases...'.

There is much much more to that source. Just for the dessert: '...no one has ever argued that Egypt has legal duties to supply goods to Gaza due to its former military occupation of the Gaza Strip'.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All this does is make me even more certain that this kind of stuff should stay out of this article. It's proper place is elsewhere. There a whole bunch of articles where POV ninjas like to pointlessly use Wikipedia as a battleground on this issue e.g. Gaza_Strip#Dispute_over_occupation_status, International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict,Status of territories captured by Israel, Israeli-occupied territories. Sceptic, I don't understand why you left out the bit that says "Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005" above in your 'I'll tell you why' response. I think the main reason those 2 brief preamble sentences are there is to provide a little bit of context for the statements made by orgs like UNHRC etc that follow. I mean in the sense that their statements have a dependency on perceived occupation status etc. Is the preamble in that section really necessary ? I don't know...or care...but I'm strongly of the opinion that legal arguments about occupation status should stay out of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be short this time. I left out that sentence because it restates Israeli position, without any substance to it. It is like Wiki - you can say whatever you want but without evidence, source, substance - it is useless. I agree, and I already told it twice, that all this stuff is irrelevant to current article. However, if the sentence 'Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation' is in the preamble to IL section, the definition provided above should be added as well, saying merely that Israel asserts it no longer occupies Gaza is meaningless. The other way round is to delete the sentence 'Under international law, occupying ...' completely. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to merge the two paragraphs; skip the intro and instead incorporate it in the first paragraphs under "Israelis". Something like this:

Israel has been accused of collective punishment by United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)'s Richard Falk;[285] of targeting of civilians by Falk [285] and Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)'s Raji Sourani;[286] of war crimes by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[287] of disproportionate military response by Falk[285] and EU Aid Commissioner Louis Michel;[288] of failing "to care for and evacuate the wounded" by the Red Cross by not allowing medics access to wounded civilians[289] of using civilians as shields by Amnesty International[290] – all of which would constitute a violation of International Humanitarian Law as defined in the Geneva Conventions "in regard to the obligations of an occupying power and in the requirements of the laws of war".[285] Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[282][283] However, the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch disagree and consider Israel an occupying power [284] as Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters. The definition of an occupation is disputed.

There should be a clear link to the article that elaborates on this topic. As of now, the two paragraphs only serve to repeat the allegations, rather than providing "a bit of context" to this question.This way the "difference in opinion" would be more clear.BLeT (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

More imporantly, how it is related to this article as opposed to the overall conflict is not in.Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

'The definition of an occupation is disputed' - the definition is not disputed. The term 'occupation' is disputed, cause anyone can start polemics in accordance with his POVs, wishes, beliefs, etc. But the definition is definition. Didn't understand last remark from Cptnono, however just to make sure - the relation is simple. Since some believe that Israel imposes occupation on Gaza, than it has obligations, and that what article says - 'Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation'. The problem with this sentence is that under IL definitions provided above, Israel no longer occupies Gaza, and actually has no responsibilities to those under occupation, even if it considers itself obliged to help in certain ways to population there. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we please not have discussions about whether it is or isn't occupied ? We can leave that to the UN, HCJ etc. I'm okay with BLeT's suggestion of incorporating it in the first paragraphs as long as we retain the existing wiki links in the preamble to the appropriate articles that explain the issues or find better links. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was saying, Sean. BLeT, we would be honoured if you insert the definition of the occupation from the avalon database into the IL section (I prefer the preamble), wouldn't we? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry apparently I wasn't clear. This is exactly not what I was saying. :) I oppose occupation related legal definitions in this article. We already link to the relevant material via the following in the preamble. These are the clear links that BLeT wanted and they already exist in the article.

• occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation
• occupying power

I was just saying that if anyone wants to incorporate the preamble into the main text go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the link provides the relevant material that starts with the definition. This is good. However, the sentence that opens preamble is not: 'Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation', since it implies Israel might be the occupying power and has certain responsibilities. We know that the matter is complicated, but average incompetent reader might got affected. I would propose to rephrase it, while keeping the link. Something like 'There is an ongoing debate over whether Gaza is occupied by Israel or not and whether Israel has certain responsibilities to Gazan population'.

Since the 'occupation' issue is not the core issue of the article and the dispute around it, I would certainly endorse the idea to merge the preamble somewhere in the sub-sections.

What is more, the sentence 'Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005' irritates me. The same btw about the Gaza Strip article. This is because from Israeli perspective, the civil and military disengagement from Gaza is only a secondary reason to assert she no longer occupies Gaza. The prime reason is that Israel has no authority over the Strip. This is why the sentence could use some rephrasing. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that somehow, we need to provide some context for peoples statements and when you think about UN statements about this conflict this is the context from the UN perspective

"With regard to Gaza, there is a further concern with respect to the nature of the legal obligations of Israel towards the Gazan population. Israel officially contends that, after the implementation of its disengagement plan in 2005, it is no longer an occupying Power, and is therefore not responsible for observance of the obligations set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention. That contention has been widely rejected by expert opinion, by the de facto realities of effective control and by official pronouncements by, for instance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General (A/HRC/8/17), the General Assembly in its resolutions 63/96 and 63/98, and the Security Council in its resolution 1860 (2009). Since 2005, Israel has completely controlled all entry and exit routes by land and sea, and asserted control over Gazan airspace and territorial waters. By imposing a blockade, in effect since the summer of 2007, it has profoundly affected the life and well-being of every single person living in Gaza. Therefore, regardless of the international status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory with respect to the use of force, the obligations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as those of international human rights law and international criminal law, are fully applicable".

...so 'There is an ongoing debate..' doesn't seem enough. Maybe it's better just to say X, Y, Z or whoever is relevant says it's occupied, Israel says it isn't. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would accept if we agree to remove that 'occupying powers have certain responsibilities' sentence. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it should be in the Israeli intl law section if the allegation is relevent to this conflict. As it is now, it is just hanging out and not improving the reader's understanding of what happened.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I agree that "we need to provide som context for people's statements". However, I think "X, Y and Z says ...." is not providing the context for their opinions. I think it would be relevant to the reader if we somehow - as short and consise as possible - made the point(s) that:

According to the definition of military occupation, Israel is not occupying the Gaza strip despite being in control over air-space, territorial waters and much of Gaza's borders. However, the High Court of Justice and the UN argue that there is a certain level of obligations deriving from the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel on the Gaza-strip. The exsact level of these obligations is not clear.

I believe this shows the core of the dispute without taking sides. I suggest that we try to merge the intro to the IL-section into the first paragraph of the Israelis-section and that we at the same time try to rephrase and/or add a sentence or two to the paragraph to reflect the points above. This way the article display both the different opinions and what the difference in opinion is all about. Should we try to agree on the phrasing of such a paragraph? BLeT (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source for the above para? Cryptonio (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. The above paragraph is my suggestion for what points that should be included in the merged paragraphs - if we agree to merge the paragraphs as we have been discussing above. I base this suggestion on the sources that emerged in the discussion above, but in order to be clear I state them again here: in addition to the sources already in the article, the definition of a military occupation (see article 42) and the opinion of the High Court of Justice (initially provided in this discussion by Sean).

I want to emphasize that my suggestion is NOT to replace the text already in the article with the "above para", but to merge the intro of the IL-section into the first paragraph of the Israelis-section and then shlightly rephrase this new, merged paragraph to also include the points of the "above para". I think this could be done without any drastic changes to the current phrasing of the article, but with just some adjustments. As always, it is a precondition that the neutrality and soundness of the article is not compromised. Is this a viable suggestion? Should I give you an example of how such a paragraph could look like? BLeT (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

BLeT, "According to the definition of military occupation, Israel is not occupying the Gaza strip" is false, misleading and a misrepresentation of the legal positions of so many international organisations, countries and legal experts. This is the Israeli view. Why on earth would we want to state the Israeli position as if it is a fact in this article or indeed any article when it is disputed by the likes of the UN ? I think we must stay away from making statements in wikipedia's narrative voice that say that it is or is not occupied as if it's a verifiable fact rather than an opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is false, misleading and a misrepresentation to say Israel is the sole party that disputes this "military occupation" accusation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and as I'm sure you already know, I know that. You can read Israel as Israel and supporters of it's position. I'm lazy. It makes no difference to my argument. It's not a fact that Gaza is occupied. Neither is it a fact that Gaza is not occupied. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the definition of a military occupation pretty unequivocal, though? If the statement is false and misinterpreted this must of course not appear in this article, but perhaps you could point out where the fault is?

“Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.”

As of now, I do not agree that "Israel is not occupying the Gaza-strip according to this definition of a military occupation" is a false or misleading statement. However, I do agree with you that we shouldn't make statements and conclusions on Wikipedia and I hereby admit that mistake.

This is not an attempt to establish the Israeli view as a fact. The motivation for starting this discussion in the first place was that there are clear definitions in International Law which are a matter of international agreements reached through negotiations between nations. Nobody can redefine these as - and when - they wish, not even the UN. Afterall, what is the value of a law everbody is free to interpret the way they like?

By stating the definition of a military occupation we understand how it is possible for the Israelis to disagree with the many international organizations and experts you refer to. By citing the source you so kindly provided earlier in this discussion, Sean, we also understand how it is possible to argue that despite this unequivocal definition, Israel does have a level of obligation deriving from the control it exerts on the Gaza-strip. These quotes thus promotes better understanding of this question - rather than establishing one side of the story as a fact. I never intended to remove the opinions of those who argue that Israel is occupying the Gaza-strip from the text - merely adding a few more points to it. BLeT (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Both sides' interpretation are presented in a way that does not misinterprets the actual wording of: "The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself." Furthermore, the current para does not comes into conflict with: "By stating the definition of a military occupation we understand how it is possible for the Israelis to disagree with the many international organizations and experts you refer to. By citing the source you so kindly provided earlier in this discussion, Sean, we also understand how it is possible to argue that despite this unequivocal definition, Israel does have a level of obligation deriving from the control it exerts on the Gaza-strip." If somehow we could link to the actual definition through wikilink or something like that.

I would agree to merging etc as your proposal says. That Israel occupies Gaza or not, does not means Gaza should let herself be occupied or not prevent it. I think the current format is to explain, that Gaza is under occupation and that is resisting that occupation, despite Israel saying that it is not occupying. But do we have to state Gaza is or isn't occupied? Perhaps then it would be wp:undue to have the current format as it is. I could be wrong, but if the same information is somehow reformatted, i wouldn't have a problem. I would be against explicitly stating the 'law' unless is sourced to the current conflict. Cryptonio (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i see there is a link to Occupying Powers etc. I'll mess the format then. Cryptonio (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph still does not relate an allegation to this conflict.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...

I am not shure I understand you correctly. Is this a relevant source? Here, former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni states on 31.dec. 2008 among other things:

As I said before, Israel left the Gaza Strip and, from our perspective this was, or should have been, the end of an occupation, according to international law as well.

Here, I think the question we are discussing is linked to the topic of the article. I hope I have understood you correctly. Feel free to clarify if necessary. BLeT (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This paragraph requires to be reworked in order to be included in the article. The main problem is that it fails to be connected to the current conflict(Gaza War) through a reliable source.

Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation. Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005. However, the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch disagree and consider Israel an occupying power. Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters.

I restored the text. It is true that the international law section needs a drastic rewrite, but this is basic background info that colors most of the opinions given on whether or not certain violations of international law occurred in this conflict. You want being connected to the current conflict? Here, "As fighting rages in Gaza, a question about the region has shot to the forefront of international politics: More than three years after Israel pulled out from the small strip of land, is it still "occupied" territory?". The overwhelming majority of the world considers Gaza to be occupied, including the UN, HRW, AI, ICRC. Also, just to show the extent of this, the CIA World Factbook says: "West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005". Nableezy (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is basic background info that needs to be in the article. Thank you!

Just out of curiousity; do you have any thoughts about the drastic rewrite the international law section needs? I can imagine that would be sizeable project? BLeT (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now really about to start gradually improving the IL section. Considering the paragraph, if there is a connection - then I still think the definition must be provided as well. Next, as I already mentioned, to say that Israel asserts it ended the occupation of Gaza with the disengagement - is misleading, cause it's only half-true. Israel asserts it ended the occupation there since it has no governing authority and no inside control there, everything else is either by previous agreements with PA or is a blockade. I will provide sources to what I said. Besides, when saying that occupying state has some obligations - what are they? (a side remark - have you seen another case of an occupying state waging war on the territory it already occupies?) I personally would prefer to keep that para. out for a while. Too much issues. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the article you provided, Nableezy, but I failed to see the connection. So, it describes some pros and cons, gives some historic background and says who else believe Gaza is occupied. But, again, how exactly is it relevant to the war? What additional obligations Israel should have fulfilled? Can a territory without settlements and military of one of the belligerents be considered occupied (the answer is yes, if that belligerent has a governing authority there - which is not the case in Gaza)? Is territory whose borders, waters and airspae are controlled, be considered occupied (the answer is no, this is blockade not the occupation)? I have no problem to say that this and that consider Gaza being occupied by Israel, but only if we provide the definition of the military occupation, correct the sentence about Israel's assertion and provide a stronger relevance to the current war. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The answers you gave are overly simplistic and is contradicted by much of the worlds governments, international law experts, and human rights organizations. As far as linking, if you dont like that one, try this one from amnesty, covering relevant laws and treaties in regards this conflict: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability. Nableezy (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh! This is much better. Before I forget, you were absent for about a week and a half - had a vacation or just took couple of days off from the article? Hope you enjoyed. Now regarding the article from AI - you are right, this is the link. It could provide a sort of pattern to follow. I guess you wouldn't mind that for every argument I will try to bring in the counterargument. Finally, fully aware that it won't convince anyone, did you read the intro to para. 1.2? 'Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In such situations, the occupying power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” (Hague Regulations, Article 43).' - we (and I mean you and I, not some notable experts but two private nobodies) know that for some years now Israel has no authority (i.e. government) over or in Gaza. Moreover, if we assume for a second that despite my previous sentence, Gaza is occupied, than Israel actually must 'take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety' - meaning regain authority over Gaza, disarm all the groups there and continue to ensure public order and safety. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

""They are re-invading occupied territory," Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said on "CNN Sunday Morning." She added that Israel has "all the powers and none of the responsibilities of the occupying force."" is stated in the source provided by Nableezy. Is there anything else that needs to go in?Cptnono (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Smuggling

The article uses terms like arms smuggling, weapon smuggling and smuggling in general quite often. Smuggling means that something is illicit and unlawful. If it is illicit and unlawful then it is illicit and unlawful because of something, an agreement, terms/conditions of ceasefire etc. Is smuggling an appropriate and neutral word to describe the supply of weapons and other material into the Gaza Strip ? If it is then I think we need to add a short statement to say why because I don't think the article currently explains why this is an appropriate term to use. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources continuously refer to Hamas' smuggling (transferring, moving, stealing, whatever...) as......smuggling. If it were legal, it wouldn't be called smuggling, now would it? :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Circular arguments don't work. I was hoping for something like it's in the Oslo Accords, part of the ceasefire agreements, they said they wouldn't etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a circular argument. The sources we use in the article refer to Hamas' trafficking/moving/purchasing/gifting weapons as smuggling. There is no international law that says when one is and isn't smuggling because smuggling is a general and not legally binding term by itself. Hamas' is probably in violation of whatever conditions or insecurities Israel has. And btw, Hamas' isn't disputing the smuggling accusation as far as I know. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do but why ? I don't think we would say "naughty IDF solders" if all the RS did. Smuggling is a legally defined term. It's not a general term to describe moving something from A to B. It has all sorts of connotations the most obvious of which is that it is illicit according to someone/something. The IDF don't "smuggle" their soldiers, weapons, food etc into Gaza when carrying out operations. It struck me as odd that we're using this non-neutral term without context just because the RS we use do. I'm not saying it's the wrong word. I'm just saying that we don't say why it's the right word. Compare it to Ho Chi Minh trail. There's no "smuggling" there. It uses terms/phrases like "system provided support, in the form of manpower and materiel", "logistical system", "supplies", "supply operations" etc. Maybe someone has a source e.g. PA statement that would explain why smuggle is the right word. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To start with, it was a 'kind of' lull agreement - Israel has insisted that any deal include an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza, unless of course you will challenge the equation I made between 'end of military buildup' to 'supply' of whatever is smuggled there. Second, it is generally a violation of past agreements between Israel and PA, and I think I will be able to find support to this if you insist. It must be noted, however, that following Hamas' takeover in Gaza in 2007, it abolished any agreements that were ratified by PA with Israel in the past (this btw led eventually to sealing off the blockade of Gaza). So, from Hamas POV, 'smuggling' is completely legal, as well as rockets are legitimate means of resisting the occupation. Soapboxing aside, I agree with Wikifan - I think all of the sources refer to it as 'smiggling' - so should we. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If the RS referred to IDF soldiers as "naughty," then yeah, we'd have to include it somewhere if it was consistent coverage. Uh, the IDF is a sovereign state is not a rebel/resistance movement. "Transfer of goods" (ultra euphemism) is almost universally refer to as smuggling. Hamas smuggling goods from Egypt that is used to attack Israel cities is considered illegal by their laws and Egypt's more or less. Hamas has yet to dispute the smuggling accusation, but rather justifies it...I really don't see where you are going with this other than falsely legitimizing what is recognized as a smuggling operation by the mainstream and the Western world. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, if there were such a word as smiggling (and there certainly should be) I would be entirely in favour of using it as often as possible. Just to be clear, I simply want to avoid non-neutral terminology without attribution unless there is a specific reason/context for using it in that way. I don't completely buy the RS terminology argument in this case because I personally don't understand why that term is used while I acknowledge that there is probably a good reason. I'm not trying to legitimize anything apart from the usage of the term 'smuggling' in this article. All I'll say further is that I think it would improve the article a bit if it included something brief that could answer the question "Smuggling weapons into Gaza is illicit according to <who> because of <what>" if for example someone encountered that question in an exam. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

→For now, I intend to add this sentence to the 'lull' section. It is important terms of agreement (that was never fulfilled) and it provides partial answer to your question, relevant to pre-war timeline. 'Besides, Israel has insisted that the agreement includes an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza, and movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit. As for more comprehensive answer to your question, if I have time I will seek it out, but anyway it won't belong in the current article, but elsewhere. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be beneficial for understanding the term to look up informaiton and legalities on cross border weapons trafficking. It is "smuggling" since it was done in defiance of border restrictions and in a covert fashion. I am assuming there are more concerns regarding the supply chain and related international regulations. Not calling it smuggling would show a lack of common sense, reliability, honesty, and accuracy on the editors' part.Cptnono (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not want us to show a lack of common sense, reliability, honesty, and accuracy. Indeed, I`d prefer that we not lack any single one of those qualities. So I have no choice but to agree with Cptnono on this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree on the common sense thing. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it shouldn't be called something other than smuggling unless there is a good reason to do so and I personally don't have "more concerns regarding the supply chain and related international regulations". I just want to be sure that when we use words like smuggle we do so for a reason that is evident to the reader and clear from the context. This seems like a very basic requirement for an encyclopedia article to me and it has little to do with common sense. Common sense only gets you as far as realising that bringing weapons etc into Gaza through tunnels isn't allowed. It doesn't tell you why and too assume that it's obvious or self-evident is a mistake in my view given the major consequences of the smuggling. I'm not sure whether there is anything obvious about what happens at the Gaza-Egypt border so it just seems better to explicitly state that they are breaking agreements X, Y and Z by smuggling. That seems like common sense and would make the article a little bit more reliable, honest and accurate. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The The 2007–2009 blockade of the Gaza Strip is mentioned in the lead. Since every reader reads an article differently maybe further explanation is needed. It would be my hope that this not spiral into 5 paragraphs on the debated purpose of the cease in trade (including weapons) across the border.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact they're going through secret tunnels and not the official border crossing is enough to make it "smuggling". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

→ NMMNG has a nice point, but here comes official answer: On November 15, 2005, negotiators from Israel and the Palestinian Authority achieved an agreement on movement and access from and to Gaza. Read the full text in the link. Notice that 'The PA will act to prevent the movement of weapons and explosives at the Rafah crossing.' This is why all the parties agree that continuing Hamas' military buildup in Gaza violates previous agreement with Israel. As for the scope of this article, it would be enough to say that 'Besides, Israel has insisted that the agreement includes an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza, and movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit.'

no 'besides', rest is fine Nableezy (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great Sceptic. Thanks. I remember that mfa.gov.il source now. I'm fine with that wording (minus the besides) but personally I'd rather see the PA and Egypt get a mention too as Israel insisting on something is only part of the story i.e. something like Israel insisted that the agreement included an end to Hamas's military buildup in Gaza in line with the 2005 agreement with the Palestinian Authority to prevent the movement of weapons and explosives across the Rafah border. Israel also insisted on movement toward the release of Corporal Shalit and Egypt linked the opening of the Rafah border with his release...cite your 2 refs + this one<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010646.html ''Hamas says not interested in renewing Shalit negotiations''] By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel. Ha'aretz. Published 12 August 2008.</ref>. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out. I was mainly concerned about how I would get my malboro lights should I have to go to Gaza at short notice. And to NMMNG, secret and not through the official border crossing would make most US military logistics "smuggling" wouldn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that a serious question? I suggest you open a dictionary and see what "smuggling" means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't but thanks for the suggestion. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me save you the trouble:

smuggling verb

1. Present participle of smuggle

smuggling noun

1. An act of smuggling

(from Wiktionary)
I hope that clears everything up. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion irrelevant to article content collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Weapons are smuggled because Egypt, as a state, did not sold the weapons to the Palestinians(weapons sells are supposed to be a transparent business). But of course, if China were to sell arms to say, Iran, it would also invite colorful terminology describing the practice by Western states and Israel. And thus, any state that decides to sell weapons to the Palestinians, legally, would be confronted one way or the other, but that's their prerogative etc. Most Arab states, as evil as they are portrayed by the media and the Western Elite, are very openly(due to their interests) receptive of actions by the 'world community' and the accepted 'way of the world', as prescribed by the powerful. Sad to say, that Palestinians only have themselves to cope with the misery they go through, but everybody's flesh is on the line here when dealing with war. Ah sure, Iran provides weapons to Palestinians, but even them do so clandestinely; they wouldn't dare make it official. But even if they wanted to, to what airport are they going to send those weapons? to Gaza via Israel?. Palestinians are weak, in the eyes of the world, and so they only have themselves to blame(via Hamas, of course). I'm surprised there is no UN resolution banning the sell of weapons to Palestinians(Sean's point). Forsaken, humiliated world, when will you come to an end, and your actions vilified? Cryptonio (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC) You do know China sells weapons to the Arab militias in Darfur and nobody cares, right Crypt? Israel has sold military technology to China for quite some time too. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) You don't care. These facts, as if trying to connect I don't know what dots. By saying, that Israel sells weapons to China, does that make Israel a superpower or something? are you saying that Israel is a major weapon exporter on par with the US, EU and Russia? does that make you proud? And then you say, 'no one cares', but notice what you are saying, Israel sells to China, and China sells to Darfur. Do you imply that China is evil while Israel is just doing good or something as ridiculous as that? Or did you simply had to respond to something you had no clue about? Does your caretaker kiss you goodnight after wiping your bottom? What are you on dawg? Ohhh oka, I get it, 'Arab militias'. I laugh how you and others like you dislike my dismissive attitude towards you and the others like you. Because in it, you can for a second see how dismissive of others you and the others like you are. Is the whole usage of the word 'Islamist'. In the US, when you want to instill terror and try to win arguments, they simply bring up 'Islamist terrorist'. Religion wars my friend. Let me knock you down really quick off your high horse. The Qu`ran tells Muslims they are gods. The New Testament tells Christian they are the salt of the world. The Old Testament tells Jews.................... I won't finish that thought, for I am better than that. Next time, ignore me or else, might actually give you grounds to call me anti-semetic for the first time. You address me again, as if you know something about me, and I will let you know everything about me. Cryptonio (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Uh, no. You said: "China were to sell arms to say, Iran, it would also invite colorful terminology describing the practice by Western states and Israel." Nobody cares what China/Iran does. China and Russia has been funneling money to Iran and nobody has cared, not the UN and certainly not the West. That money pays for Hamas/Hezbollah weapons, which are seized on a monthly basis at sea by Israel. Nobody cares about the utter hypocrisy perpetrated by the Arab League bullies. That was my point. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Holy tangent, Batman . . . RomaC (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Please finish that thought. You're so off topic already, and with all the SOAPBOX etc, it should be interesting, dawg. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC) A little less goading and a little more focus would be good for Wiki. Everyone take a breath. RomaC (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I only read the leading question in the discussion, therefore my answer is legal or illegal, smuggling is done in a secret way, In Oxford English Dictionary, smuggling refers "1. move (goods) illegally into or out of a country, 2. convey secretly and illicitly" so it may be considered a proper term, yet I am not a native speaker. Kasaalan (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

continued from above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That 'dawg' coming from you sounds backward. Like something you parents told you it was wrong, so long ago. Of course I know why you brought up, Eminem. I'll finish my thought if you pay me, and if you pay me double, I'll even take your...You gotta pay me triple to finish this other thought. You people, if I can't even get myself ban, how do you think you will? Did you see wikifan crying his eyes off about he gets all the skinny girls? Who needs to visit hot- as- hell Egypt, when you could have you own private lake with the amount of tears wikifan has shed for the past few days on that thing they called Admin Board? I mean, it was a pathetic as they come. He just doesn't understand, he thought that my above point was, his needed assistance in letting me know that China indeed sells weapons to Iran. I mean, when the sand gets in your eye, the solution is not necessaraly to rub your eyes. Smart people would first find some water, wash their hands AND wash their eyes. Wikifan comes out and says "but how are you going to find water, when your eyes are closed"? Cryptonio (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC) You drunk Cryptonio? No offence met, it just seemed like a really random comment and I typically make those myself after a few too many. Can we officially end this smuggling discussion or is there still concern with use of the term? It looks like there is consensus for the term being acceptable but please chime in if it is still argued.Cptnono (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have collapsed all the nonsense above, if anybody has a problem with that revert it, but can we please stop this? Nothing in the collapsed section has anything to do with the content of the article, so I kindly ask those of you interested in continuing that conversation to do so somewhere else. Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Restating this though: "Can we officially end this smuggling discussion or is there still concern with use of the term? It looks like there is consensus for the term being acceptable but please chime in if it is still argued."Cptnono (talk)

→It is interesting to note, Sean, that Amnesty International in their report discussed below, cite Israeli MFA when referring to Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) I provided above. I hope you noticed that AMA reflects agreement between all sides and as a text of an official document doesn't constitute either side of a story. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is resolved consensus-wise and as I said above, my preference is for the agreement background statement to also mention the PA and Egypt as parties rather than just Israel to make the wider context and general agreement clear. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Al-Fakhura school shelling - who inserted this subsection?

I wonder who inserted this sentence: 'On January 6, Israel fired mortar shells at an UNRWA school called Al-Fakhura that was at the time sheltering around 2000 refugees'. Cause if we reread the 140, it says that

'Local residents in the street told me that militants had been firing rockets - as the IDF claimed - and having been targeted in retaliatory fire by the IDF, they ran down the street past the school.

That's when the mortars apparently landed. The street was full of people at the time, hence the allegation that most of those killed were civilians. I was unable to find out whether the militants were among the dead.

The headmaster of the al-Fakhura school told me that four people inside his school were injured by shrapnel from the mortars, but that the only person killed was one child who happened to be in the street outside at the moment of impact.

This may sound like a lot of detail to go into - but when it comes to determining whether or not customary international humanitarian law may have been breached (as has been alleged), this is the sort of detail that can be important.

Although a large number of civilians were apparently killed, all this may prove to be evidence which works in Israel's favour as it's pretty clear that the school itself was not the target.'

So far, reading comprehension. Now, the OR: 'What is not contested is that 43 people died' - strangely enough, PCHR data refutes this count. Open the PCHR fatalities list, search and count the hits for Fakhoura - you will find 21 fatalities. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In its conclusion, the [140] is coherent with pro-Israeli source: The IDF said at the time the area next to the school had been used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at troops stationed nearby, and that the IDF had fired back. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Modified it to be more like it was before someone screwed with it. Please see the main article (which still needs clean-up) on the event: Al-Fakhura school incident.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Do you think it is important to restate the casualties count (12-IDF, 43-PCHR)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) tried to fix mess Sean.hoyland - talk 07:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It has its own article but as long as the paragraph isn't expanded into explanations on every peice of detail (why the disputed casualties, the UN did or did not backtrack, and all of that) I don't see a concern. This incident recieved tons of unwarranted negative press initialy so there is plenty to sift through.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Messed up

Something messed up the talk page. I haven't got time to figure out what and fix it 100% but it's back to a working state albeit with some of my sigs assigned to other peoples comments. Don't forget to sign your posts. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean :). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

was missing a closing </ref>, actually fixed now, not that retarded workaround Sean put in, will fix the sigs in a sec. Nableezy (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I think the closing ref was me.Cptnono (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

retarded ? you mean special. Sean.hoyland - talk 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

when something is so special another word is needed. sorry, but i havent been getting involved in too many 'retarded' arguments, and i felt you might be suffering from retardation withdrawal Nableezy (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Thanks. Entertaining incivility has dropped to dangerously low levels on this page. I may need to propose including an extensively sourced section about the detailed legal framework of self defence, it's scope and application with respect to Israeli and Palestinian actions. That should be good for a bit of incivility. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys should go on the road with this material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling us to leave? Thats not very nice. Nableezy (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

AGF! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Sean would definitely have to be the straight man. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I hope you mean part of this, and not any other sort of meaning there, not that there is anything wrong with that. Nableezy (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one. I was just trying to say that Sean would probably be the more versatile partner. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how my off-wiki relationship with a Canadian brand of agricultural equipment is anyone's business. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is always good for our editors to look at normal articles for perspective. Even if they have vanity problems. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Page name

Apologies in advance for bringing this up when it has presumably already been discussed, but... when was this page renamed to 'Gaza War', and why? The current name is highly ambiguous, not to mention misleading - I don't think these events meet most of the criteria of the standard definition of a 'war'. What was wrong with the title '2008-2009 Gaza conflict'? Could someone point me to where this was discussed, please? Robofish (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza_War/Archive_47#Requested_move Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I still think the name's a bit ambiguous, but it very much does seem to be the one used by most reliable sources, so I won't comment any further on it. Thanks for the quick reply! Robofish (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I know that I've already said that I don't much care for infoboxes. But I was looking just now at the "Strength" section and I noticed that just about everything in it is useless or misleading. It lists the manpower for the whole Israeli military. Is that useful? I'm sure that no other source would include such an irrelevant figure. The Hamas figure does the opposite. It says that 20,000 is the total for their strength but the article would imply that this is the number of fighters they have in Gaza only and not the total. At least not in the same sense that it is used in the Israeli example.

The section also notes that the Israeli soldiers were "(b)acked by tanks, artillery, gunboats and aircraft". This is mostly true. I think that the gunboats inclusion is misleading. I see that it is sourced but I think that it was used as an inaccurate shorthand. From what I've seen, the Israelis only used their Sa'ars in the fighting and those are not gunboats. The Israelis did use artillery but that has been pretty standard now for hundreds of years. What's the point of mentioning it in the infobox? I'd say the same thing about aircraft. Tanks are not always used but do they need to be mentioned in the infobox? --JGGardiner (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We could use this illustrations to the data in the infobox:

File:Oliphant 2009.jpg Image:Apartheid week 2009.jpg --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Oliphant's offensive stereotyping of Gazans as suffering from dwarfism has to stop. Camera are quite right about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure those are Oliphants? I think the one on the right is one of those IDF t-shirts. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The one on the right is the poster of The Fifth Annual Israeli Apartheid Week March 1 - 8, 2009. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jew nazi/fascist evil occupying sunzobeaches ftw!11111 Cut the drama. The article isn't about suffering. Those who carry the POV in trying to create a platform for, *gasp*, the never-ending mantra of Palestinian struggle should consider moving their agenda elsewhere. If not for me, do for the sake of the article and all that is wikipedia. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New Amnesty report

By the way, Amnesty's 2009 International Report is out. I'm not sure if they say anything new or useful. They do blame Israel for breaking the truce. I am sure some editors will also like it for colour and such. Here's the articles on "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories" and the Palestinian Authority --JGGardiner (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not earth-shattering. I doubt an extremely hostile report from an extremely anti-Israel advocacy group with a legendary history of relying on inaccuracies and misinformation to substantiate "reports" would be a quality addition to the article. Plus, reaction sections are cluttered enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you describe might not be, but thankfully your opinions on AI are just your opinions and AI is not "an extremely anti-Israel advocacy group with a legendary history of relying on inaccuracies and misinformation". Will be going through the report to see what can be added Nableezy (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic, but my opinion is supported by a wonderful wikipedia article: "opinion". I won't question why a user would be so enthusiastic to plug a flawed AI "report" in an Israel-war related article. Make sure you post whatever you want to "add" in the article here first. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

no Nableezy (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention, friends, that Amnesty in 2008: Anti-Israel Obsession Continues to Undermine Moral Principles. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NGO monitor doesnt carry a whole lot of weight, while AI does Nableezy (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but it leaves me at least some possibility of direct response. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AI does not carry a whole lot of weight simply because it is AI. At this point the reaction/law/war criminal crap is already overloaded as it is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that (circular) argument. Dynablaster (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

Cpt, I reverted your edit. I think this is basic background that colors much of what is in the intl law section. Think it should be separate from either Israel/Hamas subsections and should include the position of Israel that it is not occupied because of whatever they say. Will propose a complete outline of intl law section later on tonight. Nableezy (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see what others think. The basis for the Israeli international section is allegations regarding undue force, not that the land is/is not occupied. It doesn't look like a good fit in the Palestinian section either. The only source I have seen relating it directly to the conflict was the one used in my edit (you provided above). That one even was primarily a discussion on the debate and not this particular offensive. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the occupation in both secitons if related to the conflict but on its own it is poorly laid out, not shown to be relevent to international law allegations, and given undue weight. This informaiton could be in an above section discussing the history of the conflict with a few extra lines or a wikilink to an appropriate article potentially as well. Attempted edit reverted: Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said that Israel has "all the powers and none of the responsibilities of the occupying force.". Under international law, occupying powers have certain responsibilities to those under occupation. The status of the Gaza Strip being occupied is currently disputed. (added subsection for this part of the discussion).Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I think Hanan Ashrawi words bear no encyclopedic value and useless.

Second, the current sentence of the article 'Israel asserts that it ended its occupation ...' should be rephrased to 'Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied in accordance with Art. 42 of 1907 Hague Conventions, inasmuch as no Israeli military government is exercising its authority or any of "the functions of government" in the Gaza Strip.

In this aspect, it is interesting to note that '... back in 1994, the legal advisor to the International Red Cross, Dr. Hans-Peter Gasser, proposed that his organization had no reason to monitor Israeli compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Gaza Strip and Jericho area, since the convention no longer applied with the advent of Palestinian administration in those areas. At best, the Palestinians could argue that Oslo placed them in an ambiguous legal position, since they themselves exercised most of the functions of government, while Israel only maintained a few residual powers.'

The sentence 'Under international law...' is fine.

The sentence 'The status of the Gaza Strip...' is fine.

I agree that the legislator's comment isn't that important but it was the only comment directly related to this conflict in the source Nableezy provided earlier. I give a shit what the legalities of the occupation (or not) are unless they can be specifically tied to allegations of breaking international law in Israel's attack or the Hamas defense during this conflict. Information sourced in '04 and '05 belong in a different article unless there is a sentence connecting it here. Originally CptNoNo (thanks for fixing it Sean)

signing messed up Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

→

1. Didn't understand your last sentence, Cptnono. Can you say it again?
2. I've reread thoroughly the AI report. You know what, Nableezy, I think Cptnono is right. What particularly draws the attention is the following: 'Under normal circumstances, the occupying power is bound by law enforcement standards derived from human rights law when maintaining order in occupied territory. For example, these would require the occupying power to seek to arrest, rather than kill, members of armed groups suspected of carrying out attacks, and to use the minimum amount of force necessary in countering any security threat. However, if a situation arises in which fighting inside the occupied territory reaches the requisite scale and intensity, then international humanitarian law rules governing humane conduct in warfare apply alongside relevant human rights law. When fighting breaks out during a long-term occupation between the occupying power (a state) and non-state armed groups, it is generally qualified as a non-international armed conflict and such fighting is governed by the rules governing conduct of hostilities (see below section 1.3). So, for the scope of this particular article of active warfare, all the issues that arrive from occupation dispute are somewhat irrelevant - they belong to general articles about Gaza Strip.
3. I'll try to explain it once more. You say, Nableezy, that '... this is basic background that colors much of what is in the intl law section' - I think that you are wrong here. What actually is in the intlaw section are deliberations regarding conduct of hostilities and their breaches. Maybe I'm still not crystal clear here, I'll take a break and try once more. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I think I got it. 'As affirmed by the International Court of Justice and the UN Human Rights Committee, human rights law remains applicable during times of armed conflict, in a position complementary to international humanitarian law' - meaning that both IHL and rules governing conduct of hostilities are valid in the course of the fighting, regardless of the dispute whether the territory is under belligerent's occupation or not. The fact that AI and other bodies consider Gaza strip as occupied by Israel, does not mean that Israel had even more obligations apart from the laws stated above. The same laws are applicable. Vice versa, during non-fighting periods, Israel supposedly has obligations as an occupier, provided Israel is indeed occupier - but this article does not deal with calm times (not to mention the background). It is true that some effects of the dispute can be relevant - for example, if Israel had not exercised control over Gaza borders, Hamas could have got better weapons supply for the fighting. However, I don't think it is so significant to say that it provides useful background to intlaw section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. As a conclusion of my lengthy post, the dispute of Gaza being occupied or not, can be referred in 'background' section. However, if my line of thought is still unclear and you disagree - give a concrete example why and how do you think the supposed occupation provides important background to intlaw section. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats a lot to read. Havent read it all, but I am fine with the conclusion, putting it in the background section is fine by me. Nableezy (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How about inserting the following somewhere before 'Hamas assumed administrative control ...':

The present status of the Gaza Strip being occupied is currently disputed. Israel states that Gaza is no longer occupied in accordance with Art. 42 of 1907 Hague Conventions, inasmuch as no Israeli military government is exercising its authority or any of "the functions of government" in the Gaza Strip. However, several international bodies and NGOs, including the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch, disagree and consider Israel an occupying power.[286] Israel maintains control of the Gaza strip's airspace, land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route) as well as Gaza's territorial waters. (B'Tselem page could be used as a source.) --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have some problems with that. Yes it is disputed, but only by Israel. I think the paragraph has to start with the UN, HRW and others consider Gaza to be occupied as they control airspace, borders, waters. Then the Israel disputes this asserting that after the unilateral disengagement they no longer maintain effective authority or whatever the quote says. Nableezy (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. Let's not be silly. 'Disputed' without adding 'by Israel' is the language of CAMERA and partisan pro-Israeli sources. It doesn't belong here. Whatever you want to add, the balance should be that the international community regards it as being occupied, part of the Israeli occupied territories and Israel doesn't (or at least part of the legal establishment in Israel doesn't). If you insist on including any legal details about conventions etc (which I still strongly oppose as irrelevant) then you probably need to balance it with the views of radical Jihadist organisations that regard Gaza as occupied such as the CIA, the EU, the World Health Organization, Save the Children etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's pretend I didn't notice sarcasm in Sean's latest post. Switching sentences order: 'Several international bodies and NGOs, including the UNRWA and Human Rights Watch, consider Israel an occupying power in Gaza Strip [286], due to Israel's continuous control of the Gaza Strip's airspace, territorial waters and land borders (with the exception of the Philadelphi Route).[source] Israel asserts that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Art. 42 of 1907 Hague Conventions, finally ended with the implementation of the disengagement plan in 2005, inasmuch as no Israeli military government is exercising its authority or any aspects of the effective control in the Gaza Strip. + this piece. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA is a body that is concerned with taking care of refugees. I don't see why their opinion on what is or isn't occupied should carry any weight. Also, saying that Israel controls all of Gaza's land borders except the "Philadelphi Route" is misleading and thus POV. Israel controls Gaza's land border with Israel but does not control Gaza's land border with Egypt. It should be emphasized that so and so consider the territory occupied despite Israel not controlling all of its land borders.
I'd also drop the "inasmuch as no Israeli military government..." stuff, and just leave something along the lines of "Israel does not excercise its authority or effective control in the Gaza Strip" which is more in line with that the HC says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It not just the UNRWA, the UN secretary-general, OCHA (another UN body), say that it is occupied. I think it should say the UN, not the UNRWA. Nableezy (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure OCHA is much better qualified than UNRWA. These are organizations that deal in giving aid, not legal issues as far as I can tell. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The position of the UN, as quoted by a spokesman for the Secretary General: "Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," here Nableezy (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's much better than UNRWA or OCHA. I'd add the bit after what you quoted about only the SC being able to change the status the UN assigns. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"According to some international bodies and human rights observers..." or something along those lines will negate the need to list every organization. Again, the reader can always go to an article discussing the question if they want detailed informaiton so we do not need to worry too much.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats weasely worded, we need to say who. I think we can just take the big ones, the UN, AI, HRW (and it isnt 'some', it is nearly everybody with the exception of Israel. Even the US says that Gaza is Israeli occupied) Nableezy (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version that mentions just the HRW and UNRWA is not very good. This is probably one of those issues were weighting policy actually matters. Israel's position is obviously relevant as well so we can keep it included. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From the source we discussed earlier, it doesn't look like the US government has made up its mind (or at least departments differ in their designation). I do not want it to come across weaselly but I do want it concise. If we list the big ones, "and others" might need to be added. It could turn into a loooooong sentence otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

→Another try: 'Most international bodies and NGOs, including the UN and Human Rights Watch, consider Israel an occupying power in Gaza Strip. Israel controls the Gaza Strip's airspace and territorial waters, oversees the entry and exit from Gaza and invades the Strip for what is called anti-terrorist operations. Israel asserts that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Art. 42 of 1907 Hague Conventions, finally ended with the implementation of the disengagement plan in 2005, inasmuch as Israel has no authority or any aspect of the effective control in the Gaza Strip.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel does not "oversee[s] the entry and exit from Gaza". Israel controls its own border with Gaza. It has no control over what happens at the Egypt-Gaza border. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Here: The UN, HRW and most other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and non-Egyptian land borders. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza ended following its unilateral disengagement plan in 2005, asserting that Israel has no authority or effective control in the Gaza Strip.
Nableezy (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Make that "many" instead of "most" (I mean, do we know what the WWF thinks? They're an international NGO after all) and maybe mention that there are no soldiers or settlers in the strip? Otherwise looks good to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Change most to many and it is great. Unfortunately, it still does not tie it to this conflict so that informaiton is still needed.Cptnono (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I'd just say that "non-Egyptian land borders" sounds awkward and control of their own border isn't really an aspect of the occupation per se. So I'd drop that and you could probably drop the word "plan" from the unilateral disngagement since they went through with it. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but it still controls Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, and land borders – with the exception this week of the Rafah border area with Egypt HRW while the Rafah crossing was breached last year. And the Egyptian border is governed by an agreement between Egypt and Israel that stipulated an EU monitoring station be in place for it to remain open, when the EU left it was closed under that agreement. So while Israel does not have military control over the Rafah crossing, they do have a say in whether or not it is open. Nableezy (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You get it wrong here, Nableezy. The Egyptians told the Hamas representatives that they would never reopen the Rafah terminal unless it was handed over to Abbas loyalists, the sources said. 'The Egyptians were also trying to convince Hamas to allow Abbas's security forces to return to the Rafah terminal in line with the 2005 US-brokered agreement that placed all the border crossings in the Gaza Strip under his control.' The fact that there was a 3-sided AMA agreement doesn't mean its under Israeli control - the crossing was held to Egyptians that agreed to coordinate its activities with Israel. The moment Hamas expelled Fatah forces from Gaza, one side of the agreement, Egyptians closed it completely. So please don't mix some degree of control that stemmed from mutual agreement with a responsibility that is solely in the Egyptians hands now. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) here is an example: Excepting humanitarian cases, Egypt has kept the Rafah crossing closed since the Islamist movement Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Who keeps it closed? Israel? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC) This one is even better, cause it comes from Haaretz: ...The speech Tuesday from Mubarak came despite criticism of Egypt in the Arab world over its refusal over the past year to open the Rafah crossing, which has helped complete an Israeli blockade of the territory. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, didn't we already determine that I am never wrong? But we are both right, Egypt has the final say, but the crossing is governed by an agreement between Egypt and Israel. Egypt could choose to disregard that and open the crossing as you are right that there is no military presence from Israel on the ground there to enforce the closure. But there is an agreement between Israel and Egypt. That said, I did put 'non-Egyptian' borders in my proposed sentence. Nableezy (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One more time: The UN, HRW and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and non-Egyptian land borders. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza ended following the completion of its unilateral disengagement plan in 2005, asserting that Israel has no authority or effective control in the Gaza Strip.
Nableezy (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, 'didn't we already determine that I am never wrong' - that was apparently before I joined the forum, but I'll keep that in mind. Now regarding 'non-Egyptian land borders' - after giving it another thought I think it is misleading and trivial. Every country controls its land borders. Will it be useful to note for example that the US controls northern land borders of Mexico (and even has a fence there)? Hardly. So I suggest to limit it to airspace and waters only. Next, as noted above, the word 'plan' in the second sentence must be omitted. Finally, I am not happy with the word 'asserting' - we can discuss to what extent Israel occupies Gaza, but I don't think any debate is relevant to realise that in fact Israel has no authority of its army in Gaza - the government functions are exercised by the Palestinians. What I'd like to see is the following:

The UN, HRW and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters of the Strip. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Art.6 of IVth Geneva Convention, ended following the completion of its unilateral disengagement in 2005, inasmuch as Israel has no functions of government in the Gaza Strip. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between a blockade and occupation which human rights organizations tend to blur. It is my opinion that it is hard to argue with: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel%E2%80%99s_Right_to_Self-Defense (scroll down 4/5ths of the page). However, RS still makes the allegation so we can't disregard it. "...because of its almost complete control over Gaza’s borders, sea and air space..." is just one quote from HRW. Israel is simply strictly monitoring and limiting traffic on its border but the allegation of this being equal to occupation has been made. Striking "plan" should be fine. Can we wikilink to another article's subsection there? I think we should cut the 4th Geneva Convention unless we mention that both sides of the argument cite it (I think that is very funny, by the way).Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, on a personal level I'm glad that at least you realized the acrobatics being made with the 'occupation' word (and I truly hope that maybe Nableezy will realize it too). I don't disregard the alegations, that's why the first sentence 'The UN, HRW and many other ...' is fine with me. I don't want to cut 4th Geneva Convention, unless every other participant will insist, for the following reason: the main argument of the 'occupation' allegation is that Israel blockades Gaza. So, if we produce the main argument, I want to include the main counterargument. All this acrobatics is even more funny, since that Amnesty report provides the definition of the occupation, but nevertheless makes a 180⁰ culbit turn and declares the opposite. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The borders part, the sources use that. Also, I recall reading a story on Israel controlling both sides of the border, anybody who comes within a certain distance of it is subject to attack. Will have to find that source, but that isnt really relevant for the article. What is relevant is how the sources use the term (my opinions are just my opinions, and if you really want to know what I think feel free to drop me a line on my talk page). But, what is needed here is not phrases like "inasmuch as Israel has no functions of government in the Gaza Strip" but rather explicit attributions to the claims and responses. We really should not be treating the response as absolute truth, we say x says they are not occupied because, not just they are not occupied because. Nableezy (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Daddy, OK. Can I at least have my Art.6? Please?

The UN, HRW and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and non-Egyptian land borders of the Strip. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Art.6 of IVth Geneva Convention, ended following the completion of its unilateral disengagement in 2005, asserting that Israel has no functions of government in the Gaza Strip. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, but the article 6 part should be formatted as: Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. So finally, something like this:
The UN, HRW and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and non-Egyptian land borders. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ended following the completion of its unilateral disengagement plan in 2005, asserting that Israel has no functions of government in the Gaza Strip.
sound good? Nableezy (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. Just a general question - is there a way to wikilink to the wikisource, like this one? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can; Article 6 of the fourth Geneva Convention Nableezy (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting this in as it seems to have consensus in the background, removing from intl law:
The UN, HRW and many other international bodies and NGOs consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and non-Egyptian land borders. Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza, as defined by Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ended following the completion of its unilateral disengagement plan in 2005, asserting that Israel has no functions of government in the Gaza Strip.
Nableezy (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good. The corrections made and removing this from preamble of IntLaw section definitely satisfies me. I hope everyone - Cptnono, Nableezy and others - are fine with the change too. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)