Talk:2006 Israel-Gaza conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 Israel-Gaza conflict is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Casus Belli Again

The cause of THIS conflict is a Palestinian raid into Israel. Yes, Israel has launched several strikes prior to this conflict. But those strikes were aimed towards terror groups that have been plotting against Israel or firing missiles into nearby Israeli cities and towns. When some of these terrorists launched a raid inside Israel and killed several soldiers and captured Gilad Shalit, Israel responded with an operation. As you may have noticed, the fatalities on this page are overwhelmingly "militants." It is unfortunate that many innocent civilian lives have been lost. Part of the problem is that these terrorists use people's homes and use human shields (which are forbidden under Human Rights Laws). But, once the terrorists have been eliminated, then there can be hope for peace. After all, how can you have peace if Hamas states very clearly in its charter that it seeks the destruction of Israel? --68.1.182.215 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You have summarized the Israeli point of view very nicely and I congratulate you for it. However, as you are aware there is an alternative point of view that is very much the opposite of the Israeli one, and just because the alternative point of view happens NOT to be the Israeli one doesn't automatically mean it is false. Since this is Wikipedia, we must at least try to achieve WP:NPOV. Ramallite (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Casus beli is the reason the side that opned the war gives to justify his actions. By definition it is one sided view. Zeq 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"As you may have noticed, the fatalities on this page are overwhelmingly "militants."

Actually, I just forgot to update it. There are the casualties as of August 8th, 2006 (Afgan42 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

Ramallite, it may come as a surprise to you, but I am not Jewish and I am not Israeli. I am a believer in the truth. And having read your background, I am sure that you are well aware that the PA Media as well as several terrorist leaders have preached death to the Jews and death to Israel. How can there really be peace if such people advocate for such hatred? I believe you will then tell me that it was either Zionism or the existence of Israel that led to it. But let's be realistic, Israel is nothing compared to the size of its Arab neighbors. These countries are huge and when Israel declared its independence in 1948, Israel got viciously attacked. Had these Arab countries NOT attacked Israel, there would be NO Palestinian refugees. There would be NO Arab-Israeli conflict. Furthermore, in 1948 Israel consisted of areas that were mostly Jewish populations. Therefore, I find myself more understanding of Israel and how it is fighting for its survival. And therefore, I believe the casus belli is quite accurate and truly reflective of the situation.

Here we go again with the same arguments:
  • Your personal background and beliefs are no consequence and no, it is no surprise to me what your religion or nationality are because I made no assumptions.
  • The "PA media" as you call it, is currently confined to one newspaper and one ridiculous TV station that nobody watches except the people who are paid to do so in order to extract, twist, and release anti-Palestinian propaganda. Neither myself nor anybody I've ever met watch it, because there are much better alternatives including CNN International, BBC World, al Jazeera, and Israel Arabic service. Moreover, I would like you to bring me proof, in Arabic (hint: and I don't mean from 'Palestinian Media Watch'), of what you say (and on my talk page please and not here), because all those propaganda organizations that continuously scream about "PA media" have not produced any credible evidence. I assume you speak Arabic because you seem to be familiar with the preaching of "death to the Jews" and know where it comes from.
  • While you may complain about some people preaching death and destruction (and assume that the Palestinian people are some sort of regimented robots that follow orders from imaginary bearded zealots on TV), please keep in mind that it is Palestine that is actually being destroyed right now. Just look at Gaza. Unless you believe that Palestinian blood and infrastructure are not of any importance (which in most of the world seems to be the case), I think you should not forget this little inconvenient fact.
  • The sizes of Israel and the "Arab neighbours" are irrelevant. I am Palestinian and care only about my own country and my own freedom in Palestine. What other "Arab states", with US-supported dictatorships have done or not done in the past is something I care about as much as I would care about a blister on Tony Blair's big toe. Besides, if you really believe that those "Arab neighbours" who invaded Palestine in 1948 did so to benefit us Palestinians or in the name of our freedom, you have some serious misconceptions about the conflict.
  • Palestinians had started becoming refugees long before the "Arab neighbours" attacked Israel, because there were local skirmishes involving militia groups in the two years preceding the war. Again, you are unfamiliar with the history. Furthermore, what exactly do you you mean by "in 1948 Israel consisted of areas that were mostly Jewish populations" ? Do you mean before or after the Palestinians were not allowed to return to their former homes?
In any case, since you have seemingly admitted that the casus belli is your own 'belief', and as you still have much to learn about the conflict, I suggest you review WP's NPOV policy, and NOR as well. Ramallite (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to your respective talk pages, everything after Zeq's comments are not related directly to the article, please remember this page is to discuss the article, its not a general discussion page on Israel and the PA. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

DANGIT STOP CHANGING THE CASUS BELLI!!! It will remain blank until we finish debating and settle this issue!!!! (Afgan42 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

If you're expiriencing any kind of problem try to abstain from edit articles or discussions. -- tasc wordsdeeds 14:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Tasc, stop changing the Casus Belli until we settle on what it is. What right do you have to say it was the Palestinian raid? What right do I have to say it was the Gaza Beach Blast? None, so until we all debate this and settle it, leave it blank.(Afgan42 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC))
Also Tasc, STOP CHANGING THE CASUALTIES! If you don't believe me, go to the source I have posted and do the math yourself. You'll see that there have been over 243 civilians killed in Palestine since June 2006. (Afgan42 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Status of conflict as "ongoing"

Casualty numbers havn't changed, and this conflict hasn't gotten a headline essentially since the conflict with Hezbullah has started, and it seems that the Givati brigade has even been transferred out of Gaza. Given all that, I was wondering whether the status of the outcome of this conflict should be changed to "someones victory," or "indecicive," or something of that nature. 69.118.222.77 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what is frustrating me. The media is hardly reporting on this conflict, with the result that many of us can't tell if the operation is really ongoing, or stalemated, or what. Surely Israel is doing something to get their man back, but what? I believe I read in a recent rews report ("recent" at the time of this posting) that Israel was considering another push on the ground. I don't have a citation, though. the_paccagnellan 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you need to watch more than Fox Tv or CNN. Try BBC News for a start. You can also try Israelian Haaretz, Jerusalem Post or the English newspaer The Guardian --213.155.224.232 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Casualties

You need to correct, there are at least 5 soldiers dead, 3 during kidnapping, two during fights

[edit] Dead Palestinians

Ok, we have dead israelis, names and all, there are approx 5 times more dead palestinians, let's start collecting all their names and create separate page, note.. be careful when naming certain people militants, many of the people killed by the israeli attacks were just standing there or living close to militants, in Gaza it's really hard to distinguish who is militant who is not, for israel all of them or 99% of them are... especially when somobody gets killed, it's easy to pin point. In Iraq, many who were killed, were simply given guns and photographed with them (by u.s. soldiers and "coalition"_), even though they never had any weapons on themselves or even in the area. Something to ponder about...

Who is zeq, why is that post on top instead of below? Who cares about him... Part of the problem is, many of the Palestinians who are not carrying weapons are still guilty of "aiding and abetting" the militants. I had little sympathy for the family who was killed when their house was destroyed because Hamas officials were having a meeting there. Obviously, their domicile was being used as a meeting place and it is highly unlikely that would have been done if the family was not friendly to the idea. I regret the deaths of the children, but even children in Gaza can be seen throwing rocks and participating in demonstrations alongside militants. The flipside is, militants themselves often may look like civilians, depending on when they were killed and whether they were carrying a weapon at the time. The Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, now that the battle is over, simply plan to blend back into the civilian population. It's not like they are regular troops. However, I agree that a casualty page for palestinians would be appropriate...I just wonder if it can be done with accuracy, and from which sources? the_paccagnellan 12:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Somebody had a question on Palestinian conflict, two sides to something?

[edit] I think the article name is wrong!

People, i think Israel-Gaza conflict is not correct. It's as if Israel and Gaza are in battle and attacking each other, like what happened in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. But the fact is Israeli attacks Gaza indiscriminately, and Gazans do almost nothing to fight this invasion. In Lebanon, Lebanese resistance forces were fighting israel and then it is called Israel-Lebanon conflict. but its not happened hereNielswik 14:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing or not

Still there are clashes in Gaza between the IDF, still IDF claims it will continue until Shalit isn't freed. Why the infobox now says the conflict ended in July? Remember, this isn't an article about the Operation Summer Rains, with which it was merged. There is no such statement, that the conflict is over. Pls correction. --213.155.224.232 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is something wrong with this article

I am only an IP here in the EN:WP, but in the German version I am de:Benutzer:Matthiasb with 300+ edits within the article Lebanon war one of the main authors of that article and also a lot in de:Operation Summer Rains -- therefore I know what I am talking about. ;-)

1st) A couple of days ago somebody changed the status of the conflict from ongoing to finished, with a date July 2006 stated. I had reverted that but now the July date is there back again, though marked citation needed. Please see the Reuters news from yesterday, via Yahoo News Israeli troops push into Gaza. Note especially the following statements in the Reuters article: Israeli troops killed four Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and widened a four-month-old offensive on Wednesday by sending tanks to take up positions around the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, residents said. (...) Over the past week, Israel has ramped up its offensive, which it says is aimed at keeping pressure on militant groups, curtailing rocket attacks and finding cross-border tunnels. (...) Around 250 Palestinians, about half of them civilians, have been killed in Israel's operations in Gaza since June. -> The status of the conflict is ongoing. The user who made the changes certainly messed up what the EN:WP now calls 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and the former article Operation Summer Rains which was merged into this. (see also 2nd)

2nd) About a month ago two articles, 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and Operation Summer Rains were merged. The latter was named after the code name the IDF had given the event. Nevertheless, that Operation faded away shortly after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict began. The IDF pulled out and came back into Gaza in early July and this procedure was repeated several times. The main question here isn't to divide the article or not but to determine if the latest operations by the IDF are still part of Summer Rains (the 72-hours-offensive in the last week was code-named Rain Man) or not. I havent found a source claiming or denying that so far, nor I saw any report that Operation Summer Rains was finished.

3rd) The article does not reflect or does not reflect enough the prequels to the capture of the both soldiers, i.e. the contents of Timeline up to 2006 Gaza crisis, Muamar family detention incident and Gaza beach blast. Any of these three isn't worth an own article but are necessary to explain the steps of escalation. In the contrary the part of the Operation Summer Rains should be diverted from 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and should be put back into the former article. Here only keep the major developments.

4th) The actual clashes between Hamas and Fatah, which began about three weeks ago should be included into this article, since they're partly a result of the ongoing Israeli military operation and economical boycott against the PNA.

5th) The linkbox Template:Campaignbox Al aqsa contains Operation Summer Rains which redirects in this moment to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict (that's full circle here). Please link that directly, since the former is actually only a part of the conflict and is only the IDF code-name for its offensive.

And sorry for not being brief. --213.155.224.232 12:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name issues

The current name of this article inherently misrepresents what the event actually was. Unlike in Lebanon, where the (open) conflict actually began with Hezbollah's actions, there has been a conflict in Gaza, and the West Bank for that matter, since the Al-Aqsa Intifada began. The "2006 Israel-Gaza conflict" portrays it in a way similar to the Lebanon conflict, when in reality the conflict itself did not begin in 2006. I can understand why it was chosen to rename to the current name, but in seeking a "neutral" name, accuracy was abandoned. When I made this article, it was called "Operation Summer Rains," and detailed a specific Israel operation in the Al Aqsa Intifada that occured in Gaza. Much like other operations in the Al Aqsa Intifada carried out by Israel, such as Operation Days of Penitence, the article wasnt billed as a brand new conflict, but instead as a part of the already ongoing conflict. I therefore strongly suggest that this article be renamed to Operation Summer Rains, and therefore it can be covered in a far more accurate manner as merely an operation in the Al Aqsa Intifada rather than a stand-alone conflict such as that in Lebanon. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? ~Rangeley (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I included it in the Al-aqsa operations campaignbox--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(or make new names for the operations articles, Israeli-given names for the operations can be POV as article names)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Operation names generally are not preferable when they are in and of themselves a war, but when they are merely an operation in a pre-existing conflict, such as Operation Medusa, you cant really rename them and represent them accurately (calling it Afghanistan Conflict 2006 doesnt work.) ~Rangeley (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The suboperations can be included in an Operation Summer Rains entry which would largely serve as an overview of this entry, with a focus on the operative level. Only one of eleven suboperations (that I see) has an entry, however. El_C 22:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not a suboperation of this, as noted on both your talk page and its talk page. This is not a stand alone conflict, it is a part of a pre-existing armed conflict. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Operation Samson Pillars Operation Autumn Clouds, etc. are subops of Summer Rains (see IDF website or the Hebrew Wiki). El_C 23:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia cant be used as a source... you know this. This news article [1] states that Operation Summer Rains had ended. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Unblock the page and move it back, please. I have never, in any news source heard for the term Israel-Gaza conflict --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End Date

Does anyone have any information on when and if the Operation has ended? I know that Israel has begun several more since this began, but I do not know if this means Summer Rains has concluded. ~Rangeley (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank

Does conflict in West bank belong here?If not, where does it belong?--Nielswik(talk) 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wounding of Amir Peretz's bodyguard

I see that there is a disagreement as to how to classify this gentleman, as a civilian or as a soldier. The problem is that he is neither, nor is he a policeman. However, he is also not a civilian, as he is employed by one of the Israeli security branches. Maybe a new category should be opened - security personnel? Cymruisrael 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move or not to move

The name of this article implies that the reader can read about the Israel-Gaza conflict during the year 2006. As an article on Summer Rains it would deserve a low A grade or a better B but as an article about the Israel-Gaza conflict 2006 it's near to E. It explains only the events during the intial Operation Summer Rains which IDF conducted in late June and July. The timeline of the events described herein ends about tenth of July, with some updates about captured ministers and the humanitary situation from August. Still, it doesn't include any of the events which lead to the IDF-incursion into Gaza nor does it reflect the military actions from mid-July onwards nor does it tell about the political crisis in the PA and the clashes between Hamas and Fatah.

The problem is, that those who moved Operation Summer Rains on 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict considered the initial operation as not concluded (but according to some media outlets IDF ended it [ "during the war in the North"], however I wasn't able to determine a concrete date) whereas press agencies, such as AP or Reuters count casualities from the beginning of the crisis in June (though AFAIR they now say since the beginning of Summer Rain not during Summer Rain, a significant difference!), compare with 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties timeline. The argument which of the two article names is the correct might last for yet a while.

The article Operation Autumn Clouds was created and some ask if doing so was right. I explained it here why I think it is and that's also the reason why I created this article in the German wikipedia.

Recently the article Operation Summer Rains suboperations was created. I consider that title as wrong and I discussed it on the appropriate talk page. Nevertheless, this article could break the stalemate by doing the following steps in order:

  1. Move 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict back to Operation Summer Rains.
  2. Move Operation Summer Rains suboperations to 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict.
  3. Merge Timeline up to 2006 Gaza crisis into the new 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
  4. Merge Gaza beach blast into the new 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
  5. Merge Muamar family detention incident into the new 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
  6. Expand the timeline of "suboperations" and explain what each of these was focused on.
  7. Include the political crisis within the PA government and the Fatah-Hamas clashes
  8. Expand Operation Autumn Clouds as a stand-alone article (since it was leading to an UNGA-Resolution)

However, 2006 Gaza crisis might be the better title, as per BBC quoting UN. --213.155.224.232 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm, that's OK but I propose an article Gaza Front (al-Aqsa Intifada), that would include all the previous operations (Rainbow...) because the warfare there differs from the intifada-stone revolution of the West Bank. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So, here's my proposal:
  • Al-Aqsa Intifada being split into:
    • Gaza Front (al-Aqsa Intifada): Israel-Hamas conventional conflict with IDF strikes and Qassam attacks.
    • West Bank Front (al-Aqsa Intifada): Intifada. Popular uprisings and stone throwing warfare.
    • Terrorism in Israel during the al-Aqsa Intifada

--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have one contra: where is the source that the actual conflict at Gaza is really part of the al-Aqsa Intifada? (U know, I lead this discussion in the German WP which denotes the Intifada as finished per 2005). However, the titles you proposed I haven't seen anywhere, whereup Gaza crisis was already used, see f. ex. this Norwegian article: Keisersnitt uten strøm i Gaza-krise (21.07.06) (though I don't understand that language, but "krise" is identical to the German word) or articles at USA Today Gaza crisis clouds West Bank plan (July 4th). It's also used by Israel-critical sites like counterpunch.org or electronicintifada.net as well as by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy or NPR.

At this moment: rather do not split the Infifada article, since it's too early to determine where the journey goes. Definitely Israel-Gaza conflict is a wrong as was once Israel-Hamas conflict. It's a crisis in Gaza as was the Suez crisis about Suez. And when 2006 is over in a few weeks, soon 2006 Gaza crisis would be inaccurate also. --213.155.224.232 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

we must first see if the Intifada is over--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] totally disputed: conflict is over

The conflict is over and should be described as such by wp. The whole article is not updated in months, only 'casualty counter' is working. Article originally was created as a substitute for Operation Summer Rains, it should either be renamed back and 'finished' or should be merged with violence in Palestine-Israeli conflict, and all sub pages updated accordingly. -- tasc wordsdeeds 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

so, with many support, can we turn it back now? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, like I said, the conflict (but is this a cease fire?) ended in the morning of 26th of november and total of 3 civilians dead, so far, so good. As far as intifida goes, that's a totally different subject, it's more of a mentality. Intifida may go on for many years to come... we know the reasons.

[edit] Move and major changes

As my discussion remained essentially unaddressed. I propose following major changes:

  1. Move article to the Operation Summer Rains
  2. 'finish' conflict in August
  3. made changes to all sub-articles accordingly.

Please, provide your coherent opinion on these issues. If not I'll consider that proposed changes are supported. Thanks, -- tasc wordsdeeds 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some response. If there will be no disagreement I will move the article and include above mentioned changes. I assume that 48 hours from my original posting is sufficiently for anyone. Thanks, -- tasc wordsdeeds 09:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no one has responded, but now I'm going to implement proposed changes. -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request unprotection

Well, it seems like I didn't check first. Since 12 November page was protected by admin El_C with such comment: protecting from moves, for now. It rather surprising that now can last for 3 weeks. I'm requesting unprotection to move page to the Operation Summer Rains title. I'd also appreciate if protectors make announcement about their activity. -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your surprise notwithstdanding, the move protection was placed to alert random admins to fix the damage done by various cut and paste moves. You'll need an admin to move it whether it is protected from moves or not. Use WP:RM. El_C 16:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian militants=Palestinian terrorists

For the last time, say Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinian militants intend to kill as much Israeli civilians with the goal of destroying Israel. Calling them Palestinian terrorists is a the right thing to call them. How are they not terrorists? Calling the IRA militants is more understandable but calling the Palestinian terrorists militants is just so wrong.-Dendoi 11:17 PM Teusday December 12, 2006,

[edit] Possible NPOV problem with pictures

I've noticed that every picture in this article is of Israeli military vehicles or operations, save for one picture showing aid being delivered to Palestinians via Egypt. Regardless of your views on the conflict, it is quite evident that there is militant activity emanating from Gaza as well. Per WP:NPOV, there should be an equal balance of depiction of these forces. —Aiden 11:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The actual CAUSE of Israeli-Gaza Conflict

It is very well known that the Palestinians abducted a mlitary officer of the Israel thru the media outlets under gov't pressure (usually, like the 911 attack/controversy). Why did they do that? The reasons, told to us by the media outlets, are usually vague. For example, because they are Islam and terroristic (terroristic in media outlet definition). Lets have a lookat this vid: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182204992793198984&q=israel&hl=en and this site: http://www.representativepress.org/ | Not sure if this guy is telling the truth... but if this is true, Israel's wrongdoings will eventually found out and punished.

Kalnit 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are not reliable and incorrect resources that have long been dismissed by the entire scholarly community. --Shamir1 10:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we call them Palestinian Terrorists or Militants?

You live in Israel. Your house gets bombed, it gets reported, and the story goes out to the eyes of the world. They say things like... OMG TERRORISTS!!! and gets remembered longterm. You live in Palestine. Your house gets bombed, it gets reported, the story is stopped by world gov'ts. The small percentage of the population receives it through civilian video studios, and it gets ignored and eventually forgotten. The point: we should call them militants, because they are just like the Israel military. Just because they are weaker and only things Palestinians did gets out to the eyes of the world doesn't mean they should get called terrorists.

Kalnit 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to write unneeded comments make sure they are valid. It is NOT true that that is why we call them terrorists. We do not call them militants because they are just like the Israeli military or weaker. That is false. Their actions and murder of two people were entirely unprovoked. They are the ones not only holding a soldier hostage, but by that they are holding the Gaza Strip hostage. They attempt to blur themselves into the civilian atmosphere to 1) make themselves harder to detect, 2) make Israel hesitant to shoot, 3) If Israel shoots, they evoke sympathy and anti-Israel sentiment. All of the above mentioned are acts of terror. The war stops when the militants stop, not when Israel stops. It stops when they release the kidnapped and stop firing rockets. Israel cannot tolerate any rocket raining on its territory. They must do what is in their power to weaken the enemy. Israel never intentionally targets civilians. As you can see in the article and timeline, the vast majority of Palestinian civilians have been hit either doing mutual gunbattles (their side is firing as well), or were hit in the crossfire. Militants have been driving their rocket-filled cars through popular streets packed with people. Israel has phoned civilian occupants of homes prior to striking. Israel's actions actually mean something. Their actions weaken the enemy and protect their own citizens. Firing rockets in civilian territory does not help them out in any way, except for their main purpose: to kill Jews. They clearly have a greater agenda. Your statements certainly do NOT speak for Wikipedia. Militant, by the way, is just a more neutral-sounding word for terrorist. --Shamir1 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for the term "militant" in this context. There already exists satisfactory terminology for this sort of thing. Terrorists are civilians who attack civilians. Partisans are civilians who organize and fight soldiers. Soldiers are government employed fighters. 'Militant', honestly, could mean any of those things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.30.22.36 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] to the militant/terrorist name issue

the most accurate definition i have been able to find for terrorist is, "One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant". and that is a line from the official EU definition. I think it is important to remember a few things here in deciding on what to refer to combatants as: 1. terrorism is simply a tactic, and those that practice it are terrorists. to me this is important in this because though many prominant palestinian groups use terrorist tactics they do not use them exclusively. for instance, the guy with the ak-47 shooting people couldnt accurately be described as a terrorist because he is not discuised as a civilian-- at least not with an ak-47 in his hand, he is clearly a combatant/militant. my point is, that if you are going to refer to those groups that do use terrorist tactics, a more accurate description would be "militant palestinian groups, who often commit acts of terrorism"... or something to that effect. admitadly that phrasing may be a little clumsy, but you get my point.

at any rate, i dont think it would be accurate to describe them solely as terrorists. now if your talking about the guy who hid a bomb on his person, then yes that person would be accurately described as a terrorist.

there are other definitions for terrorist, but this is the only one i could really find that did not say something alng the lines of "some nongovernmet/military, civilian who...". and that is significant, because as i said before terrorism is a tactic used in war and just because you work for the government or military doesnt mean you cant commit a terrorist act. and that goes directly to the anon. person above who said terrorists are civilians who attack civilians.

bottom line-- they are militant groups who often employ terrorist attacks. Michael t gershon 23:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please explain to me why the guy in jeans and a coat with a bomb under his coat is a terrorist and the same guy shooting an AK47 is a militant. Cymruisrael 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did Operation Summer Rains end?

When did Operation Summer Rains end? The German article says August 28. Vints 06:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 May 16 Israeli air strike in Gaza

What about 2007 May 16 Israeli air strike in Gaza? ANd the current in-figthing?--Cerejota 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg

Image:Logoprc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction Conflict of Interest

At the end of the introduction/overview at the beginning of the article, it mentions how both sides have broken the ceasefire. Someone delete the parenthetical phrase "armed with guns and grenades" after the word militant that describes the killing of the Palestinian militant (after the ceasefire was declared) by Israelis. He's a militant, of course he has guns and grenades. He people who shot him also had guns and grenades. If it is really necessary to add the phrase "armed with guns and grenades" to him, then it should be added after any mention of any combatant involved in the fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.240.234 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)