Talk:Battle of Jenin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Jenin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
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.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7


Contents

[edit] Proposal on HRW and AI on war crimes

HG analysis and proposal. Having been asked to help find a solution to the AI/HRW "prima facie" disagreement, I've asked q's and read the thread above. Here's my analysis -- I'd apologize for the length, but it's also a credit to the depth of thinking you all have put into this question. I end with recommended wording for your consideration. (Please read the following in a calm mood, thanks!)

  1. The average reader needs slightly more context, at the outset, on HRO (human rights orgs) war crimes statements. Whatever wording we choose, editors should be realistic about our ability to strike the perfect degree of fairness. After all, Wikipedia articles shift over time and our resolution of this dispute won't be etched in stone. So, I think it's best to focus on the context and structure of the disputed sentence(s), and not exhaust ourselves over specific word choices.
  2. Implicitly or explicitly, both HROs recognize that they are not issuing conclusive findings of war crimes. (Hence the call for official inquiries.) So, the "war crimes" point needs to be somewhat qualified. Granted, the lead already implicitly qualifies the war crime finding by mentioning HROs as the source (rather than merely citing HROs as footnote). For the astute reader, this might be sufficient. For many readers, though, our wording should explicitly reflect the non-definitive aspect of the HRO findings on war crimes. How to do this with the perfect balance that everybody is happy with? (rofl...)
  3. For the purpose of informing the average reader, I think the "prima facie" wording has limited value and it seems odd to apply it to AI. (Logically, prima facie could serve to qualify both HROs, just like "claims" or "accusations" might.)
  4. Do we say "major human rights organizations" or name HRW and AI? I'd say name both, by which we can provide the most accurate qualification of the claims for astute readers (who will interpret the findings based on their view of the groups). Do we differentiate how we describe their findings? Ideally, no. Their results are quite similar, prima facie wording notwithstanding, and detailed differences can be found in the relevant sections of the article. Failing agreement on the recommended wording below, we could fall back on this wording from the article itself: ... HRW did say that Israel "committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes,"[55] while Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence that Israel had committed war crimes. This is still fairly concise.
  5. Contextualize by focusing on the evidence: The HROs are deemed reliable mainly for their ability to gather and report evidence (HG guess), they are not adjudicating crimes. So, by mentioning the evidence, we emphasize that role. Plus, such evidence comprises much of their sections.
  6. Contextualize the findings as charges/claims: I can think of 2 ways to do this. Use a term like "charge" or "claim." And/or, note that they call for official inquiries. //On this vein -- I assume no Israeli or Int'l war crimes inquiry or trial was conducted. Shouldn't we say that in the lead or in the article?
  7. Should the "war crimes" sentence be linked, either in the article or in our mediation, to the "massacre" issue? Current WP text combines the massacre and war crime issues. I'm wondering if that close link is a byproduct of our editors' own interests and preoccupations. The HRO reports themselves seem to keep the issues somewhat separate, at least textually? (esp AI, right?) More importantly, the "massacre" issue is more complicated, involves more sources, sparks more heated debate, etc.
  8. Presumably, you've already discussed this -- Why isn't the IDF response in the article? Am I going off topic, or is the IDF view part of the context? I've tentatively added in a bit, with a (?).

So, given the foregoing considerations, I would recommend:

Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. //add(?): Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.// OR:

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that Israel had committed war crimes and called for a formal legal investigation. //add(?): However, the IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held.//

Based on my exchanges with G-Dett and Tewfik, I expect they'll have a positive reaction overall to the above bullet points, though of course they are welcome to clarify disagreements or concerns. Hopefully, we can find common ground by wordsmithing one of the above recommended blockquotes. So, I'd like to offer the analysis and suggested wording for everyone's further comments here. Thanks very much, HG | Talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(PS G-Dett & Tewfik -- feel free to copy your comments here or write afresh. Thanks for your input!) HG | Talk
Why don't we write the article to policy and report what the secondary sources say about the event? And wouldn't it be a good idea if we treat the reports of observers as if they were much more credible than involved agencies that have behaved in threatening or secretive ways? See this. PRtalk 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me HG. How about giving us a proposed wording based on that? We might find a quick consensus. <<-armon->> 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you did -duh. OK, I think the first option is better mainly because "IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes" is more accurate than just saying "Israel" because the charges related to specific incidents during the battle rather that the operation itself. Presumably, the IDF could have entered Jenin without committing any war crimes. I have a slight niggle about the second sentence though -were war crimes trials not held simply because the IDF objected? <<-armon->> 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Armon. Yes, I noticed that some of the texts refer in various ways to IDF personnel, so I think that phrase is useful. Also, I realize that the two ending clauses (IDF disputed the charges and no war crimes trials were held) leave a somewhat misleading impression, so I welcome a copy edit. Take care, HG | Talk 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between X committed crime and there are N (credible) allegations that X commited crime: the difference separating these two assertions is having valid decision on conviction in a court of law. The same should apply to war crimes as well. Therefore in present context the correct wording should be that there are following allegations that IDF commited war crimes in Battle of Jenin: ..., after which there should be itemization of specific instances of allegations, preferrably along with analysis of their credibility.

Going back to HRW's documents there are clauses to effect of having serious evidence that IDF might have commited war crime in case of ... etc. and it is better to analyse those claims one by one. The ADL's critique of HRW's memos was partially based on perceived prejudice on part of HRW team and partially on great reliance of HRW's (and other) memos on interviews with Palestinians which is basically reliance on hearsay. It is Ok as a departure point for a criminal investigation, but the investigation ultimately was not conducted and findings were not legally submitted or contested. I've pointed out elsewhere that PA had means and (ostensibly) should had an impetus to conduct criminal investigations backing their claims with material evidence but has failed to deliver in more than 5 years what logically can be seen as absense of credible evidence. DBWikis 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're raising some valid points, but I though we were just talking about the lead at the moment. If so, we need to be concise. <<-armon->> 02:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like phrasing #1. It is inline with what the sources say. The reason I held off on voicing my approval is that it leaves a sour taste in my mouth to apply such a stringent standard to HRW and AI while the lede is currently so cavalier when it comes to "pro-Israel" points, like the "suicide bombers" issue. Don't take this as WP:POINT or WP:GAME, but I'd like to suggest that the next disputed phrasing we examine be something which is currently alleged to be biased towards IDF POV. Sharon is on record saying during the run-up to Defensive Shield that the Palestinians needed to be hit, and needed to be made to suffer, so that they would be forced to return to the bargaining table (and, presumably, accept a Bantustan-style solution in line with previous offers). <eleland/talkedits> 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably it is little bit too much of intepretive liberty to assume that remark to effect of Palestinians must be made to suffer can be presented as an expression of intention to allow small-scale perpetration of war crimes? If we are going into area of intepreting intentions of IDF in Battle of Jenin in operative-tactical sense then I can point out that Central Command explicitly decided not to use strikes by jets or howitzers out of clear recognition that it is civilian area; accordingly Palestinian fighters are on record expressing amazement at seeing infantry entering Jenin camp on foot. I suggest this fact is an indication of true intentions of IDF i.e. sparing civilian lives.
Regarding the choices of phrasing and your preference, I do not think that wording of contentious articles should be focus of tug of war or give-and-take bargaining. We should rather aspire to arrive to more defensible formulations and above I've tried to point out that "IDF commited war crime" is much less defensible than (based mostly on hearsay) "Palestinian advocacy groups alleged that IDF commited war crime". DBWikis 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi DBWikis. What's both notable and defensible is that HRW and AI levelled these charges (and IDF disputed etc). Allegations by Palestinian groups can be mentioned in the article body, but the Palestinian view is less important for the lead than HRW/AI. Editors from various viewpoints agree on the emphasis on HRW/AI (as you can read from the Talk page above), we were just trying to hammer out our best effort at neutral descriptive wording of their claims. Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey. We all recognize that Tzahal had the capacity to inflict any level of destruction on Jenin up to and including vapourizing the entire area. They chose to use infantry supported with tanks (main guns mostly silent) and helicopters. You may think this is a reflection of their humanitarian purity of arms; I'm much more inclined to think it's a reflection of their need for the US public to believe in their purity of arms to keep the aid and dipolmatic cover flowing. Neither of our personal views belong in the article. What we should do is report what reliable sources said, without reference to our personal interpretations of their validity. HRW and Amnesty are world-class organizations and not "Palestinian advocacy groups". Their reports are widely cited by the same governments who profess to despise them when reporting on "unworthy" victims. The problem with reporting only what Palestinians said is that Palestinian sources are generally less reliable, often much less reliable. Reliable sources like the BBC reported HRW and AI's criticisms prominently, gave some space to Israeli denials, and to Palestinian affirmations. As should we. <eleland/talkedits> 20:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Headcount of proponents of any idea does not make it any more valid. In lieu of AI/HRW/etc. consider, say, any religious denomination with global scope and wide base of believers or supporters - I really doubt arguments of this sort will succeed in converting you to their particular doctrine.
Regarding IDF troops entering Jenin camp on foot - I wouldn't enter polemics whether it was done due to the fact IDF being army of a democratic state or was rather a ploy to curry favor with US public opinion - because even if we are to entertain the latter hypothesis, still I think that PR in this style is preferrable to sending kids to throw boulders on tanks, waging guerilla from built-up area and then drumming up support by flooding news reels with graphic accounts of 500 martyrs etc. DBWikis 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}}

We've achieved high degree of support among editors, as shown above, about how to revise a disputed sentence in the lede. I'm proposing this revision based on the assumption that all of you who have expressed support, from both sides of the aisle, will "safeguard" the new text against unfriendly emendations -- even if the revision favors your own POV. In other words, don't accept a change from "charged" to "proved" or from "committed" war crimes to "maybe committed." Ok? Nobody gets exactly the wording they want, yet everybody has a responsibility to support the rough-consensus revision.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for putting substantive attention on this dispute and responding in flexible ways.

Please replace this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one, although major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes.

With this text: Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; however, the IDF disputed the charges. No war crimes trials were held.

Thanks very much. After we finish patting ourselves on the back, let's use this success to tackle some of the other disputed aspects of the article. HG | Talk 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks great, HG, thanks again. I would like to suggest two minor tweaks. Neither has anything to do with NPOV; they are purely for stylistic clarity. I won't put them in myself, even when the page opens. I'll leave it you; if you agree they're an improvement and others don't object then you can put them in. Subsequent investigations found no evidence of one. Based on testimony and documentation, however, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes, and both called for official investigations. The IDF disputed the charges, and no war crimes trials were held.--G-Dett 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, I appreciate your editing suggestions. In terms of the last few clauses, I'd like to keep it as is because, as noted above, combining the last 2 ("IDF disputed... no trials") might leave the reader assuming a causal implicature we don't intend. In terms of adding a contrastive connector ("however") up front, it's fine the way the paragraph is set up. Of course, we might end up revising the order or content of the preceding text, and so need to change it again. HG | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any attempt to deal with the question presented here: Why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.?
For the latter formulation, we've had detailed citations from both major human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) making the claim explicitly and categorically. We have an independent statement from the British military expert, David Holley, making the claim explicitly and categorically. (We're elsewhere quoting Holley directly as if his words were definitive corroborated that there was no massacre).
For the former formulation, we have one citation from Human Rights Watch. And nothing else. Why would we present multiple organizations as having said something they didn't say? And why would we not present multiple organizations as having said something they did in fact say? PRtalk 07:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Per my comment below, I suggest you put the requested version in a sandbox, and get general agreement for a version there, so that it's completely clear to everyone what wording has agreement. It's good to see the discussion seems to be making progress. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl, as you requested, I've (belatedly) created Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox with the proposed requested edit and copies of the supporting comments. Thanks very much. Please let me know on my Talk if you have any questions. HG | Talk 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Everyone who is watching this page, please look at the suggested change in Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and comment there (especially if you disagree). Please try to keep the comments on that page directly focused on the suggested edit. Other comments still go on this page. Feel free to suggest changes to the wording on the sandbox page, or to say why you do or don't support it. Giving reasons that are clear to me will help; remember I am not deeply familiar with the issues here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Use B'Tselem's data

Basically their tally of lives lost by the Palestinian side corroborates "27 militants + 22 non-combatants" cited as HRW figure and on the same time seem to be not as skewed as AI or HRW (which are based primarily on Palestinian interviews conducted in 2002 and read almost as Nasser Al-Qidwa's paper submitted to UN) in part of "possible war crime" allegations. The main problem with their stats is that majority of the dates are defaulted to April 1st, but overall this source is reasonably reliable and under no circumstances can be seen as sympathetic to IDF's press office. DBWikis 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you meant to mention B'Tselem's data, or to use it to the exclusion of others as somehow definitive? Keep in mind that the B'Tselem numbers are not intended to be a count of Jenin deaths specifically, in the same way that HRW and AI are. Your comments about the authoritative or non-authoritative nature of their data seems like original research, and according to most sources I've seen, Israel did not dispute the numbers given in their reports. 52 seems like the minimum figure given by reliable sources, and reportedly accepted by Israel as definitive. 56 seems like the maximum figure substantiated by reliable sources (and reported by a non-RS as being the official number counted by the P.A.). This 49 figure is lower than anyone else has reported, and Google News does not seem have any secondary sources reporting the 49 figure at all. <eleland/talkedits> 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56. I was arguing in favor of moving away from linguistic analysis of what the WP article should say concerning what HRW has said concerning what interviewed Palestinians have said concerning all Zionist crimes and massaacres; and rather to get closer to more substantiative analysis how many civilian deaths could warrant criminal investigation in case Palestinian Authority or organizations like AI or HRW did indeed bother to proceed from interviews to collection of material evidence i.e. autopsies, in situ re-enactment, ballistic data, etc. My point is that this way their risked that the list of crimes which already shrank from Mr Erekat's "more than 500" to 56 individuals would loose even more entries. User Burgas00 has lamented that Palestinian deaths do not mean as much as if going wholesale - but unfortunately it looks like it is Palestnian side is more interested in heaping deaths, gore and "martyrdom" accounts. So my proposal to use of B'Tselem's data was to get as close to the facts as possible and review all available information on lost civilian lives. You are right it would be clearly OR so I am not pushing it into the article - I just suggested that if someone engages in discussion as loaded as this one then getting acquainted with pertinent information usually helps. DBWikis 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think I'm following you here. You've said that AI and HRW's data are "skewed" because they didn't conduct extensive forensic investigations, re-enactments, autopsies, etc, and because their conclusions substantiate some of the allegations made by the Palestinians. Did B'Tselem conduct these forensic investigations? And how do you conduct forensic sluethery and in situ re-enactment when most of the crime scenes were since bulldozed and most of the victims were hastily buried?
Oh, and I checked up on the B'Tselem numbers. They recorded 53 deaths, not 49. You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin who were killed in Jenin. (And Mr Erekat never said more than 500. He said that according to his information, the total could reach 500 for the entire West Bank. He was widely misquoted, but nobody has ever said where and when he allegedly made this "500 in Jenin" statement.) <eleland/talkedits> 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
eleland, let's not try to play the 'Erekat end game' - it would be an impressive leap of faith to take all of his quotes and shift them as you did. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
eleland, my point in proposal for all parties in this discussion was to tabulate all civilan deaths in Jeinin camp and around from first two weeks of April 2002 and then review them instance-by-instance to estimate to what extent the allegations of war crimes can be substantiated in each case. Instead of it we are dealing here with allegations of massacres because the focus is consistently shifted from real figures and real lost lives to imaginary figures - this way instead of the table with names of real victims (which in case of civilians will have less than 30 entries) we have tabulation of claims having hundreds of killed and this ultimately appears to be tabulation of propaganda (where the list can be endless). I was (and is) arguing in favor of de re approach while many contributors here are engaged in de dicto discussion. There is nothing wrong in linguistic re-hashing of formulations but here it became point of contention almost as a conduit to settle consensus regarding what happened there really, and it is wrong. Again, insisting there was a massacre because BBC reported that HRW concluded based on what Palestinians have said etc. is and will remain recycling of hearsay and will not establish facts even after Nth repeating. The maximum it can achive will be enshrining of propaganda in form of WP article and finally will be detrimental to WP and BTW I believe to Palestinians too.
Now, I've never said B'Tselem concluded there was "only" 49 killed on Palestinian side. What I have said was their stats "corroborate 27 militants + 22 non-combatants cited as HRW figure" (please have a look in the caption box in the article itself where the numbers stay as "at least 27 militants and 22 civilians according to HRW") and my point was on corroboration of the count of civilian deaths. And I have stressed above that "I am not disputing the total figure between 52 and 56" only to read your charge "You excluded deaths of non-residents of Jenin...".
Also regarding Mr Erekat being misquoted - this very page contains a table with some of the body count estimates churned in 2002 and inter alia it contains a reference to April 17th transcript from CNN where he confirmed "we say the number will not be less than 500". But probably it should belong not to Battle of Jenin but rather to History of allegations of massacre in Battle of Jenin. DBWikis 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Report

The section on the UN report currently begins with criticisms of the report, rather than with the report itself. Such criticisms should be placed in a separate section, entitled "Criticism of the UN Report." The section on the UN report should begin with the UN's confirmation that a massacre had not taken place -- which is of greater importance to readers than the number of reported casualties --, citing the following sources:

← Michael Safyan 08:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, hi. I've temporarily removed the "protected edit" request because I think you'll need to be more specific about exactly what text you would modify or add. If it's to add a subheading, that may not be controversial. If it's to shift how we cover the "massacre" question, that probably will need some conversation and feedback. Thanks, Hope you don't mind. HG | Talk 08:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood. Detailed changes shown below.

[edit] UN report

[edit] Allegations of a massacre

The UN report confirms that a massacre had not taken place; it finds that "at least 52 Palestinians" deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated [1][2][3].

The UN report gives the death toll as 52, and says the figure of 500 was unsubstantiated by the evidence. It does not use the word "massacre," or weigh in on the question of its aptness.--G-Dett 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context of events

The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the Second Intifada, with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank. [3]

[edit] Tactics

On the subject of Jenin, it says the "IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000." Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says "Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate." According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.[3]

[edit] Criticism of the UN report

Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "flawed" due to a lack of first-hand evidence [4]. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by Martti Ahtisaari was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.[3]

← Michael Safyan 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Safyan - can I ask you to please attach your sig into the end of your message like everyone else. Starting new lines and (especially) indenting your signature differently is disruptive.
In the meantime, I cannot understand what edits you want to make, and you've not responded to or corrected the clear error I believe you've made over the UN saying there'd been no massacre. PRtalk 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan - the BBC is wrong, the UN did not confirm that a massacre had not taken place. It's hardly surprising the BBC made such a gross mistake (and refuses to correct its reports) since we know it to be pro-Israel (though it does not admit as much in the summary of its own report - you have to go to section 4.7). The BBC wrongly quotes other parts of the report in a "pro-Israel" fashion, such as the total death toll. USATODAY is almost certainly far more biased.

And it shouldn't be necessary to tell you this - have a look at the UN report yourself. If you read it, you could even be excused for thinking the UN had stated there was a massacre. Contained therein are the statements of various governments such as eg "it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp" and "Direct eyewitness accounts by survivors of the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp" and "eyewitness accounts by casualties who survived the massacre" and so on an so forth. The UN report also contains quotes such as the Chinese journalist Shu Suzki ... stated ... "... All of the victims were civilians. ... I say again that a huge massacre was committed" Chips, the United States volunteer "... It was a real massacre and the scenes were terrible". PRtalk 13:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is of note to show that PR once again is alleging that the words of the reports by Palestine and Jordan which were attached as appendices to the UN report are the words of the UN which is NOT THE CASE. The blatantness of his falsehood here is troubling. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not insert falsehoods into articles or Talk (it's rare I even make a mistake, and when I do I apologise for it). I've plainly stated that "Contained therein are the statements of various governments". It would appear that the allegation made against me is an attempt to cover-up an attempt to introduce a distortion into the article, carried out on behalf of someone who (at best) has not read the material refered to. Behavior like this reflects badly on those who do it and cannot possibly improve articles. PRtalk 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On the BBC and "no massacre" reportage: a headline on their website read, "UN says no massacre in Jenin", but the actual article only said the UN "rejected claims that hundreds of Palestinian civilians were killed". Headlines are generally written by copy-editors and not journalists, and I'm not sure if we can count information which appears only in a headline as RS. This is especially true when the headlines use the word "massacre", which does not appear anywhere in the UN report. <eleland/talkedits> 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by G-Dett on 'criticism of the UN report'. I'd suggest that editors actually check out HRW's criticism of the UN report. Michael Safyan writes that they "criticized the report as 'flawed' due to a lack of first-hand evidence." This is a rather peculiar summary of HRW's statement. What their press release actually says is that the report is flawed because it "largely limits itself to presenting competing accounts of the events during the Israeli military operations." That's the first sentence, and here's what follows:

While the report describes some general allegations that have been made about the conduct of the Israeli and Palestinian sides during the Israeli operation, it draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims. It makes only limited reference to the obligations of the parties under international law, makes few clear conclusions about violations of that law, and does not raise the issue of accountability for serious violations that may have been committed, some of which rise to the level of war crimes. Its information and analysis are strongest when dealing with the blockage of humanitarian and medical access to the camp.

Noting their hampered mandate, Mogelly is quoted as saying, "Even with what they had, they could have done more."

HRW's statement wraps up by giving five examples of the UN report's "failings":

It refers to the fact that civilians died in the operation, without examining the circumstances of their deaths. It makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed, such as Jamal Fayid, a 37-year old paralyzed man, who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 after Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers refused to allow his family time to remove him from their home before a bulldozer destroyed it.

The U.N. report mentions that missiles were "at times" fired from helicopters, minimizing evidence suggesting that their use was intense and indiscriminate in Jenin camp, particularly on April 6 when missiles caught many sleeping civilians.

In its section dealing with abuses outside Jenin, the report fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations, as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events.

It does not discuss what, if any, steps the parties have taken to investigate credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law raised in the report-vital for ensuring accountability and discouraging future violations.

Here's the link to HRW's statement.--G-Dett 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN Report (second try)

I would like to replace the "UN report" section with the one posted below. ← Michael Safyan 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) {{editprotect}}

[edit] UN report

[edit] Allegations of a massacre

The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."[5][6][7][3].

[edit] Casualties

The report finds that fifty-two Palestinian deaths were reported by the Jenin hospital by the end of May 2002 and that Palestinian reports of 500 dead had not been substantiated. The report places the IDF death toll at twenty-three.[3]

[edit] Context of events

The report explains the rising violence of the first two years of the Second Intifada, with particular reference to the suicide bombings that had been carried out. It describes all the operations carried out in the West Bank. [3]

[edit] Tactics

On the subject of Jenin, it says the "IDF urged civilians in Arabic to evacuate the camp. Some reports, including of interviews with IDF soldiers, suggest that those warnings were not adequate ..... Estimates vary on how many civilians remained in the camp throughout but there may have been as many as 4,000." Following the ambush of April 9 the IDF changed tactics and began bombardment with tanks and missiles, and demolished parts of the camp using armored bulldozers. The report says "Witness testimonies and human rights investigations allege that the destruction was both disproportionate and indiscriminate, some houses coming under attack from the bulldozers before their inhabitants had the opportunity to evacuate." According to the report, supplies of food and water were delivered to the camp starting on April 16th but this was impeded by the large amounts of explosives present. Negotiations began to bring in specialist equipment and workers to remove the explosives, but in the several weeks it took to negotiate the entry of these teams, at least two Palestinians were killed in explosions.[3]

[edit] Criticism of the UN report

Human Rights Watch criticized the report as "seriously flawed" due to its limited mandate and to a lack of first-hand evidence [8]. The report, itself, states that a fact-finding team led by Martti Ahtisaari was unable to visit the area as planned due to concerns of the Israeli government. The report relied on papers submitted by different nations and NGOs, and on other documents.[3]

Michael Safyan 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to report what the UN report "refrains" from saying, accompanied by our speculations about how that omission was interpreted. I don't think the BBC and USA Today were building on what the UN didn't say; rather, their headline writers were using their own terminology to summarize the UN's findings; but the important thing to realize is that both my speculation and Michael's are OR. Given the enormous ensuing controversy around the word "massacre," I think we need to report sources in their own words. Depending on how deep in the weeds we want to go, it would be accurate to say that several sources interpreted the UN's report as rejecting claims of "massacre," but that is very deep in the weeds indeed, and is probably a violation of WP:UNDUE. At any rate, Michael's proposed phrasing runs afoul of both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
The proposed summary of HRW's criticism of the UN report is still woefully inadequate and misleading.--G-Dett 03:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section. The HRW page supports this interpretation: "Human Rights Watch said part of the report's problems stems from the terms of its mandate. Set up by a U.N. General Assembly resolution after the Secretary-General was forced by Israel's objections to disband a U.N. fact-finding mission, the report was collated from existing sources." However, feel free to add to it if you think it is inadequate. ← Michael Safyan 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
HRW's principle criticism of the UN report was directed at "its watered-down account of the very serious violations in Jenin," to wit: it limits itself to presenting competing claims and "draws almost no conclusions on the merits of those claims," it "minimizes evidence" that helicopter attacks were "intense and indiscriminate," it refers to civilian deaths but "makes no mention of the strong evidence suggesting that some were willfully killed," and it "fails to consider the systematic targeting of the offices of Palestinian media organizations as well as the serious impediments faced by international journalists and human rights monitors attempting to document events." HRW's statement says that these shortcomings reflect in part "the risk of compiling a report without any first-hand information," but concludes that "even with what [the UN] had, they could have done more."
Any summary of HRW's criticism that underscores the 5% about a lack of first-hand information, while omitting the 95% about an egregious whitewash, is cherry-picked and misleading.--G-Dett 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, this part is basically copied verbatim from the existing version. Make whatever changes you want to my proposed version. My primary edit with respect to the topic was placing the criticism in its own section. ← Michael Safyan 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Michael, I read This part is not critical; only that it go into its own section but misread "critical" and didn't understand what you were saying. I get it now.--G-Dett 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As for the section on "allegations of a massacre," that three mainstream newspapers claimed that the UN claimed no massacre took place is significant enough that it violates neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 03:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, it could be construed as promoting either POV. The statement could be viewed as pro-Israel for claiming that the UN document implies, albeit not explicitly, that a massacre did not take place. On the other hand, it could be viewed as pro-Palestinian for addressing misperceptions that the document explicitly rejects the claim that a massacre took place. Hence, it certainly does not violate WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan 03:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposed sentence, "The UN report refrains from using the term 'massacre' to describe the events of the Battle of Jenin, which the New York Times, the BBC, the USA Today, and others have interpreted as confirming that a massacre did not take place," is awkward and calls attention to itself, as well as calling undue attention to interpretations of the UN's findings. It also engages in original research, by speculating that the BBC and USA Today were interpreting the UN's failure to use the word "massacre," as opposed to merely summarizing the UN's body-count findings with maximum brevity for the purposes of a headline. Out of curiosity, can you give me the reference where the New York Times interprets the UN report with regards to "massacre"? The only NYT article on the UN report that I know of is David Rohde's from May 3, 2002, headlined "Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes." The word "massacre" appears nowhere in the article. Is this the article you're referring to?
No. I was referring to DEATH ON THE CAMPUS: JENIN; U.N. Report Rejects Claims Of a Massacre Of Refugees. ← Michael Safyan 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Michael. The New York Times is about as mainstream a source as you could get, and James Bennet is a first-rate journalist, so this is significant. I note here what Eleland noted regarding the BBC, that the headline writer is making summative conclusions that the article itself doesn't make; the only mention of "massacre" in the article is the following:

Today, Israeli officials seized on the conclusions as validating their version of the fighting in Jenin, a battleground of the 22-month conflict now accorded nearly mythic status by both sides. The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the report "overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication" of a massacre.

Ultimately, as I indicate in my comment below, I'd like to see the article present these competing "versions" in a clear and organized fashion, showing how different sources interpreted key reports like this and built them into their respective narratives about the significance of Jenin. But for now, you've convinced me that mentioning how the UN report was covered by the media would not be a violation of WP:UNDUE, and would in fact be interesting and relevant. I still think the proposed phrasing was awkward and stumbled unnecessarily into OR. How about something like this: The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."--G-Dett 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The word "massacre" appears once in the headline, but the only place it shows up in the article is in paraphrasing an Israeli statement. As with the BBC piece and many others, the NYT does not dismiss a massacre, whatever a massacre is, but does dismiss unspecified "Palestinian claims" (which likely were never made) that 500 were killed in Jenin. Headlines are not written by journalists and are designed for brevity and impact over strict accuracy. I do not believe that a headline constitutes a reliable source in itself, when the article text does not replicated. I don't think we can rely on a layout artist's précis of an article as a reliable indicator of a newspaper's stance on Jenin events as a whole. <eleland/talkedits> 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If I could interject a comment on the NYT. (1) Differing w/Eleland, I believe that the headlines of the NYT are not made by a layout artists but rather someone notably more senior. This is probably verifiable. (2) The headline is merely paraphrasing the lead sentence, by subtituting "rejects" for "dismissing as unsubstantiated" and "massacre" for "Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed." We may disagree with the paraphrase (i.e., maybe it's a bad editorial judgment and maybe a bad reading of the UN report) but the NYT is saying that (it thinks that) the UN rejects the "massacre" claims. (3) Another plausible, though unnecessary, indication of the NYT's view is that, in paraphrasing the Israel response, the word 'massacre' is outside the direct Israeli quote. Curious but unmistakeable. To be emphatic, I am only commenting on the NYT, not on my own view of whether it was a massacre. HG | Talk 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this last, HG, note that the NYT is summarizing a longer statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which the word "massacre" appears earlier and is the clear grammatical antecedent of the quoted bit: "The UN Secretary General's Report on Jenin, released today, came about as the result of false Palestinian propaganda regarding an alleged 'massacre' in the Jenin Refugee camp during the course of Israel's Defensive Shield counter-terrorist operation of April, 2002. The report overwhelmingly negates this Palestinian fabrication and repudiates the malicious lies spread regarding the issue. In other words, "massacre" fell outside the direct Israeli quote as a result of NYT simplifying and condensing the syntax of the statement. Note, however, that I now agree with Michael that the UN report was widely seen as countering the claims of 'massacre' and that it's appropriate to mention this. Indeed, it's a step in the direction of exactly where I think this article should go; we should be explicitly tracing the evolution of competing narratives about the significance of Jenin, rather than haggling over wording in an effort to bolster or counter these narratives.--G-Dett 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. It nows seems that we 100% concur. So,... what changes do you propose to the article to achieve this? ← Michael Safyan 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, see my comment above. I suggested something like, The UN report confirmed a body count of 52 Palestinians, up to half of them civilians, and found earlier claims of hundreds of deaths to be unsubstantiated. These findings were widely reported and interpreted as rejecting claims of a "massacre."--G-Dett 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I've merged your changes into the proposed edit. Now, what about the changes to the criticisms section? ← Michael Safyan 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple RSs stating that the UN report cleared the IDF of the massacre charge. It simply did not happen. It's not our job to argue with RSs. The fact is, the UN report, not to mention every other RS, has "cleared" the IDF of the massacre charge. It's therefore inappropriate to phrase it as "interpreted as rejecting claims of a 'massacre.'" as though this fact is somehow in dispute -it's not. Even the PA backed off the claim. <<-armon->> 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The claim that "every RS has cleared the IDF of the massacre charge" is demonstrably false. Arabic sources as well as some Western ones still refer to the "Jenin massacre"; are all Arabic sources by definition non-reliable? Amnesty International moreover issued an explicit public statement explaining why their report avoided the word "massacre" ("there is no legal definition in international law of the word 'massacre'," therefore "its use in the current circumstances is not helpful."). Though the UN did not explain why they avoided it, the fact is they did avoid it. In short the controversy surrounding that word is complicated and ongoing, and there's no good reason to present the UN's findings in terms different from the ones they chose. I remain however convinced by Michael's argument that how those findings were interpreted by some prominent RSs is relevant and interesting, and deserves mention.--G-Dett 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Any "source", whether "western" "Arab" or "Martian" which propagates the massacre claim in opposition the to the facts is by definition unreliable. The fact that WP:FRINGE views exist, doesn't mean we present, for example, flat-earthers as a "having a point". <<-armon->> 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As "massacre" is an emotionally and rhetorically charged word with, as Amnesty International carefully pointed out, "no legal definition in international law," the question of whether an "indiscriminate and disproportionate" attack on a refugee camp leaving 25+ civilians dead constitutes a "massacre" is a question that can't easily be settled by "the facts," no matter how imperiously and talismanically that phrase is invoked. Especially when "the facts" include an unspecified number of civilians killed "deliberately" and "willfully." Amnesty understood this and therefore avoided the term. The UN also chose to avoid it, a decision you evidently regret and would like to reverse now by rewriting their conclusions, replacing their emphasis on "the facts" with your emphasis on a subjective and emotional word they chose not to use. By the way, arguments by assertion (all reliable sources cleared the IDF of the charge of massacre) backed up by tautological definitions (a reliable source is by definition one that clears the IDF of the charge of massacre) consistently fail to impress.--G-Dett 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all well and good to accuse me of logical fallacies, but it's easy to settle. Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact. <<-armon->> 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's an easy one - the New York Times on 2nd Aug 2002 said: "The United Nations concluded that 497 Palestinians were killed during Israeli actions in Palestinian-controlled territory from the beginning of March until May 7, a far higher toll than previously reported." Whether that means there was a massacre is debatable - but the only RS dispute of there having been a massacre apparently comes in these three headlines, New York Times, BBC and USATODAY (of the 100s that say there was a massacre). However, none of the articles at those URLs actually say what the headlines claim, that "there was no massacre". By all the regular definitions of the word, there was a massacre - but nobody here is pressing for that to be included except as an "also known as" name. What's happening is that an insistence on going backwards and forwards over this fairly trivial part of the discussion is needlessly preventing us from documenting everything else about this incident. PRtalk 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you fact check the quote from the UN report that is being reprinted by the NYT, you'll find this number is NOT a count of the deaths in Jenin, but the whole of the occupied territories, despite PR's attempt here to portray these as evidence of a massacre and a much higher death toll in Jenin than that which is actually reported. Kyaa the Catlord 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Or people could simply read what I've entered, which appears fully in context and covers the exact same ground you've presented. There was no intention to mislead - more than that, it's difficult to see how anyone could possibly be misled by the way I've presented this rather striking information, never before seen in this article or in Talk. Did someone really come to my TalkPage and tell me "Start making serious, productive contributions to the encyclopedia rather than complaining constantly about your imagined persecution please" a moment ago or was that in my fevered imagination too? PRtalk 14:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Armon challenged you to "Show me the RS (or what you're prepared to argue is a RS, anyway) which states the "hundreds dead" massacre claim is a fact." Your response was "that's an easy one" and carried on to show that the NYT's said that the UN reported on 497 dead as a direct response to his challenge. And now you're trying to weasel that you did not intend to show that it was "easy" to find evidence of a "hundreds dead" massacre using a source that does not make any such claim. *rolls eyes* You're killing me here, PR. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Armon and G-Dett, it is objective and verifiable fact that:
  • The UN rejected claims of 500 Palestinians killed.
  • The UN confirmed 52 Palestinian casualties.
  • The UN limited Palestinian civilian casualties to a maximum of 26.
  • The UN does not explicitly state "no massacre occured"; rather, it leaves the reader to interpret the above as a "massacre" or "not a massacre".
G-Dett, the lack of an explicit statement is sufficient; explaining the absence of such an explicit statement is -- in my opinion -- purely speculative (unless an UN source can confirm the reason for such an absence). ← Michael Safyan 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Armon, while I happen to agree with the interpretation that the UN report rejects the claims of massacre (albeit implicitly rather than explicitly), this interpretation is admittedly subjective. Wikipedia policy requires that content be both objective and verifiable. For this reason, I endorse G-Dett's proposed edit. ← Michael Safyan 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OK but what you're forgetting here is that there are multiple, reliable, secondary sources who have stated that the UN report rejected the massacre claim -we need only to follow what they've explicitly stated. It is a common tactic of pov-pushers to cast doubt on the facts as presented by RSs. This is unacceptable. If this particular fact is in dispute, we need other RSs which establish that it IS disputed, not just talk page rhetoric. Please see WP:ASF and also WP:V. The standard is verifiability, period, not whatever "Truth" an editor attempts to argue. <<-armon->> 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "multiple RS's" eventually decided there was no massacre. The Israel-defending blogosphere is at it's wits end precisely because the RSs refused to do anything of the kind. Here is one of the more thoughtful ones: "The systemic building up of a false, biased picture of Israel as an aggressor and the deliberate murderer of Palestinian babies and children by the British/European media is slowly chipping away at Israel's legitimacy. Because the Big Lie works. After all, how can ordinary people the world over not end up hating such a country? Contrary to the perceptions of some, Israel is not a major power that can withstand such international antagonism indefinitely. It cannot. More importantly, it should not have to. As history has taught only too well, acts of wholesale destruction and genocide do not just spring forth in a vacuum. They are the product of a climate of cultivated, calculated libels, false legends and unforgiving hatred." Although reports like this often target the whole of the Western world other than the US, in fact, the US media were not much better as far as Israel was concerned. PRtalk 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
At any rate, there will be a proper place for interpretations of the UN report when the article is improved. What we need is a properly demarcated section for competing critical commentaries on the significance of Jenin. One significant critical commentary/narrative, put forth by The Weekly Standard, the Anti-Defamation League, CAMERA, and others is this: Palestinians exaggerated and fabricated, as part of a general pattern of deceiving the international media, and the media bought in hook line and sinker into the idea of a "Jenin massacre," which subsequent investigations disproved. The other significant narrative, put forth by mainstream media and international human-rights organizations, is this: because Jenin was under 24-hour curfew and sealed from journalists, international observers, and even medical aid for the duration of a devastating siege, rumors arose of massacres and body counts in the hundreds; subsequent investigations dispelled these rumors, but revealed evidence of war crimes and indiscriminate use of lethal force on the part of the IDF. If those advancing the first narrative have used the BBC and USA Today headlines to make their case, then it might be appropriate to mention this in a section devoted to these competing narratives and the ongoing controversies associated with them.--G-Dett 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request It's great to see a good discussion here about the proposed changes. As a neutral admin responding to the editprotected tag, I suggest that you start a sandbox (e.g. Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox) and construct the proposed addition there. Once there is agreement about it, it will be easy for an admin to copy that to the main article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to place the edit at Talk:Battle of Jenin/UN-Report. ← Michael Safyan 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea. Have you been warned that a previous attempt to do this, enthusiastically participated in by some editors, was effectively torpedoed by irrelevancies inserted? Are you willing to aggressively keep the Sandbox on track, and stop it turning into the rambling kind of discussion we're seeing here?
In addition, someone else created, but I've built on, a table that lists all the claims of the number of deaths (it's about to get archived off the top of this page). Would it be possible to have this table easily accessible somewhere, along with other "cited facts", perhaps linked from the Sandbox page? I'd like to do more of this kind of work, it seems sad to see people's time wasted with some of the easily falsifiable statements that regularily appear in TalkPages. PRtalk 12:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The table on the current top of this Talk page is rather tabulation of claims on purported body count and should belong to article History of allegations of massacre in Battle of Jenin not the account of the battle itself. If we are to start bothering with facts and defensible statements not with tabulation of propaganda then the real table will contract to 50+ entries and I've suggested above to start with B'Tselem's data; that will be WP:OR of course but nevertheless still seems to be sine qua non at least in educational sense of getting close to the factual reality which ostensibly should be the WP's objective. DBWikis 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The listing of various claims about the death toll probably does not need its own article, it just needs to be accessible somewhere (I thought a template would be a good idea, I don't understand the objection). The listing is important because quite nasty allegations were made against one of the people in that list, and it's clear that some of his claims are actually true, and the remainder no more than exaggerated. (The allegations of lying do not appear in any RSs, but a lot of people seem to think they did and that a top Palestinian negotiator is some kind of mendacious fool). Lies presumably were told (an overstatement of 380% ceases to be merely an exaggeration), but they all come from the perpetrators, not from the victims. It would be OR to draw any conclusions from the table - and we don't set out to disprove circulating falsehoods anyway. But the table does keep the discussion on track to a certain extent.
Perhaps you'd be able to tell me which falsehoods must remain in the article, and I'll tell you which vital elements of the account can be left out. For instance, perhaps we could leave out: "I had no mercy for anybody. ... Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ... I am sure people died inside these houses." PRtalk 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else notice that the protection boils down to PR holding the article hostage until all of his demands are met. This is very anti-wikipedia. One user being able to disrupt consensus is unacceptable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And then there are mundane things too....

...except that they are not truly mundane if we are trying to make an article half way decent. General improvements which are not germane to the POV to-ing and fro-ing can/should be made to this article. The intro for instance, would be improved IMMHO if changed to:

The Battle of Jenin took place between April 3-11 2002 in the West Bank Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin as part of Operation Defensive Shield, during the Second Intifada. In Arabic it is called مجزرة جنين (Jenin Massacre) and in Hebrew, הקרב בג'נין, (Battle in Jenin).

But I guess that even a general copyedit like that might cause a POV pusher to imagine a slight, so maybe it's not worth my while bothering with it. Sigh. Moriori 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've made a fine copyedit. We'll try to implement it. Unfortunately, so much else is contested, I wouldn't encourage you to spend much time copyediting here yet. Sigh. HG | Talk 08:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Your presence here is most welcome! Thanks. HG | Talk 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Gotta disagree with you HG. More eyes, and especially copywriters, should always be encouraged. <<-armon->> 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this edit. ← Michael Safyan 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding IDF investigations

HG, you were discussing in a section how to present HR orgs recommendations for IDF investigations, and the fact that none took place. This from HRW's statement on the UN report may be relevant:

Human Rights Watch researchers spent three weeks on the ground, including in Jenin camp, immediately following the operation. Researchers gathered detailed accounts from victims and witnesses, carefully corroborating and independently crosschecking their accounts with those of others to reconstruct a detailed picture of events in the camp in April 2002. The findings were published in a 52-page report, "Jenin: IDF Military Operations." In early May, the Israel Defense Forces made a commitment to investigate every incident documented in the report. To date, Human Rights Watch has had no response from the IDF as to the progress of any such investigations.

I wonder if anyone has a source for the IDF's "commitment"?--G-Dett 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be suitable to have a subsection on IDF's view and response? Though I wonder, where in the order should it be placed? (Alternatively, the IDF view could be split up, maybe some on Investigations and some on Reporting, etc.) Anyway, maybe somebody could workshop this and then put a draft here? For what it's worth, my rule of thumb would be for maybe 3/4 of the section to neutrally/charitably present the IDF view, about 1/8 on substantive criticism of the IDF view from major players, with 1/8 (or less needed?) a wrap-up on the outcome. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As I told you, I'm pleased to see mediation, but I won't put my name to (and thereby promise to defend) statements that still contain known falsehoods. If my obduracy has brought the mediation to a shuddering halt then I'm sorry. How about taking out the known falsehoods first, before concerning ourselves with re-wordings and the re-insertion of all the good information that belongs in the article? PRtalk 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need protection lifting and re-write article

We need the protection of this article lifted and write the real story of what happened in 2002. Because it looks as if Israel is planning a much, much bigger version of the same thing in Gaza, Israeli columnist forecasts 1000s dead. PRtalk 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is it that you are going to write? Also, in the battle templet we should change outcome to "Israeli victory". After the D9s came roaming through all the terrorists surrendered and their head, Mahmoud Tawalbe, was killed (by a D9). MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a huge amount of very-well sourced information available about this incident - our article currently reads like denial. Here are a few of the most glaring omissions, note that that all of this material comes from the regular Western media - and much of it from Israeli or pro-Israel sources. There appears to be no reliable source or neutral point of view objection to including every part of it. Much of the material currently in the article is both less well-sourced and given undue weight. Some of our material (like the death-toll) is simply false.
  1. Ariel Sharons told the world's media that "Palestinians must be hit ... must cause them losses, victims - 5th March 2002, a month before the incursions, before the surge of suicide bombings. This statement was criticised by Colin Powell and Time linked it directly to the military action that followed.
  2. Sharons advisor told the UN special envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen that he "has no business whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong".
  3. Three refrigerated trailers in the camp while all observers were excluded - there's no secret, Israel told us about them.
  4. Israel told us it would bury up to 200 bodies in a "special cemetry in the Jordan valley" (ie closed military zone).
  5. Clips from the interview given by the bulldozer driver to an Israeli newspaper - he boasts of not caring for the civilian deaths he believe he caused.
  6. Ian Hook, chief of the reconstruction project, killed by the IDF in suspicious circumstances on 22nd Nov 2002. Reference the Irish woman who returned to Jenin and was shot in the thigh by the IDF.
  7. Account of the third "international observer/human rights" group that made a visit and presented a "Jenin Investigation", still finding complete bodies in August.
  8. Massacre reported in careful detail, with soldiers identified, Amnesty and the Independent newspaper.
  9. Allegations included in the UN report that the Israelis mined the refugee camp before they left.
  10. Mention that this particular action in Jenin refugee camp was only part of a series of armed incursions. Israel was killing people in and around Jenin camp even when long curfews were supposedly lifted.
Small improvements have sometimes been made - some of the most glaring of these omissions have sometimes been corrected, and their presence accepted even by those who've previously deleted them. However, at this moment in time, each of the improvements I've spotted seems to have been undone again. PRtalk 16:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you are doing is to fabricate the facts and try with brutal force to tell that was a massacre in the camp even though it was discover a crude lie, and POVing the article toward the Palestinian claims, which were proven untrue. The IDF did not left mines in Jenin and the Palestinian witness probably confused with Palestinian booby trap (the Pals made 15,000 explosive charges and planted them around the camp to stop the IDF, or made up the strory to demonize Israel. I oppose your proposed changing. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:D9R-idf.jpg

Image:D9R-idf.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) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Sharon quote

Please explain why a cafeteria quote made March 5th is mentioned after a suicide bombing made the night of March 27th. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote is important in showing Sharon has always favored the use of excessive military force, which has never brought about peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict. After all, Sharon was found by an ISRAELI investigative panel, the Kahan commission, as being "directly responsible" for the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla. Sharon would not even start peace talks, which Barak halted, when he was Prime Minister. If you don't talk to your enemies, you will never make peace with them.
You are mass deleting revelent information. You do not deny Sharon was quoted correctly, nor do you deny the Sharon quote expressed his true feelings. You could have moved the quote to a different location, instead you deleted it entirely and also deleted three other direct quotations from the UN report for no given reason. It seems as if only quotes from the UN report which are favorable to Israel are to be included in this article. Important information which is not favorable to Israel, especially the UN quote on a possible Jenin massacre by Israel and Israel's removing bodies of Jenin victims to unmarked mass graves, seems to always be deleted, even if it comes from a reliable source.
Also, the incorrect statement:
"The UN report stated that fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the end of May 2002"
keeps reappearing in your editing. The quote you removed, a direct quote from the UN report, includes the words "AT LEAST" (52 deaths.)
Why do you keep taking out correct information and replacing it with incorrect information?Blindjustice (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, you do not contest that you take correct information out of the article and replace it with incorrect information.Blindjustice (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, since a month has gone by and you failed to comment, I assume you do not disagree with my comments, and I intend to make the necessary changes. Blindjustice (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Blindjustice, you have improperly attributed the Ariel Sharon quote to the UN Report on Jenin. If you look carefully at the report, you will note that this quote is part of an attachment to the UN report, entitled Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General. Since the quote does not come directly from the UN report, using the quote requires proper attribution. For example: "According to the 'Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General' of the UN, ...". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for your input.Blindjustice (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the quote out of it's proper March 5 context. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet you won't even allow it to be cited in the form of, "Both the Palestinian Authority[9] and Amnesty International[10] drew attention to an off-the-cuff remark made by Ariel Sharon in March 2002 that 'The Palestinians must be hit and it must be painful. We must cause them losses, victims, so they feel the heavy price.'" [1]
Jaakobou, you don't get to decide what the proper context in which to cite that quote is. You can have an opinion, we all have opinions, that's why we should report on notable opinions rather than asserting them as facts. (WP:ASF) <eleland/talkedits> 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Elalnd,
(a) Was there something unclear in my previous comment?
(b) What's the deal with all the personal "you don't get to decide" hostility?
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jaakobou,
Your pro-Israeli bias has seriouly distorted this article.Blindjustice (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we insert this Ariel Sharon quote out of it's original context to make Ariel Sharon look like he's running an evil Gulag and balance the article a little? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)