Talk:Israeli military launches airstrikes into Gaza Strip

Don't use "Militants"
We don't call the soldiers of Israel's army militants, so we wont call members of Hamas (the Palestinian army) militants either. Militants is a very POV word, unfortunately used by U.S media to the extreme, but I guarantee press from the non-aligned countries wouldn't use the word militants to describe members of Palestine's army. Furthermore Hamas was elected in a democratic election, and whoever said that the UN recognizes them as a terrorist organization I'd like to see a source because I seriously doubt that statement.Soapy (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel's army isn't on any accepted terrorist watch list...yet. This list is adopted by more than the U.S. The U.N. has their own definition of it:

"By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1566 (2004), the Council recalled that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror, or compel a government or international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act which contravened terrorism-related conventions and protocols, were not justifiable for any reason –- whether of a political, philosophical ideological, racial, ethnic or religious nature. Security council acts unanimously to adopt resolution strongly condemning terrorism as one of most serious threats to peace"


 * As you recall, Hamas has captured, kidnapped, held hostage and killed Israeli soldiers. Not to mention foreign journalists. They have used those individuals for ransom and also an attempt to compel the Israeli government to meet their demands. They also have fired rockets, just today, into Israel for what reason? Israel was not firing on Hamas until after the rockets were fired. Legally elected or not, that does not mean they are not a terrorist organization. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahah and then you should recall that according to Israeli human rights group Btheselim Israel holds 9,000 Palestinians prisoners, 1,000 of which have not been officially charged, the prisoners are subject to torture and torture was officially legalised in Israel in the 1990's although it is outlawed today it is still practiced. As for claiming self-defence for the rocket attacks there is very little to support this claim seeing as Palestine is occupied territory and Israel cannot claim self-defence in this territory anymore than the Nazis could claim self-defence in occupied France or Greece against the, what the Nazis called, "terrorist" resistance.  Furthermore there was a ceasefire set up in June of last year to end Israeli bombings in Gaza and Hamas rocket fire, Hamas observed the ceasefire, Israel refused to acknowledge it maintaining its illegal blockades which were to be dismantled under the ceasefire.  Even so Hamas maintained their end of the bargain although the other party (Israel) refused to then, finally Israel couldn't wait to provoke Hamas any longer so on November 4th they bombed Gaza killing 6 members of Hamas.  Hamas then asked to renew the ceasefire, Israel rejected it and continued to bomb Gaza... By your standards who is the terrorist?  Who should we call the militants? Soapy (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Present some official documents to say otherwise. Until then as it stands they are a terrorist organization. If anything, the above statement suggests you are the one with the POV. But whatever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I had to point out your hypocrisy, but here's Israeli human rights group btselem report on prisoners,http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Detainees_and_Prisoners.asp, here's the details of the nov. 4th raid http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians...also here's a b'tselem report on the Israeli policy of fatal arrests http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200505_Take_No_Prisoners.asp
 * And those are official state/nation/UN/etc recognized documents? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong. But isn't Israel part of the UN? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The UN statement didn't say that Hamas was a terrorist group...I don't understand your argument and frankly this isn't the place to argue, I think I've made my point that calling members of Hamas is POV Soapy (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * May have made a point yes, but I have given you ample proof that they are a terrorist organization. So whether you want to accept that or not, is up to you. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikitionary for militant says:
 * aggressive or combative
 * fighting or warlike; belligerent
 * That sounds about right to me. Just because major media uses it in a POV term, doesn't make it wrong.  Kinda like negro, yes, it might be not polite to use, but the word still means "Black". -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha alright it's fine to call them militants SO LONG AS WE CALL THE ISRAELIS MILITANTS TOO...that's my point Soapy (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * again it is YOUR POV of this. You cannot refute or deny a UN resolution and a terror list followed by half a dozen nations. The IDF is a legally recognized military, Hamas is not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you cannot comprehend the simple idea that we should apply the same standards to ourselves that we do to others, if by your own estimation Hamas is a terrorist organization because it kills innocent civilians and takes soldiers hostage, which it most certainly does, then by that exact same logic Israel is guilty of those same crimes on a much greater scale and is therefore a much greater terrorist organization. This has nothing to do with POV draw your own conclusions from the facts...if you can't comprehend the idea I'm trying to get across to you, the idea of not being a hypocrite then please do some thinking.  Anyway this is a huge waste of my time, you're obviously not going to be convinced, so goodbye. Soapy (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With that attitude then I don't know why I wasted my time. I case you didn't look, your edit in the article remains, despite the disagreement. But again whatever. I present my facts and I donno how a POV can override a legit terrorist list. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW this is nothing personal. I was just debating. Happy editing/writing :-} DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the list is indeed questionable. It was issued by the US State Department, not the United Nations. I assume you would not dispute that the US is a staunch ally of Israel, and as such their labelling of Hamas as a terrorist organisation is widely disputed. This is further complicated by Hamas having been democratically elected. There are a great number of other legitimate governing bodies which, by the criteria given above, could also be called "terrorist". As to "militant", I think it is an appropriate term. Hamas does not have a conventional armed forces with a clearly defined command structure, so even if they wanted to stop rocket fire into Israel it may be extremely difficult to do so. Particularly when many of the cells and factions receive funding and armaments directly from neighbouring Arab countries sympathetic to their cause. They may say they are part of Hamas, Israel may say they are part of Hamas, but by attacking Israel in contravention of Hamas' declared cessation of hostilities they prove they are acting as free agents, thus legitimising calling them militants. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On your last point, Brian, I don't think that it proves that they are free agents. It wouldn't be the first time that someone says one thing and does another. --SVTCobra 11:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Proof"? Perhaps not, I'll certainly concede that. However, without reasonable evidence that Hamas has told the world one thing, and those firing the rockets another, we cannot reasonably conclude that the rocket and mortar fire has been ordered by those of Hamas who have been elected. To do so would be to uncritically accept the position of Israel and the American hawks who back them. By international standards, both sides in this conflict are as guilty as hell. Perhaps we need to start working on reporting guidelines for controversial issues like this. However, I would still assert that "militant" is perfectly acceptable as a description of those attacking Israel. It may be the case that AP and Reuters are, as Soapy asserts, using the term as a substitute for "terrorist". That can only be decided by seeing the context in which they use it; that does not have to be the same context as in which Wikinews applies the word. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will concede that perhaps it is fine to call those who shoot rockets out of Gaza "militants". However, I am unsure whether we should call them Hamas "militants" because members of Hamas are not necessarily militants as they are fighting under the banner of the democratically elected government. Soapy (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Timelines shouldn't be blame games
The sequence of stories here is not comprehensive enough to include any cause-and-effect type summaries. At the least it is all original research and without the qualifiers required. State that events happened, and that is it; no because of... or ...in response to, or anything else that is a value statement or its just bias in another form. Organizations can say things and if there are comments on sequences of events specifically attributed they could be included but anything else is a ploy to get around NPOV. 74.227.163.214 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewording
Dragon reverts my attempt to clear up the imprecise language used, and based on his long argument above I believe he has an agenda to see this article remains biased. Other editors please review my edit, change it some if required. Reverting it does nothing and leaves this badly worded article without the corrections it needs. 74.227.163.214 05:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits make a mention of Hamas only once. Israel's main objective was because of the organization. And to take away the focus of that, IMO lessens the blame. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just going to step away from this article. I made my point with official links of state sponsored terror, but all I have been getting in return are what people think (POV) the other side is, despite the lack of any nation finding Israel guilty of anything yet. Have a good night. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you conclude that the world court is indeed counting as a legitimate body, the world court has found Israel guilty of several breaches of the geneva convention, and every year since 1988 the UN has voted almost unanimously (Israel and U.S against) to condemn Israel's occupation of Palestine...yeah do the 180 or so countries that vote in favor of condemning Israel's atrocities each year count as a nation? Soapy (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)