Talk:Battle of Jenin (2002)/Archive 2

message: The bottom line about Jenin is: More Israeli soldiers died than Palestinian civilians. This is unique and unparalleled in the history of warfare. Erudil 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottom Line

message: : The April 11, 2002 transcript:  You have used this as reference for the article text The battle attracted widespread international attention due to persistent Palestinian claims of war crimes, genocide, and inflated reports on body counts.  I replaced that sentence, using the exact same transcript as reference, to read: The Israeli Defense Forces prevented journalists from entering the camp during the operation, and initially Palestinian sources reported 500 dead.
: Please read the transcript and note that:
:* It says nothing about why the battle was drawing attention at the time.  In fact it has hard to imagine that a major Israeli military operation in a densely populated urban area would not draw major attention, regardless of what allegations the Palestinians were making.
:* The transcript does not say any Palestinian claims are "persistent".  It simply talks about what was being said at that moment.
:* The word "genocide" never appears.
:* It is true that Palestinian sources were reporting a death toll of 500 while the operation was going on.  I have preserved that information in the article text.  However, nothing in the transcript proves that the Palestinians deliberately "inflated" the total.  Around the same time official Israeli sources were saying that "several hundred" had died .  Were the Israeli numbers also "inflated"?  How can you prove that one was and the other wasn't?  My version, which simply states what was said on CNN that night, is much more neutral and encyclopedic in tone.
:* On the other hand, the CNN transcript does state, quite clearly, that journalists were banned from the camp during the Israeli operation.  (Ben Wedeman states: "In fact, we have no access whatsoever to the refugee camp....the question that we would like to know and that we would like to direct to Israeli officials is why aren't we being allowed in that camp?")  You have deleted this important information. Sanguinalis 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref is used to explain the inflated body count and the "rumor show", you can use it again later in the article to show that the press was not allowed to go in the camp during the fighting, the ommission was not intentional. p.s. the word genocide (and/or it's derivatives) appeared on other refs, i saw no need to muliply the usage of them.... why are you fighting these statements if you know it really happened.. or maybe you havn't watched/read any news during that period? Jaakobou 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, specifically, is the reference were Palestinians charge "genocide"?  This would not be "repeating" references, because the CNN transcript - the ONLY reference you used - clearly does not mention the word.  If you did not mean to delete the information about the IDF preventing journalists from entering the camp, put it back.  I will temporarily refrain from reverting to give you a chance to do so. Sanguinalis 10:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/11/wedeman.otsc/index.html April 11, 2002 transcript] 

message: i figure we should consider adding information about media bias from this article - "Jenin comes to Lebanon" - into the battle of jenin article. i might get around to it sometime in the future. Jaakobou 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an editorial, not a regular news article.  If you use it for this page, it can only be used to describe a point of view, not a statement of fact. Sanguinalis 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes i know, thank you for mentioning that anyways. Jaakobou 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenin comes to Lebanon 

message: It's used too ;)  --HanzoHattori 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeningrad 

message: "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities which were then echoed in the world press for several weeks, pitting world public opinion against Israel. 27"
Ref 27 is a publication by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). According to the ADL, "a massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Israel was widely alleged, reported and condemned".
The word "massacre" appears 27 times in the document. Although quotations from the international press are sprinkled throughout this document, the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word except in scare quotes or preceded by some variation on the word "alleged".
In other words, we have only the ADL's word to rely on here. Is the Anti-Defamation League of the B'Nai Brith, a deeply partisan organization dedicated to advancing Israeli militarism under the cloak of anti-racism, a reliable source on this matter?
What the article should say is something like "Rumors of massacres in Jenin swirled through Palestinian communities, and the existence of these rumors was reported by international media outlets who could not confirm or deny them. Israeli authorities prevented the international press from entering the refugee camp for two weeks, which delayed the ability of the world community to assess the damage. After it became clear that no systematic massacre had taken place, supporters of Israel's actions condemned the international media for reporting on these rumors and allegations. According to The Independent, "Israel’s host of government spokesmen and its media have seized on such claims to mount an argument tantamount to saying that, as there is no proof of a massacre, there is no case to answer at all."
Eleland 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard on WP is verifiability, no truth. I appreciate the effort you put into researching the validity of the ADL's claims, but this original research can't be part of the article. Isarig 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now reading the sources given to support a claim is "original research"? The ADL is too partisan to be a reliable source on its own. So I read the source material, looking to see if perhaps the ADL citation could be converted into citations of more trustworthy sources. Finding none, I believe that the cited information should be removed altogether, unless a better (ie, non-partisan) source can found. Failing that, the claim should at least be attributed within the text -- "According to the Anti-Defamation League, an American Zionist organization, rumors of massacres..." Eleland 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anti-Defamation League is an American Human Rights organization, not an American Zionist organization. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ADL is both. However, their claims that world media were unfair to the Israeli military is clearly Zionist advocacy, not human rights advocacy. Eleland 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading the source is not original research. Reading the source and concluding that "the ADL doesn't produce a single quotation of ANY media outlet using the word" and subsequently that the article should say that "international media outlets ... could not confirm or deny" is.  Isarig 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the statement about "could not confirm or deny" was not based solely on the ADL link. But you're right, it is something of a synthesis of sources, so it shouldn't be included. The phrase "who could not confirm or deny them" shouldn't be included, just the other language. Eleland 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As far sa I can tell, absolutely NONE of the media organizations you cite actually claimed there was a massacre. They only claimed that "reports", "rumours" or "allegations" of a massacre existed. So I think it's totally consistent with the language that I've proposed. Eleland 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're far to focussed on the word "massacre"; the ADL doesn't say the sources used the specific term "massacre", but when they're reporting hundreds of civilians killed, bodies being buried in mass graves, etc., they are clearly talking about a massacre. Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the world press didn't report on "the existence of these rumors"; rather, they repeated them. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, every link you gave me featured Palestinian allegations reported as: allegations! The current wording implies that international press credulously passed on rumours as if they were true, when in fact, they simply reported that these rumours existed. This is a major difference. Even the sources you provide take pains to downplay the credibility of the rumour, noting that it could not be verified, that burying victims in Jenin would not serve to hide a "massacre" at all, etc etc. Eleland 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly is your point? The European press was filled with these stories - i.e. they echoed them, and they didn't, in fact, call the "rumors" as your edit claims. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how my edit implies that the world press specifically used the word "rumours". They were in fact called "rumours", "allegations", or sometimes "reports". Furthermore, can you tell me what "sourced information" your last edit restored, and what "original research" was deleted?  Eleland 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used direct quotes from the sources, rather than various unsourced POV statements. The different is quite easy to see. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A direct quote from the Independent was removed, leaving the only source as the Anti-Defamation League, a highly partisan group with zero credibility on this issue. And an unsourced statement, tagged as unsourced, but which supported Israeli POV, was restored. Oops! I'll correct this apparent error. Eleland 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no citation for the Independent quote, and its placement appeared to be original research. Please review WP:V, which doesn't say at all what you seem to think it does. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I properly cited the Independent quote, you would be fine with it? And please explain how its inclusion is "original research". I've noticed in the past that some people use "original research" to mean "anything I don't like". Eleland 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source inadequate to support statement 

message: we deem the netanya bombing as masscre, because it is the indiscriminate killing of 30 people sitting at a dinner table while the perpetrator had the racist intention of killing as many jews as possible and the brainwashed mindset of thinking that this will get him into heaven. the jenin battle is not deemed a massacre, because it was fighting between two armed forces, one of which was victorious, yet with many casualties (that are not registered as massacred either).
p.s. i agree that it was a palestinian propaganda victory, considering they got their "500 killed!" message out in prime time and the "ok, maybe it was 50" message was barely noticable due to the lack of media interest in letting the public know they were wrong/lying/spreading libel. to top things off, many arabs/muslims still use the term "jenin massacre" which shows this was successful propaganda.  JaakobouChalk Talk 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. I know I'm stupid for even trying to make even the smallest amendments to articles on Israeli-Palestinian issues when there's a whole gang of editors who'll jump in and revert them (I assume you are also referring to this gang when you talk about the "we" who "deem" things).  Good to know as well that we can describe it as a Palestinian propaganda victory on the basis that you personally "agree" that it was one.  Terrible of course as well that the Palestinian authorities didn't know at first how many people had been killed and overstated the death toll (as in fact is common in situations of this sort, see September 11th).  I do understand your point about motive - but I'm always reminded of a comment I saw at the time along the lines of "if a bunch of soldiers came into my town, flattened all the houses around me and killed 50 of my neghbours, I'd call that a massacre".--Nickhh 08:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The infobox is hardly the place to discuss naming, but in this case the '50 neighbours' were mostly armed combatants killed in battle, while the 30 in Netanya were civilians killed by a suicide bomber with the stated aim of killing civilians. I'll grant you that there isn't currently an explicit source for the outcome listed, but I believe that can be easily remedied, and a  tag would be far more reasonable in such a situation. TewfikTalk 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it's easily remedied.  All one of you needs to do is go through back issues of the New Republic or the Jerusalem Post, find a comment to this effect by one of their writers, and there you are - OR and personal opinion suddenly becomes reliably sourced Wikipedia fact.--Nickhh 09:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  One final thought from me on this point - regardless of the accuracy of the phrase, do you have any idea how offensive it is to describe the deaths of 50 people as being a "propaganda victory" for those people?  Probably not I guess --Nickhh 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) disagreement on the "propaganda victory" is something i don't mind and we surely can discuss this and work on some references. (2) i explained why the generic wikipedian who works on this article (and the general public) deems the netanya bombing a massacre while the 50 fighters (most of them fighters) who died at the jenin camp are not deemed as massacred. (3) your explanation about your "50 neighbours" fits the netanya bombing, not the situation at the camp that just launched 28 successful suicide bombings and managed to place explosives everywhere including kitchen cupboards and under cushions of couches! - and according to one of the captured they were waiting in anticipation on such a battle their whole lives. to be honest, I found your comparison insulting but apparently you only care for dead militants, comparing them to your neighbors, and not for people who are unsuspectingly targeted while they eat their holiday meals. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Palestinians killed in the camp were not all militants.  Even Israel acknowledges that some innocent civilians were killed, even though they say it was by mistake. Sanguinalis 14:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: read my note again, notice the "most of them fighters". JaakobouChalk Talk 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: please don't compare terrorist militants to your neighbors and act as though people who are unsuspectingly targeted, while they eat their holiday meals, are not massacred just because "only" 30 people wound up dead; and we won't have this problem. i was the one insulted - and suddenly you get insulted in return when i note this insult to you?! JaakobouChalk Talk 16:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  your posts also say "50 fighters" and that I compared my neighbours to militants (twice, now), the implication of the latter being that only "militants" were killed.  That is not the case - civilians were killed too, and if I lived in Jenin they would have indeed been my neighbours.  Hence the comparison.  And where did I "act as though" people were not massacred at Netanya, or use the word "only" alongside the number killed? I simply queried why one event was called a massacre and one was not. We wouldn't have this problem if you didn't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold, or suggest I made statements that I never made  --Nickhh 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you just selectively quoted my text. just try not to compare the martyr's capital populace (militants and human shields in a bomb filled batteground) with people who celebrate passover, as though they are on the same innocence level. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not selectively quote your text.  I quoted part of your text, and acknowledged, by my use of the words "your posts also say ..", that another part of it did say something different, ie that the victims weren't all fighters.  However now you seem to be arguing anyway that the civilians who were killed in Jenin are on a different level of innocence from other victims of violence. I think you need to be very careful about what you are suggesting with that comment --Nickhh 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Human shields"? Sir, the only documented evidence of human shields in Jenin relates to Israeli forces ordering Palestinians to walk in front of them, open potentially booby-trapped doors for them, etc. Jenin was "bomb-filled" in order to make its capture s as difficult and costly as possible for the invader. It was a "battleground" because Israel invaded it. You're talking as if Jenin was some kind of giant bomb factory where civilians flocked to become human shields, and not a densely populated town where some militant groups made bombs. Nicknh is right, this article is still littered with anti-Palestinian bias, and adopts the completely false accusation that the media were grossly unfair to Israel and reported a massacre that didn't exist. In fact, the media simply passed on what fragmentary reports they receieved, for a while, and then ignored the massive human rights violations by Israel in favour of this bogus question of "massacre". Eleland 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  massacre 30-50 

message: On a more constructive note, I'd like to make some changes to the intro.  In particular some of the cited sources and the interpretation of them needs to go. However I'd like to suggest them here first, to avoid the usual revert war
1.  These allegations were aired widely in the Arab world, inciting extreme antipathy toward Israel.[14].  This may be true, however a) the cited reference doesn't provide evidence for either of these points and doesn't mention Jenin at all; and b) I think it's fair to say there's quite a lot of antipathy towards Israel in the Arab world anyway - it's not solely dependent on what did or didn't happen in Jenin. 
2. Due to this activity, critics in the West name the events as the "Big Jenin Lie".[15][16].  All these sources show is that a couple of US opinion pieces had the phrase as a headline.  Having this in the intro slightly overstates the significance of the criticism and the phrase - it's better off just staying in the media reaction section.
3. Many Arabs and Palestinians still use the term "Jenin Massacre" (ar:مجزرة جنين) regardless of the results of the investigations..  Sorry but second part here just strikes me as being a bit unnecessary, and being little more than a "but they're wrong of course" POV insert.  If the phrase is still widely used (are there sources that suggest that?) then it should be noted as a standalone fact, to reflect the fact that some people in the region do use different words to describe what happened.  There's also a slight contradiction as well with the recently-changed first sentence, which says "previously dubbed as .." --Nickhh 16:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -- JaakobouChalk Talk 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. I kind of read all this as meaning you want it to stay as it is, but you will add one source to tighten it up.  Maybe other editors will have a view (as they did when the Jenin Lie issue came up previously, in the section you referred me to).  Oh and as usual you immediately reverted the one change I did make, where I had clarified that Israeli sources also initially referred to 100s of casualties.  Working with the existing text did make it come out a bit clunky, but you were wrong to say in your revert summary that my wording suggests Israel admitted to a massacre - it says, as it did before, that some media began reporting a massacre .. but changed the following section so it said that those reports were based on [a combination of] the Israeli & Palestinians accounts.--Nickhh 17:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That Israeli estimates were originally higher is noted, but your edit changes the meaning to say that Israeli reports claimed there was a massacre. TewfikTalk 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I explained above, my edit didn't say that if read carefully. But equally, as I admitted, it ended up being somewhat confusing.  I'll add it to my list of things that I think need changing and see if anyone else has any views about how it should best be written up.  Currently the intro suggests that the only reason for the high casualty figures (and use of the word massacre) is because the Palestinians tried to hoax the world and slander Israel, and that the western & Arab media fell for it.  As ever the reality is a little more complicated than that - yes the Palestinian spokespeople and witnesses made exaggerated claims about the numbers killed, but I imagine that's as much because, at senior official level, they simply didn't know what was going on in the camp in the first days of the assault.  The IDF, who probably had a better idea, were also talking about 100s of casualties.  The media were therefore faced with both sides at times offering similar estimates (albeit each of them describing the situation in very different terms) - and as they were barred from sending reporters into the camp themselves, that was all they had to go on and report.  In the early stages of events like this, there is always genuine confusion and contradictory or incorrect reporting about the detail of what is happening.  --Nickhh 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Nickhh, the reason i changed your phrasing was because international reports were based on the reports of the palestinians, not on a cross-check between israeli and palestinian reports. if a couple of israeli sources echoed the "palestinian narrative" (citation is needed), the source still remains palestinian and not israeli. the way you originally phrased it, allowed for the misinterpretation that the international media followed israeli reports - which is wholly inaccurate and misleading. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you'[re saying about "a couple of israeli sources" is factually incorrect. Israeli Defence Force spokesmen did, in fact, offer casualty estimates in the hundreds. Shimon Peres was quoted using the word "massacre" (he later said he was misquoted), and a number of IDF officers were quoted anonymously in a major Israeli paper saying "when the world sees what we have done here, our reputation will suffer immense damage". This was in no way "echoing the palestinian narrative". Eleland 22:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everyone: don't forget all the (pro-)Palestinian claims about the supposed secret burials in mass graves or what-not. --HanzoHattori 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed tidy up to intro 

message: The claim that Jenin was called "the martyrs' capital" is supported by "The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center opened in 2001. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich ."
Please acknowledge that NGO's closely, and openly, linked to one side of the combat are not reliable sources on their enemies. This is equivalent to citing a Hamas-linked NGO for information on an Israeli city. If Jenin was, indeed, called "the martyts' capital", and this was, indeed, a reference to suicide bombings, then there ought to be more reliable sources which can back up the claim. In any case, this claim does NOT belong in the very first sentence of the article; that is a clear attempt to push the Israeli line that the refugee camp was somehow the essential keystone of the suicide bombing campaign and therefore a legitimate target. Eleland 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is simply the current reference to a known fact/nickname, there are links with a scans of documents written in arabic and references - try inspecting them please. this is a fairly WP:RS for referencing a known fact that has been noted on several other sources also.. i don't mind more citations being added, however, there's no reason to feel the given source is unreliable in this matter. secondly, while there is no room to expand on this in the intro, i think it certainly merits a mention. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So provide these other sources that make it a known fact. Eleland 00:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unless you have reason to believe this reference is a fraud, the duty of coming up with more references lies with you. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, statements which are not properly attributed to reliable sources may be remvoed at any time. No question of "duty" or "fraud" enters in to it. Read the relevant WP policies. Eleland 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the text is referenced to a WP:RS source. did you inspect the scanned documents? JaakobouChalk Talk 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you do not have a source both RS and verifiable by "any reader" of the encyclopedia. The reference should come out (especially from the lead!) PalestineRemembered 08:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, this issue was fixed allready (see martyrs' capital on talk). JaakobouChalk Talk 16:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More inadequate references 

message: i first became aware of the number of succesful suicide attacks from jenin and the term "martyrs' capital" while watching a pro-palestinian documentry on the israeli channel 8, in this documentry, it was deemed that palestinians in general called the place "martyrs' capital" and not only fatah members. currently we only have a citation from a fatah source and therefore it's written as "called ... by fatah", which is minimizing what we are supposed to report on only to the citation provided. i believe we should perhaps find a second source so we can expand this to "called... by palestinians", which is a more complete/accurate phrasing. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not more accurate of course unless those sources actually exist.  And "martyr" of course is a phrase used to describe anyone killed in the fighting - it may well be that many Palestinians do indeed refer to Jenin as the "Martyrs' Capital", quite possibly not because of the numbers of alleged suicide bombers that came from there before the battle, but because of the numbers killed by the IDF incursion.  Which would put quite a different meaning on it --Nickhh 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the term was not mentioned to allege "suicide bombers" but rather noted right after some text about the militants operating at the camp in recent years, to note the high stature of the city among the palestinian "resistance jihad" movement... take a look at my last version. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is there any objection to reinserting this material under "called... by palestinians" with a note that more refrences should be used along with the fatah one? JaakobouChalk Talk 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: nevermind, i found a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3015814.stm JaakobouChalk Talk 10:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here we go again - you freely admit you want to "find a second source so we can expand .. to a more accurate phrasing".  As ever, you know what you want to say and then trawl for something, anything to back it up.  And has it not also occurred to you that maybe the magic new source that you have found is actually, in effect, the same source as the one you are already subtly misrepresenting?  That is, this BBC journalist is just relying on the disputed IDF-supplied document for his (very brief) comment? That is the way the modern media works you know, with stories and claims going round in circles from one outlet to the next (see the pre-Iraq WMD reporting farce for an obvious example of this).  This reference doesn't offer any genuine independent verification for the claim that "the Palestinians" refer to Jenin this way, let alone what they mean by it --Nickhh 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe Jaakobou's motives are relevant, or at issue. While you may well be correct about BBC getting the information from the same partisan sources, making this call on our own is original research. In the absence of sources which specifically dispute the martyrs' capital claim, a BBC citation is enough. This being said, mentioning the "martyrs' capital" information so prominently early on seems a little POV for me. I'm going to rephrase it slightly. Eleland 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no offense, but your change in this matter made the paragraph broken. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  martyrs' capital 

message: (i) The claims made by Dr. Zangen and the IDF officials are contentious, and should not be presented as undisputed fact, (ii) we should provide information on the actual damage done to the Jenin camp, as well as the subsequently refuted claims of a massacre.  CJCurrie 08:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed on this one, i don't mind the phrasing "said" anymore. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: actually, i changed my mind - this is not a civilian being interviewed, but an actual report by an official medic on the scene. the word reported is far more valid than "said". JaakobouChalk Talk 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part (ii) is the more serious point. It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as a "Palestinian claim" rather than an objective fact. The camp was bombarded heavily by tanks and helicopters, and subsequently some 10% of its area was deliberately razed to the ground by Israeli bulldozers. These are not merely allegations, but widely reported facts. The bulldozing, indeed, was proudly confirmed by official Israeli sources, who were eager to point out that they'd "merely" flattened a tenth of the camp, not the entire camp. Can we address this serious problem? Eleland 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is equivocation bordering on fraud to describe the devastation to Jenin as the result of the IDF "deliberate bulldozing" leaving out that everything was deliberately rigged with explosives, in order to kill as many IDF soldiers as possible. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is time this article was edited to WP policy. The devastation was carried out by the IDF - actually, much of it by an untrained "problematical" volunteer whom they let free on IDF equipment. Kurdi Bear told us exactly how he did it, with reckless disregard for the safety of civilians, and believing he killed people in the rubble. It's also high time the "verifiable" reference was put back so that "all readers" can verify what he said. PalestineRemembered 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PalestineRemembered, statements like - The devastation was carried out by the IDF, would be OR. WP policy is not to base articles on such OR, if you read the actual article, you'll notice there's nothing there about IDF being the sole body responsible. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my revert 

message: For those editors who are unaware of it, propaganda generally frowned upon by Wikipedia, even if it consists of true statements. Both sides in any conflict commit atrocities, even the Palestinians and the Israelis, imagine that. On Wikipedia, however, history is not written by the winners. Pro-Israeli editors; innocent civilians tend to die in battles, and nothing can be gained from whitewashing that fact. Pro-Palestinian editors; it is not necessary to wring every last drop of propaganda value from the deaths of your innocent civilians. unsigned by IP 129.252.87.183
:innocence is easy to claim when you do guerrilla warfare using civilian support to provide human shields, try watching "death in gaza" sometime (it's slightly anti-israeli film because israelis don't explain their perspective, but in general a fair film). JaakobouChalk Talk 06:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, erode your own soul by devaluing your enemy. All people are more or less innocent. You've tied yourself in a knot over this, a pathetic dry patch of land that an old book says God gave to you. Speciate 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel was founded to be "A Light unto the Nations", this from Ha'aretz. PalestineRemembered 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: i remind you both to keep it civil, there's obviously many ways to look at things, but i don't think that i should use the talk page as a blog or an ideological discussion forum. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it civil to vandalise my TalkPage, as you've now done at least three times? PalestineRemembered 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the argument against propaganda completely. You all (meaning both sides) need to stop your warring. Stop tossing conflicting allegations around and conflicting sources. Simply state the allegations held by each side, and stop this wasteful bickering and arguing. --Steve, Sm8900 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propangada

message: This has been bothering me for some time. The "Evil Zionist POV Version" is written in atrociously broken English. So I made a completely content-neutral edit which only shuffled clauses around. Due to an edit conflict, I then self-reverted. O Tendentious Editors, if you must revert, consider reverting to the version that does not make my head hurt just to scan it. Eleland 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Eleland, these type of pharsings, even when encapsulated with parenthesis, are simply unhelpful to the project, putting it mildly. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to put the trademark symbol after it, but it's not in the box at the bottom. It was indeed farcing and not pharsing, let alone phrasing. Eleland 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that would not make it less offensive. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would be funnier. Eleland 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I found this very interesting source, i thing we should add info from this to the article.. maybe i'll find time to do this soon, but i can't do it today.
main article: martyr city
Attachments main: UNRWA terror supporter image
sample attachment: translation and original
Jaakobou 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malam Report (Hebrew)