Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 2

message: "According to independent count by Haaretz, 87 combatants and 42 non-combatants were killed. Palestinian refugee camps were heavily damaged by the Israeli assault. The IDF announched that at least 12 Qassam launchings had been thwarted and many terrorists hit during the operation. Three Israelis also were killed (1 civilian)."
Haaretz gets its info from the IDF. Don't claim that it is independent. Using the IDF mafia terminology for killing people "terrorists were hit" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia although for Ziopedia, it makes sense. --Alberuni 19:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Haaretz clearly stated that the count was made by its own reporters, and was reported side by side with IDF-given numbers (which were a little bit different from Haaretz count). MathKnight 21:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haaretz is NOT independent 

message: "On the Israeli side, the advantages of a strong economy and arms trade relations, in addition to a centralized command authority, have led to opposite tactics. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and IEDs, and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established the policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide bomber. "
"advantages of a strong economy," what a POV pro-Israeli crock. Israel is a US taxpayer-funded welfare state having siphoned $100 billion from the US over the past 30 years.
This is the NPOV version:
"On the Israeli side, the advantages of a highly organized military force armed with U.S.-supplied weaponry is capable of massive destruction against Palestinian civilians, Palestinian Authority infrastructure and the lightly armed Palestinian militants. The Israeli Defense Forces stress the safety of their troops, using such heavily armored equipment as the Merkava tank and various military aircraft including F-16s, drone aircraft and helicopter gunships. Sniper towers are used extensively in the Gaza Strip, and are being increasingly employed in the West Bank. Heavy armored bulldozers, such as the Caterpillar D9, are routinely employed to detonate booby traps and clear houses along the border with Egypt used to fire at Israeli troops, in "buffer zones", and during military operations in the West Bank. Israel has also established a policy of destroying the family home of suicide bombers. " --Alberuni 19:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel is armed and funded by the US taxpayer, September 11 is the day we commemorate that fact 

message: 6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni, you're on a hot streak today. Jayjg 04:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you and your team should read the article for a change. --Alberuni 04:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you were willing to use the Talk: pages for their purpose, rather than as a soapbox and a vehicle for abusing other editors, you would find it easier to achieve compromise. Jayjg 04:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If only that were true. I have tried to assume good faith with you but you just use the Talk pages to engage in your usual duplicitous sophistry to block edits that offend your pro-Israeli perspective. You are rarely reasonable and respectful with me so why should you be treated any differently? By the way, just look up a few paragraphs and you will see I did use the Talk page for its intended purpose but you ignored my efforts to make positive headway. You just revert, revert, revert. --Alberuni 04:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you expect when a constant torrent of abuse and soapboxing issues from your fingertips with practically every Talk: comment. Even comments that might have some valid content are also liberally larded with the same abuse and nonsense; look at the titles of the sections you created. People are simply getting sick of it, and of you, as many Talk: page comments from many editors show. If you want to achieve consensus and influence people, you're using the wrong tactics. Jayjg 04:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Its always my fault, of course, from your perspective. I'm well sick of you too, believe me. There's never been any hope of consensus with you and your POV buddies. Froim Day One you've been trying to harass me out of Wikipedia, as your User page said. "Block them until they move on to some other channel". You were referring to me. I don't appreciate that. --Alberuni 05:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you should at least quote me accurately. My user page says "One of my important roles on Wikipedia is to protect Wikipedia from these POV warriors until they understand what NPOV is, become familiar with Wikipedia norms, and either decide they can actually work within the Wikipedia paradigm, or leave for other channels in which they can evangelize their POV." Since all the things I am fighting for are exactly what Wikipedia demands of its editors, there is nothing objectionable in my stating it. Jayjg 04:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, at the risk of stepping into the middle of a firefight, might I suggest you two step away from this for a day or so? This fight fundamentally isn't worth the energies you two seem to be putting into it. These words will not fundamentally change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As it is, and as a newcomer, the article seems as close to NPOV as it will ever get. So, I'm suggesting you guys just back away, let it go, catch up on reading, whatever. Let tempers calm and energies focus on other things. Or not, and duke out your own private Thermopylae as you will. Five 05:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a neutral 3rd party here is my take: factually, the killing of the 2 Isreali reservists could be described as a "lynching". The use of this term by itself would not necessarily demonstrate a POV-bias in my opinion, as the actions of the Palestinian mob pretty well fit the definition of a lynching. However, the entire paragraph describing the "lynching" almost certainly does exhibit a POV-bias, as it describes in greusome detail the brutality of the killing. Sure, the description may be factually accurate, but it comes accross as gratuitous in the context of the larger article. To then call it a lynching on top of that is simply redundant. Here is my proposed compromise: Either remove the explicit description of the killing and simply say they were lynched by the mob, or keep the description and remove the clause describing it as a lynching. I think that would at least reduce the percieved POV-bias as well as the redundancy. Kaldari 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 reverts in 24 hours, Alberuni 

message: I believe that there is an element of truth to both arguments in this debate. 1) There does seem to be some POV bias in the way the killing of the 2 Israelis is described. 2) The term "lynching", however, is not innaccurate in this instance (although perhaps redundant). In an effort to reach a compromise between the 2 entrenched parties, I offer 2 alternate versions of the sentences in question. The first version uses the term lynching but removes the gratuitous description of the killing. The second version retains the description of the killing (edited down a bit for brevity) and removes the redundant lynching description. Either of these versions should be sufficiently NPOV to resolve this dispute, IMO. It will require a willingness to compromise by both parties however. As to the POV-bias in articles describing the killing of Palestinians, I would suggest bringing those concerns up in those articles rather than here. Since there is no unified editorial voice in Wikipedia, you'll have to challenge them one at a time. Complaining of a systematic policy of bias won't accomplish anything here. Anyway, here are my two compromise proposals. Feel free to comment...
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station and lynched the two soldiers. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, and threw their mutilated bodies into the street. The killings were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
These versions explain the events without either whitewashing the brutality of the killings or being unnecessarily gratuitous or belaboring. Whether the word "lynch" is used specifically seems irrelevent to me.
Here is the current version of the passage for reference:
An agitated Palestinian mob stormed the police station, beat the soldiers to death, threw them out the window, stabbed them, dragged them on the road and mutilated their bodies. The killings, described as a lynching by international press, were captured on video and broadcast on TV, outraging Israeli public opinion.
Kaldari 00:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amnesty International and the BBC (among others) described the killings as "lynchings" Amnesty BBC. Jayjg 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his point is that calling them a lynching and then describing the act is redundant. Judge 'em as a lynching, which is abhorrent in and of itself, or describe the act. That's all I think he's saying, and not that calling the actions a lynching is unwarranted. (Side note: Jayjg, I tried to fixed your links. They weren't turning into links properly. The Amnesty one still doesn't. As a newb, if I've overstepped my bounds, I am sorry). Five 06:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in an attempt to provide a compromise, my version left out the contested word "lynching" altogether, and instead simply described the actions, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was lynching, or a justified and reasonable killing (as Alberuni has posited). Jayjg 15:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise suggestions 

message: Some of the changes need proof. See .
* between Sep 1993 and Sep 2000, "hundreds more Palestinians were killed in political violence" -- proof? 
* At Oslo, "the Palestinian and Israeli authorities committed themselves to curbing violence." -- instead of "the PLO committed itself to curbing the violence" -- AFAIK, Israel committed to the "land for peace" principle. 
* Rabin was "assassinated by an Israeli opposed to the Oslo peace agreement" -- instead of "Israeli extremist" -- I find this one particularly obnoxious: typically those who merely oppose the govt policies, even in public, can walk the streets without fear in Israel. Murderous extremists (of any race/religion) are being incarcerated. 
I am restoring these points. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale changes made by Alberuni on Nov 9 

message: The name "Mahmoud Abbas" is being freely mixed with "Abu Mazer". The inconsistency is erratic and confusing; the article should pick one name and stick with it for all future references. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
:All fixed, I think. The article could use a lot of other work, starting with grammar. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent naming 

message: "The tactics of the two sides in the conflict are largely based upon their resources and goals. Despite the claims of both sides to the contrary, polling consistently shows that a majority of both Palestinians and Israelis agree on the same basic goals: a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, and a right for Palestinian refugees to return to the new Palestinian state."
:And what planet are you living on? No one in Israel would permit the "Right of Return" any more than any Arab regime would compensate Jewish refugees. By the way, does the 1967 "Borders" include reimposition of the roadblock at Latrun? According to Arafat, it did. Scott Adler 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A right to return to the new Palestinian state, not to Israel; I think most Israeli would agree with that. Jayjg (talk) 15:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I reworded this to "a two state solution, established on the 1967 borders, with at least most of the settlements withdrawn, demilitarized Palestinian state, dismantling of all armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas, and a right for Palestinian refugees to resettle in the new Palestinian state, without right of return into Israel." I hope this is more clear. MathKnight 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The National Census showed 160,000 Palis and 250,000 Israeli signed on the following outline: two state solution with demilitarize Palestine and no right of return into Israel. MathKnight 09:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I too doubt that a majority of Israeli and Palestinians support those goals. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic goals 

message: The section detailing timeline completely ignores Palestinian deaths (which was over 4 times as many as Israelis) for the most part. I noticed this after reading MathKnight's latest addition, which completely neglects mention of any Israeli killings and operations during 2005. Please keep this label, as it is appropriate, until it is made neutral by adding Israeli actions. Ramallite (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Section 

message: Jayjg, I disagree with your contention that mentioning the amounts of US foreign aid to Israel has little to do with the Intifada. It's that aid which makes the US an interested party in the ongoing conflict. I can see your point, in so much as removing the total amount of aid to Israel, but when we're talking military aid that hovers around 10.4% of Israel's GDP, and with all aid totalling around 13.4% of Israel's GDP, it's impossible to deny that American aid isn't a major strategic consideration for Israelis. With respect, I'm reverting with the removal of the total aid figure. Five, 21:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get these figures from? Military aid constitutes perhaps 1.5% of Israel's 2004 GDP of $US 129 billion, not 10.4% of Israel's GDP. American aid is certainly a higher percentage of the Palestinian GDP than of Israel's. Moreover, the American aid has no impact at all on its ability to respond to the Intifada. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I make a computational error, calculating the total aid sent over the course of the Intifada by one year's GDP. Math has never been my best subject. You might be technically accurate, in that the money has no direct impact on Israel's ability to respond to the Intifada, but without continued sale of arms to Israel, everthing from Hellfire rockets to M-16s to F-16s, Israel's ability to continue operations in the Occupied Territories would be hampered until Israel found a replacement. 13 billion is a big, big number, and the US's continuing support of Israel is major strategic asset to Israel and should be mentioned given that it's what entangles America in this conflict. Also, while the numbers listed here on the Talk page were way, way off, the ones on the site were dead-on, generated in a spreadsheet and coming from the citation in my edit. Five, 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: 13 billion is a big, bug number when compared, say, to the amount of money I make. It's a tiny number compared to, say, worldwide spending on military arms. Compared to Israel's GDP it's a small amount. The U.S. is the largest arms seller in the world, but there are plenty of competitors in that market. The U.S. military aid comes with strings attached; Israel has to get the military equipment from the United States. If Israel didn't get the money from the U.S., it would simply buy the stuff from all the other eager sellers of equipment, or manufacture them itself. As well, F-16s are important in defending Israel against neighbouring countries, but irrelevant to the Intifada, since they are of no use in it. Finally, it is likely only American influence that has stopped Israel from responding more strongly to the Intifada, and has led to the current Disengagement - that influence cuts both ways. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it this way. In FY99, according to the wiki article about it, the IDF's budget is 8.7 billion dollars. According to the citation I posted a month ago, which is right here > , US military aid was 1.08 billion dollars in the same fiscal year. You can palm off overall US aid as a drop in the bucket, but the military aid is significant. Without those subsidies, an extra billion dollars would be put on Israel's tax base. Also, there's other intangibles, but those aren't worth going into. Either way, when 12.5% of your military expenditures are paid for, relieving significant fiscal pressure from your tax base (roughly 142 dollars per Israeli citizen, in quick-and-dirty numbers), maintainence of that relationship is a major tactical and strategic concern. Five, 23:05, 6 September 2005
Don't mean to pry in on a debate, and I know I can't inject OR into anything or else I'd write up a description of the F-16 bombings we've been through. However, here is an Israeli web site with photographs of Israeli Air Force targeting of Palestinians (mostly PA police stations to break their capabilities). As you can see, a lot of them were done with F-16s. This is just to clarify any misconceptions, doesn't directly have to do with your debate. Ramallite (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Aid to Israel 

message: This is the Template now:
better? Toya 06:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside that only four of the links work (which in itself disqualifies the template), it is something that belongs in Israeli textbooks, not a worldwide encyclopedia, because it is grossly one-sided. For example, if you include the "lynching in Ramallah", you'd need to include Mohammad Al-Durra and Iman Al-Homs, as well as the killing of foreign nationals of the International Solidarity Movement, as these are equally noteworthy (regardless of how legitimate each incident is perceived to be). If you include "Shooting missiles on Sderot", then the opposing POV would be the Israeli missile strikes that destroyed many buildings (e.g. most PA police stations) and people during the first few years of the Intifada. Gilo is on West Bank land that was annexed after '67, so listing it on the "Israeli front" is POV. "Terror attacks" would open up a discussion about Israeli terror tactics, which most Palestinians believe is a daily occurrence since terrorizing doesn't always have to include death. Israeli closures, checkpoints, and the lack of freedom of movement needs to be in the template as well, since these tactics inflamed the situation exponentially. The West Bank wall is a major Intifada event that's not in the template. I could go on and on. Basically, the template just opens up a new can of worms, not to mention, again, that most of the links are broken. Ramallite (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you, the Palestinians, truly claim that Gilo neighborhood is a settlement, but in fact, Gilo neighborhood is an inseparable part from Israel. Toya 17:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is the template better now? Toya 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most links are still broken, and Ramalites other comments are equally valid. The point of a template is to gather informative articles on a given topic, this one gathers mostly non-existing articles. It adds nothing but but a bunch of dead links to articles with POV-spin. --Cybbe 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with the template now. Gilo neighborhood is in fact an inseparable part from Israel. Toya 11:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Why shouldn't we merge Rosh Hashana Arab Assault and October Riots into this article? IMHO, there's nothing in either of them that warrants a separate article. Furthermore, this is the first time I've heard of the "Rosh Hashana Arab Assault" name (original research?), in Israeli press these events are almost always referred to as "the October Events".--Doron 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge articles 

message: In the Hebrew Wikipedia it written "החדשות מהר הבית הביאו לגל הפגנות ומהומות ברחבי יהודה ושומרון עוד באותו יום" which means that the news from the Temple Mount caused in September 29 to demonstrations and riots in the West Bank. Toya 18:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the citation given for that claim on Hebrew Wikipedia? You can't use one Wikipedia as a source for another, you still need an outside source. Jayjg (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I removed all but two pictures, they are all too POV, and people are just going to keep adding them on both sides, so I think it would help the article to just take the ones the demonstrate a particular POV out of the aritlce. If possible then I think we should replace them with pictures that are somhow more NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of pictures 

message: What does it mean, bias is more accurate? They teach how to hate, not how to "bias". The results  of that hatred were all over Israeli streets, busses, discos and restaurants. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. And it is POV to assert that "hatred" is the appropriate term; just as the assertion that "terrorist" is more accurate than "militant". If the curriculi teach that Israel is an occupier, that is not hatred. None of the articles that are included in the list of references use the word hatred in reference to teaching students or curriculum (not even the biased ones). Teaching that "occupation" should be "resisted", for example, is not hatred. It is incorrect and POV to characterize the Palestinian anger at Israel as simply racist "hatred". Lokiloki 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's see what others say. I didn't go through all of the links. Here's one: Palestinians Still Train Their Children to Hate and to Murder - this is from a page you tried to remove. Don't expect you can wrestle you POV by edit wars. BTW, you reverted to a broken link that I already have fixed. This is to remove it as "broken" later? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay... I will look for the various articles/editorials I have read from/about settlers and their similar "hate" teachings; there is already quite a bit of talk about bias teaching in other articles, and, since this is about the 2nd intifada, I am unclear why we are simply providing links here. If we do that, I will provide additional facts to the links section qualifying why such passages appear in the Pal textbooks. Why are these in the 2nd intifada page? Can we agree to only argue about the facts that are relevant to the specific article we are editing... we could rehash every aspect of the Is/Pal/Arab conflict in every article related to it, but surely it is better to apply Occam's and reduce to the core facts? Lokiloki 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell are you talking about? show me where I put these links in the article. I'm making a point on the discussion page because you decided to dispute something and I'm showing you evidence that you may be mistaken.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hatred is a POV word, and bias is more accurate 

message: Can Moshe... explain why he removed all mention of the Israeli rioting , despite it being an enormously significant event that contributed to the violence and was mentioned in the Or inquiry?
 
:In response to the Arab Israeli riots, thousands of Jewish Israelis rioted in Nazareth and Tel Aviv, throwing stones at Arabs, destroying Arab property and chanting "Death to Arabs" The Or Inquiry - Summary of Events. Haaretz, Tuesday, September 12, 2000. Accessed April 8, 2006. . Two Arabs were killed in the violence and Haaretz editorialized that that year's "Yom Kippur will be infamous for the violent, racist outburst by Jews against Arabs within Israel" Anti-Arab riots spark Israeli soulsearching. BBC, Wednesday, 11 October, 2000. Accessed April 8, 2006. .
Deuterium 07:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2000 riots

message: My changes are summarized in the histories. The information I removed is flat out wrong and uncited. There was no "international reaction of shock and outrage"; Only 1 palestinian offical was accused of admitting to a plan. And how can "some Jews" be assigned a direct literal, uncited quote? Please discuss this before reverting further, JayJG. Deuterium 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed a direct citation and direct quotes under the dubious claim that the source was "not reliable". In addition, you've violated 3RR again. Please revert yourself post haste before you are blocked. Jayjg (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: >Israel annually receives 1.2 billion dollars in economic aid and 1.8 billion dollars in military aid from the United States, excluding loan guarantees
This must be a joke, they get that much a month! Weapons alone are 10billion+ USD a year. Honest correction is needed.
Also the article pretends it is I don't know what huge crime against humanity that palestinians are importing small arms via seaships which the zionists pirate often. The palestinians have the natural right to conduct armed struggle against israeli occupation of arab lands and the establishment of their own state via national liberation war. Therefore they import arms, that is natural. Sorrowfully without modern RPG and shoulder SAM they are unable to effectively counter the jewish fighting machinery on land and in the air. I hope one day the world will donate as much arms to the palestinians as the jews get and then see the fight decide on the battlefield. The arabs will fight fiercely they did with Commander Lawrence. Sorrowfully the whole world, even Europe since the Merkel zionism takeover is at the feet of zionists and thrown many weapon stocks at them so they can suppress the palestinians with firebomber. The great assymetry is the cause of suicide bombings, arabs have no weapon left but self-sacrifice. 195.70.32.136 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please, leave aside political propaganda and talk about the article. You don't like figures in the text? you could provide some reference for 12-folds bigger number for the beggining. -- tasc talkdeeds 20:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous dollar numbers 

message: The photo of the Palestinian being stripped looks quite a forgery to me. I'm an Israeli and I've followed the events quite steadily. I believe if it was true I would have heard/seen it. Can anyone confirm this really happened?
-- A.L
: Would NAD-PLO ever engage in a lie? With history of claims of Israel poisoning wells, booby-trapping toys, using depleted Uranium bullets, Jenin massacre, infecting Palestinians with AIDS. I think the image can be safely deleted, as not coming from a WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NAD said all this? Are you sure? Ramallite (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forged Image? 

message: Is there a reason why there are only three images in this article? The Hebrew wikipedia has about a dozen. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Does someone think this Intifada has ended? (no more Palestinian popular uprising can be seen...)--TheFEARgod 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending 

message: Is it not a war crimes to shot 12-year old boy who was defenceless? It is one of the cowardly war crimes a war criminal can do. Killerman2 09:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your condemnations are misplaced. In fact, Hamas/PIJ/etc. target innocent Israeli civilians, including children - in buses, cafes or discos, the more the merrier. The IDF does not target innocent Palestinian civilians. Follow the link Muhammad al-Durrah and read reputable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muhammad al-Durrah]] 

message: From Tactics, Israel -- 
Families have provided timely information to Israeli forces regarding suicide bombing activities in order to prevent the demolition of their houses, although families doing so risk being executed or otherwise punished for collaboration, either by the Palestinian Authority or extra-judicially by Palestinian militants.
This must be cited explicitly. Firstly, this passage implies that it is a regular occurance that Palestinians inform the IDF, and it also implies that Palestinians are routinely executed by the PA for doing this. It's irresponsible to put something like this up without sourceing the information. Another thing is I would like to hear some arguement for why this is even relevant to the topic of Israeli tactics. Bulldozing homes definately is, but what Palestinians do to 'collaborators' has only auxillary significance for Israeli tactics. If proper sources can be found this will have to be incorporated into Palestinian tactics. 
Azymuthca 05:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed