Talk:Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada

Not bad at all. Definitely a better way to tackle the phenomonen than a list of xxxx page. BL 21:00, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Bulldozers, etc. 2 Title 3 Table of casualties 4 Link not working

Bulldozers, etc.

Cut from the article:

Among the most famous cases of the killing of innocents are the cases of the deaths of Ian Hook, Rachel Corrie, and Tom Hurndall. While their deaths made headlines because they weren't Palestinian, Israel's Shin Bet sercurity service determined that of the 2,341 people killed by the IDF, only 551 were bearing arms or explosives (about 23%). Given that in many cases Palestinians and international observers have reported that Palestinians were armed when they weren't (such as the case of Hisham Amer (http://www.palsolidarity.org/reports/writings/15Mar03_JeninJenin.htm) [1] (http://www.palsolidarity.org/reports/writings/1Mar03_JeninLasseSchmidt.htm), who was killed with a hollow point bullet), this number may be notably lower still.

The Rachel Corrie case -- is the article calling this a "crime against humanity"? I thought she purposely stepped in front of a bulldozer that was demolishing a house.

Was it Corrie's death, or the demolishing itself, which is a "crime"? And who made the accusation?

I'm not taking sides -- just asking that the POV be attributed to its advocate. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As for Rachel, her death was caused by an accident. An investagation found that the bulldozer driver didn't see her. MathKnight 22:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

The fact that Israel virtually never punishes their soldiers for the acts they commit in the Intifada is discussed, and an Amnesty International article is referenced. Try to tell me that the driver couldn't see her (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/03/images/bulldozer_corrie.jpg). Is he blind? She's right in front of him - and never moved an inch (http://www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHAHU_190104.pdf). After it crushed her, it then backed (http://lmno4p.org/images/rachel_corrie/rachel_dying.jpg) up (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/images/RachelCorrie/rach3.jpg) and drove off (http://www.usnewslink.com/oldserver/rachaelafter.jpg). The same bulldozer was used to try and break up her memorial service (which they also teargassed). By the way, she was trying to stop this (http://www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHAHU_190104.pdf) from happening (page 4).

The picture was taken 2-5 hours before the accident. So it is not realy relevant. The size of a bulldozers blade is abouu 1.90 meters, clearly higher than Corrie. There is a page in Wiki for Rachel Corrie with proper discussion, and I urge you to read the No Camera - an Olympian resident write about her death [2] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000019.htm), [3] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000045.htm), [4] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000049.htm), [5] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000070.htm), [6] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000163.htm), [7] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000211.htm). MathKnight 07:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that photo was about 1 hour beforehand, not "2-5 hours". The bulldozer that crushed her (serial number 949623) *approached* (and somehow didn't see her in the approach), then started plowing a pile of debris toward her. She then stood on *top* of the debris (which you can see in several pictures is typically about half the height of the blade), and continued waving her hands (her head, on top of the pile, was well above the blade, and her arms were (of course) even higher). Please explain to me how a driver approached a person (she moved into the path about 15 meters in front of the bulldozer before setting) wearing a bright red jacket who was waving her hands, never once saw her, , nor saw the people who tried to run toward her to stop it. How does that happen? Does the IDF hire blind bulldozer drivers now? Rei

ISM eyewitness acount were self-contardictionary. Some claim she stood, some claim she knelt before the bulldozer. I saw the movie from the incident - and it was clearly seen that Rachel wasn't on the top of the pile. I don't from do you derived those "facts" but the ISM and Palestinian media aren't a reliable press. Unless you believe Israel giving radioactive candies to Palestinian killed, or that Shalhevet Pas ( a baby girl that was shot dead in Hebron by Palestinian sniper) was killed by her father - according to the official Palestinian radio. MathKnight 20:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Demonstrate this "self-contradictory" reporting - go on, I directly challenge you. Every single case that I have seen reports that she knelt/sat, for the entire time that it approached (in her bright red jacket), and when it got close to her (i.e., when she would no longer be visible), she stood up and climbed to the top of the pile. The pictures back this behavior out. And what video on earth are you talking about? I could go on for ages about your post: The ISM is not "Palestinian press", but they do issue reports (mostly by the international volunteers, because their main audience is in the western world) (challenge: find one thing that they've reported incorrectly); it's a volunteer organization, and anyone can go become part of it (and I've known people who have; they got some great pictures of shot-up ambulences after a raid, and of IDF soldiers shooting at kids' kites for fun (the kites were designed to look like the Palestinian flag, since -flying their own national flag- is banned in the OT by the IDF as an incitement)). The ISM has never reported anything related to "radioactive candies" (which, given a web search, it appears that Zionists are the only ones pushing that claim: [8] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22radioactive+candy%22&btnG=Google+Search) [9] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22radioactive+candies%22&btnG=Google+Search) , nor have they reported on the baby of convicted weapons smuggler (http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:tP1Ex8XejTIJ:www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/388505.html+%22Shalhevet+Pas%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) Yitzak Pas. Rei

Well, as for The ISM has never reported anything related to "radioactive candies" - I didn't claim ISM used this blood libel but the Palestinian media, as been reported in Wafa - the official PA news agency (http://.www.wafa.pna.net/EngText/21-05-2001/page014.htm): "Israel has started a new genocide against the Palestinian people by poisoning them, using poisoned candy bags dropped down from airplanes." As for Pass, I told you that the report appeared on Palestinian radio. The ISM are not innocent volunteers but a pro-Palestinian group who aids terror and serve Palestinian propoganda. For example, in their offices in Jenin, an Islamic Jihad terrorist was arrested by the IDF. As for "self-contradictory" reporting I send you to the Discuss page of the article on Rachel Corrie. The issue was discussed there. MathKnight 17:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, hello! We were just talking about the reliability of the ISM's reporting - what do you think you were doing by referencing things that they *didn't* report if not trying to smear them? I'll also note that you didn't give a single example of something that they reported incorrectly - in short, you failed my direct challenge to you. The ISM *are* volunteers, and they're peaceniks - the ISM volunteers I've known have come completely from the peace community, and have been avid followers of nonviolent civil disobedience. Go ahead - don't believe it - you're free to not believe reality if you so choose.

The orginal queto was "but the ISM and Palestinian media aren't a reliable press." As for ISM supporting of violence:

"Be sensitive about the `suicide bomber' issue. Don't say: `That's stupid.' They are giving their lives for their land and people, and even if you and I may not agree with the way [they do it], you must be sensitive and respectful."

[10] (http://www.palsolidarity.org/articles/activist_haaretz.htm)

"we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle…"

[11] (http://www.palsolidarity.org/aboutISM.htm)

So they do support Palestinian violence. Also, as I told you, an Islamic Jihad terrorist was arrested in ISM offices in Jenin. They are not as innocent as you claim, and we all know it. MathKnight 12:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why must you rely on attempting to distort everything to try and match your view? (for example, lumping the ISM's reporting in with WAFAs, even though they're not at all related). Quote1: What, peaceniks advising civility in conversation?! Whoda guessed? Quote2: Of course they have a right to legitimate armed struggle. So do the Israelis. Don't pretend that the word legitimate isn't in there. And now, notice, you change from: "The ISM are not innocent volunteers but a pro-Palestinian group who aids terror" to "they do support Palestinian violence". No. They support the right for Palestinians to resist within the boundaries of the Geneva conventions and other international law (and again, I'll mention, that they do *regularly* condemn suicide bombings on their email list). They themselves do not take part or offer support, however, to even that. They're peaceniks. As for your "an Islamic Jhad terrorist" line, did you not read a word that I wrote about that? Including the IDF link where they describe how the suspect was fleeing them, and that their other spots to check for where the suspect may have fled to were the Red Cross and Physicians Without Borders? Are those aid agencies terrorist-lovers also in your worldview? DId you bother to release the ISM's description of the event from before the IDF said who he was? Did you read anything? Rei

Peace movement cannot support or encourage violence. ISM words are worth nothing to me. You can bring as many ISM reports as you wants - they worth nothing as they are anti-Israeli biased propoganda. The ISM illegal practice of sending young people as "human shields" is a war-crime [12] (http://www.blarg.net/~minsq/NCArchive/00000070.htm) and it show what do they care of people lifes. They are full with ignorance and hatred. Stop saying that "Violence is Peace" and that terrorism is justice. Any honerable man will not tolerate opinions which justifies the mass murder of people, even if they are Jews. MathKnight 00:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They don't support violence. They do support the *right* to resist within the boundaries of the Geneva conventions (do you *not* support their right to resist within the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions?), but do not take part in it themselves - they *constantly* advocate nonviolent resistance as the best way to achieve the goal. Anyone who claims otherwise is denying almost everything that they've ever written and almost everything that their members have stated. The ISM does not use people as human shields - they do, however, enter dangerous situations to render aid which is completely legal under international law. Most of their actions involve escorting nonviolent activities - peaceful protests, children moving to and from school (which is what Tom Hurndall was shot while doing), and olive harvesting. You say "You can bring me as many ISM reports as you want - they worth nothing as they are anti-Israeli biased propoganda." We're discussing what the *ISM Believes* - ISM reports are exactly what you need in a discussion of what the ISM believes (if you'd like, I could get an ISM member or two to discuss the issue with you on here directly). "Stop saying that violence is peace" - what on earth are you talking about? They take part in *nonviolent activities*, and only *recognize* the right for resistance *within the boundaries of international law* and they do NOT take part in it. What will it take to get this through your head? Will you *ever* provide any sort of evidence to back up your off-the-wall views? Seing as I know people who've been in the ISM and have talked with them about their time there, I'd say I'm a bit more qualified to discuss this than you. Rei

You've apparently never read a single ISM report if you think they support terrorism - subscribe yourself to their list for two weeks or so, and show me a single time where they support terrorists, terrorism, or anything of the sort (they regularly condemn it - want me to start posting some of their reports?). You then (I assume because you don't know any better) reference the arrest of Shadi Sukia. Are you aware that the IDF themselves reported that he was fleeing IDF searches (which nabbed one of his accomplices), and that their other suspected locations to look for Salah were the Red Cross and Physicians Without Borders (Medica Sans Frontiers) [13] (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n8c0)? Here's what the ISM reported before the IDF released who he was:

"One of the volunteers went into the hallway to see what was happening and met a young man coming up the stairs. He looked terrified, was soaking wet and appeared to be in pain. Concerned about his welfare (under Israeli military curfew, Palestinians spotted in the streets are shot on site) he was brought into the apartment. He spoke only Arabic, which none of the ISM volunteers present understood. He was given a change of clothes, a hot drink and a blanket... Eventually the military knocked on the ISM door and 30 soldiers entered with their machine guns trained. They arrested the young man, claiming he was wanted. The two women were not able to prevent the soldiers from taking the young man, whose name they did not even know, but requested that he be treated humanely."

The IDF, by the way, later withdrew their idiotic gun claim (I can't find the original AP article any more (this is old news), but here's a mirror [14] (http://www.distanceeddesign.com/rachel/ism/israeli_army_retracts_claim.htm).) By the way, I should add, to the best of my knowledge Sukiya has never been charged.

As for your again pushing the "poison candy" statement (which I'll again emphasize that the ISM *never reported*, nor anything like it, so I'll again stress that you should avoid smear tactics and straw men), the link that you gave doesn't exist (including when you get rid of the unnecessary . before the www). Searching for it on wafa's site returns nothing [15] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=site%3Awww.wafa.pna.net+poisoned&btnG=Google+Search) . However, you can find those words all over the net. Where? Zionist sites. I.e., zionists are the only ones pushing that. I should add that Israel is the country that, while having the world's 4th largest nuclear arsenal and even having *pictures* taken of their nuclear weaponry production and engaging in an elaborate sting operation to arrest the scientist who leaked them (Mordechai Vanunu), while having a major scandal with the US when they first developed them, while publicly developing missiles whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear warheads, continues to adimantly insist that they have none. Talk about the mother of all fibs  :P [User:Rei|Rei]

It frightening to know that the old Protocols of the Elders of Zions are still taking hold on people. Another Christian website reports that claim and has (dead) link to Haaretz article [16] (http://www.marysremnant.org/News/2001/052201.html).

And here is another "poisoning" accusation: Israel poisoning West Bank with nuclear and toxic waste (http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/oaw99/pal-toxic.htm).

Another report on Wafa May 21 radioactive allegations (http://www.likud.nl/extr112.html).

You can find more at Google (http://www.google.co.il/search?hl=iw&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=poisoning+palestinians&meta=).

MathKnight 13:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why on earth are you still discussing a WAFA report that virtually noone except for Zionists are pushing in a discussion of the ISM (made even more obvious by your own Likud link)? Care to comment about Israel's patent denial of reality concerning their nukes, including the patently ridiculous seduction, abduction, and arrest of Mordechai Vanunu (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,727367,00.html)? Nah, I didn't think so.  :) P.S. - the article about the West Bank's toxic waste dumps is completely correct (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/154204.stm) - or is the BBC lying? Rei

As BBC spoke true in the Hutton affair.

You making yourself blind on purpose. Is "Muslimedia" is also Zionist conspirecy? There were numerous reports about that Palestinian false accusation or are you going to dimiss every source as "Zionist Age". In case you didn't know, the Protocols of Zions were forgery. And Vanunu... well, I send you to Rumsfeld speech on that issue. Israel never approved or denied officialy if it has nuclear capabilities, so it will make you ponder if you, the Arabs or a new antisemite power will rise upon Israel to destroy it. MathKnight 00:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The British overwhelmingly view the Hutton report as "whitewash" [17] (http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1134265,00.html) [18] (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S00007.htm) [19] (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/01/31/2003096914) [20] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/29/hutton.press/) [21] (http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=448608), so that's hardly a good case  :) What news outlets do you like? You seem to not be fond of Haaretz or the BBC, so name your sources. What, do you like Fox "Iraq-Is-Jam-Packed-Full-Of-WMDs" News?

And what on earth are you talking about with "Is Muslimedia is also a Zionist conspirecy?" First off, I never once discussed any sort of conspiracy - I discussed who is pushing the claims out there - it's not pro-Palestinian sources, it's almost exclusively zionists. Unless you can't do basic mathematics, I assume that you can count: go to Google and search [22] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22poisoned+candy%22+israel&btnG=Google+Search), It is completely *overwhelmingly* from Zionist sites. There's no conspiracy - look! Read! They're the ones who are pushing this claim, not pro-Palestinian sites. Don't give me that nonsense about Israel not having nukes. [23] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/) [24] (http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/so02nukenote.pdf) [25] (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm) [26] (http://slate.msn.com/id/2093091/) [27] (http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/isnukes.html) [28] (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iznukesgraphic12oct12,1,4947803.story) (how many do you want? There are 1.7 million hits, and a good portion of them are from rather authoritative sources - here, here's one from Baradei [29] (http://www.serve.com/vanunu/12dec03aljazeera.html)), or about not denying that they have them [30] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2841377.stm) (no radioactive materials at the Dimona nuclear bomb factory where Vanunu worked) [31] (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm) (no nuclear testing). Heck, did you for get Peres himself stated that Israel "built a nuclear option not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo" [32] (http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/israelnc.htm). Did you forget the very reason why the US was so afraid of Israel being attacked with CBW? (answer: because they'd retailiate with nuclear [33] (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/US/israel030305.html) [34] (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/ds-threats.htm)). What on earth are all of Israel's nuclear missiles for - are they supposedly loaded up with conventional warheads, making for the most expensive and ineffective conventional payload delivery system on the planet? What on earth was Pollard stealing from the US (and imprisoned for) if not nuclear targetting data? Can you honestly pretend that they don't have nuclear weapons without smirking? Rei

P.S. - Since you're such a radical zionist, it might interest you to note that I am NOT an Arab; I'm a white middle class Iowan. If you consider me an antisemite, you might have to question why my bridesmaid and two of my best friends in college were Jewish, and why I'm listening to Israeli pop music as I post right now. I'm anti-occupation, anti-Likud, anti-suicide bombing, pro-humanitarian, pro-Geneva conventions, anti-settlement, and pro-two-state-solution; you'll find that that's also the ideology of virtually every member of the ISM. Rei

Both the death and the demolition are crimes (i'll make it clearer in the text); the mass demolition is collective punishment, and the intentional extrajudicial killing of a civilian is as well. -- Rei

House demolition for military purposes are legal under the Geneva Convention. A specialy when the house is use as terrorist stronghold. If a house is hosting snipers or explosives, the Geneva permits the military to demolish it. Intentional extrajudicial killing of a civilian is as well is indeed a war crime, but intentional extrajudicial killing of a terrorists during war (when he isn't a captive of yours) is not. Activists of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Brigades aren't civilians but combatants. MathKnight 07:32, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You've apparently never read the Geneva Conventions (not surprising at all). The word "terrorist" isn't used a single time in the entire document. I'll quote some passages below, however, about what the convention *does* say. Besides, are you trying to claim that all of these houses (http://www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHAHU_190104.pdf)] were "terrorist strongholds" (satellite pictures on page 4)? That's complete and utter nonsense.

The orginal term is "military" purpose and "combatant". When a house is used for offensive purpose (shooting on people, making bombs) it looses its civilian protection from the Geneva convebtion. MathKnight 20:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll ask you once again to explain why you feel that a swath of houses - so large that satellite pictures are needed to show the scale of devastation - a good portion of an entire city - was "military" purpose and "combatant". It's not like I haven't supplied pictures - check the OCHA document. Rei

(refering to Jenin refugee camp) Because they were rigged with explosives. In other words, they were full with dangerous booby-traps.

1) The picture is not from Jenin. 2) The area destroyed is a sizable portion of a city, and displaced thousands of people. Did thousands of people, a measurable portion of an entire city, over a process of several months, steadily booby trap every house on the south side of the city as a goal to make themselves homeless? Even Israel wasn't claiming something so stupid.

"Did thousands of people", no. Hundreds of terrorists did that. Five armed terrorist can booby-trap tens of houses. The terrorist themselves are not living in the houses they use for terrorism, that's why they doesn't care if they would be destroyed because of the terrorist activity. More over, civilian redisdents of Rafah attacked PA officials as a protest against their lack of actions against the smuggling tunnels. In one case they set on fire a house which hosted a smuggling tunnel. Even they understand that the blame of the distruction lies on Hamas, Jihad and the terrorist networks who use them as "Human Shield". MathKnight 15:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You'd lose in a sanity poll. Stop and consider what you're saying. Several thousands of people let their all of their several hundred houses get booby trapped in their goal to end up with themselves and their children homeless and all of their posessions destroyed, all on one side of a particular city that Israel wanted to make a barrier in (and only there, not in the rest of the city). The IDF doesn't even try and claim that they're booby trapped or that the people inside were terrorists, not a single house blows up, etc, all over a period of months, and this fact completely slips under the radar of every UN organization operating in the area and the Israeli government itself? By the way, this is not to mention what the local Palestinians report, but I know you think that their entire race and everyone who supports them are just a bunch of liars, so I figured I'd skip it (it's hard to call satellite photos liars, though, isn't it?). I'll sum up: *Several Thousand People Ended Up Homeless Because Of This - Were They All Terrorists Or Hosting Terrorists*??? If so, you might as just well make the ultimate in racist claims - that every Palestinian - father and son, mother and child - is a terrorist. Or is your claim, again, that Israel was in the right to mow down an entire swath of a city to make a buffer and look for tunnels, leaving several thousand people (mostly families) homeless (an act condemned by every major human rights organization on the planet - Amnesty, HRW, Medica Sans Frontiers, you name it)? Rei

Title

The title is very POV and in fact, misleading. Most of the acts claimed to be commited in this article do not consist "crimes against humanity". Some of them may consist war crimes, other are a legitimite (and legal) acts of war (such as checkpoints, demolishing house with a terrorist inside shooting on peole etc). I suggest the title should be changed to War Crimes comitted by Israel during the Al-Aqsa Intifada instead of the current one, which is not only not NPOV or close to it, it is even mosleading. MathKnight 22:12, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Title changed. Note that this article is a counter for the many pro-Israel POV articles out there - that's it's purpose. If people don't like it's presence, I've got a laundry list of other articles out there for you to delete. -- [[User:Rei|Rei]

I clicked on crimes against humanity and got to this page. Why not change the links as well? This is very misleading. War crimes are bad enough, we should not want to change this into a different level. By the way, I read that Amnesty International defines the suicide killings as crimes against humanity. It is so sad all these things happen. Gidonb 10:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This title is TERRIBLE! How can it possibly be NPOV? We aren't allowed to use the word "terrorist" to discuss the September 11 attacks, but "war crime" is bandied about here nonchalantly? RickK 03:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who told you that you weren't allowed to use the word terrorist to discuss the September 11th attacks? That's nonsense; everyone calls it a terrorist attack, and rightly so. Additionally, I should add (again, if you didn't already notice) that this is a response to all of the pro-Israel pages. If you'd rather, I could merge all of the disparate pro-Israel pages and this one into one, but I think it would turn into a gigantic fight (don't you?). Its probably best if each side gets their own. By the way, I've referenced virtually every single thing on this page (unlike many of the pro-Israel pages, who are lucky if they even provide a "The IDF said..." link). Also, if you'd rather, I could take the Israeli-side's method, and make instead of this one big page, a hundred little pages all over the place. But the (well referenced) information needs to be out there. Rei

I moved the page to alleged Israeli war crimes, rather than accusations of Israeli war crimes. To the best of my judgement the new name is more neutral than the former one. This is not an endorsement of the content. I encourage the author to do more research. Better, open this page or merge it with war crimes or alleged war crimes from all sides. War crimes are a much too serious business to make them into a propaganda page on base of which monkey business is suggested ("If people don't like it's presence, I've got a laundry list of other articles out there for you to delete"). It this page a hostage? Gidonb 21:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this page a hostage? Hardly. However, I would expect that you would treat all pages equally. Should we rename the "terrorism against israelis" and "massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada" to "alleged terrorism against Israelis" and "alleged massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada" (for just two examples of many)? If your answer is "no", then you should take into account the fact that there are far more references on this page than there are on any of those types of pages.

Can anyone justify why this page should have "alleged" but those pages should not, given that the things here are referenced? "Accusations" of war crimes works fine by me, however, since that's what it is - accusations (by respectable groups such Amnesty, HRW, various UN groups, etc, but accusations nonetheless). I think, if anyone wants to rename this page, they should have an answer to this before anyone moves this page. Is this not reasonable?

As to your suggestion about merging it into an alleged war crimes from all sides page, are you *sure* you want to do that? Because that would involve merging probably about 10 or so of the pro-Israel articles into this one. You'd have a a huge and very hostile edit war break out here. Do you really want that? My suggestion would be that it's best to have the general articles (such as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, articles on Palestine and Israel, etc, which people try to keep neutral and balanced; and then the specific-topics pages (which tend to slant toward one side or the other) in which it is accepted that they're going to slant toward one side, but that they have to reference articles or information the other side's POV (feel free to add more of the pro-Israel articles in the links section on the bottom!) and that they have to support their assertions with solid references. What do other people think? I mean, the other option for balance is merger, and honestly I find that a bit frightening of a prospect. Rei.

The neutrality of all pages that talk about the Al-Aqsa Intifada should be treated the same. As Rei said, if this page is 'alleged', they should all be 'alleged'. But I don't think that 'alleged' or 'accusations' are the right words that should be chosen. Israel commited (and is commiting) war crimes during Al-Aqsa, you can't say it's an accusation, or that it's alleged, because it's more than that - it's obvious. However, it doesn't mean that the page should be anti-Israeli, and it definitly doesn't mean it should contain partly-correct to incorrect info, and info about stuff that have nothing to do with the basic title of the page (war crimes by Israel during Al-Aqsa) like 'unnice things' that Israel did during Al-Aqsa.

My suggestion is that the page should be more like War Crimes by Israel during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. And other pages that have to do with Al-Aqsa should be more or less the same (e.g. War Crimes by Terrorist Organizations during the Al-Aqsa Intifada).

The content should be neutral on all sides. Saying that the title of this page should be anti-Israel to balance against pages that are pro-Israel is wrong. Why not make those pro-Israeli pages more neutral instead? It's better to all sides.

Most of it should talk about actual war crimes, and a small part of it about accusations that can't be agreed on their validity. Same should be about the other Al-Aqsa pages that deal with these things. SaintNuclear 16:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Table of casualties

Please note that the table include also:

• Palestinian combatant casualties.
• Palestinian killed by their own side actions.
• Suicide bombers who exploded themselves.

MathKnight 13:12, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the paragraph above the table cites the Shin Bet's study on what percent were combattants, including a Haaretz reference. Seriously, I think people here are good enough to do basic math. I could also point out that this is only deaths that occured in the OT, since (as the reference states) the data is from the PRCS (who get their data from their field posts in the West Bank and Gaza); this would rule out the vast majority of attacks against Israeli civilians (the only people who died in attacking Israeli civilians who would appear in this table would be the ones who attacked any of the (illegal) Israeli colonies in the West Bank). But, in my opinion, the table and the Shin Bet's combattant percentage number should be enough for anyone who has graduated elementary school. Rei

The Shin-Bet never approved the numbers Amira Hass (Haaretz colluminst) claim. Counterwise, study by the ICT center shows that at least 1200 of the casualties were combatants killed by IDF actions (that is not including suicide bombing). If you write an article , at least write correct facts whether than queoting blindly the Palestinian media. The article is very one sided, and everyone could see it is a low-quality Palestinian propoganda, doesn't even trying to reflect any truth. MathKnight 00:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quoting blindly from the Palestinian media? Please tell me you're not dumb enough to realize that Haaretz is ISRAELI media (it's Hebrew for "land"). I'm sure you don't like Amira Hass or other investigative reporters. She alone has exposed enough IDF lies and abuses to make Nixon blush [35] (http://www.gush-shalom.org/terror/destroy.html) [36] (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/392934.html) [37] (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/deterrents_that_havent_deterred.htm) they call this paradise.htm (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/And) Section/Closure/no_materials_to_build_in_gaza.htm (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Special) [38] (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/Feature/expulsion.htm). [39] (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=2266) (etc). But go on - back up your claim that they're not the Shin Bet's numbers. And I ask you: Who is more accurate, the non-governmental ICT (a think tank) or the Shin Bet? Both have reason to be biased in favor of Israel, and both are relying exclusively on IDF reports from soldiers who have incredible incentive to cover themselves, and yet, these are the best numbers that the Shin Bet gets. It's sad. It's pathetic, really. Even their numbers give 23% as combattants

Let me see if I can get your logic right. If it opposes Likud-style policy, it's "one sided", "Palestinian propaganda", and "doesn't reflect any truth". Right?

P.S. - Note how I never refer to "Jewish propaganda" or even "Israeli propaganda", and take my issues with the individuals (such as Likud leaders) or groups (such as radical Zionists and Israeli colonists) which I disagree with instead of stereotyping an entire people? You might well to take such a lesson to heart yourself. Rei.

The claim that the Palestinians were forced out is a myth Myths and facts about the refugees (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#a)

The bit about the Geneva Conventions also isn't relevant, the land under the so-called occupation belongs to Israel thanks to peace treaties signed with Jordan and Egypt. --Kadett 23:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed the ethnic cleansing section as that had nothing to do with the article, which is claims of war crimes during the current intifida.--Kadett 17:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link not working

Hi!

I don't know if this is the right place, but the link to http://www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt/docs/UN/OCHA/OCHAHU_190104.pdf doesn't seem to be working, it just redirects to the UN/OCHA homepage and I wasn't able to find the document there. What exactly is it's title? de:Benutzer:SoniC