Talk:International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Country-by-Country Approach to Map

Hello, all. Avala deserves a huge pat on the back for creating the map representing country's positions. However, he and I have a few disagreements, and we have become more or less deadlocked. Our main disagreement is in whether a condemnation must be explicit, or if it can be surmised from comments such "we deeply regret..." I therefore ask for other editor's opinions on changing the color of the following states: Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the justification for putting the emphasis on condemnation, and not on support? Most governments will make a big show of condemning "Terrorism" and "Aggression" -- so why are these facile condemnations WP:NOTABLE? I'd like to know what countries are willing to do something to improve the situation: what countries support international law, what countries are willing to help the victims, what countries are proposing international peace-keepers, what countries are assisting or blocking ceasefire efforts at the U.N., etc..

I believe that the map, however well-intentioned and well-argued, imposes a POV on the conflict, that POV being that people don't matter -- that the weasel words of a diplomat matter more than the reality on the ground. We depict what happened in the Gaza Strip as a "conflict" between two abstractions, "Israel" and "Hamas". That depiction obscures the human reality -- the occupation, the slaughter -- and thus helps to perpetuate the suffering. We are giving WP:UNDUE attention to politicians and their meaningless lip-service, and too little emphasis to the human beings who are being sacrificed by these politicians. NonZionist (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I see your point, but I vehemently disagree with you. This article deals with international reactions to the conflict. So the position of countries is very notable. You'll notice there's also a map of countries that donated money to help Gaza, though I think it could suffer to be better.

Regarding condemnation, it's very easy to tell if a country condemns another, because it says "[Name of country] condemns Side A's operations." The countries that are in blue didn't say "we condemn terrorism." Rather, they explicitly said "we condemn Hamas' firing of rockets into Israel."

The other possibility is that they expressed support for Israel. This is a little harder to gauge (though it is often coupled with a condemnation of Hamas). But if a country expresses endorsement of Israel's position without a balancing statement for Hamas, it is certainly blue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus established

Austria

Blue - Austria's position was not represented in full in the article. I added the following: "The unilateral announcement of the end to the ceasefire by Hamas was clearly a step in the wrong direction. We demand an immediate stop to the rocket attacks against Israel from within the Gaza Strip. The right of the Israeli people to a life in peace and security without permanent threat from rocket attacks must be guaranteed. […] Israel's legitimate right to self-defence is undisputable. It is clear, however, that even during military operations, international law must be complied with.The large number of civilian victims in recent days is unacceptable." In light of this, I think Austria should probably be blue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Thanks again for double checking through incomplete quotes.--Avala (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blue Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

I don't know what color this state should be; in the table, it is split into the two republics that make it up. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is clearly green. The Republic of Srpska is clearly blue. Does anyone know if they have any say in foreign policy? I haven't found any significant statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Has anyone else had any luck with that? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, were it not for this article I could have gone for years without even knowing that Republika Srpska exists. The MFA of Bosnia-Herzegovina has this and this, both of which are green. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Politics of Republika Srpska, the republic does not have a Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which makes sense because they're not supposed to be a sovereign nation. So if BH and RS are not technically seperable on the map, they/it should be green, I think. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Its mixed therefore it should be green Ijanderson (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chile

Green - I have seen no condemnations from Chile of either side. Even if condemnations can be surmised, Chile clearly pursues an even-handed approach: "Our biggest call is to stop all actions from both sides," she said, noting Chile will spare no efforts to facilitate a "reasonable solution." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If we had more shades of orange it would be the lighter one but when they only say how they deeply regret the Israeli action.--Avala (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read some more statements from Chile, and for now I'm inclined to agree with you. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned to supporting Green on Chile, because of their statement on the floor of the UNGA. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Green - True, Denmark summoned Israel's ambassador. But this was for a single incident, and there has been no condemnation (that I can find) of either side by Denmark. This country has been calling for both sides to cease from violence. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

According to timeline the incident with the ambassador came the latest. It shows the change in position. I would wait with this one until we get the latest statement which would hopefully clarify things.--Avala (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I communicated poorly. I'm not disputing that Denmark's summoning of the Israeli ambassador was its most recent action, but rather that this action does not constitute a condemnation. Denmark summoned the Israeli ambassador to lodge a complain about a particular incident, not to criticize the entire war. There have been no public criticisms (that I can find) by Denmark of the Israeli operations. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue - There was a link in the Denmark section that required the reader to pay and sign up for an online newspaper. The link was also in Danish. So I've replaced it with an English-language, free link.

Even before I did so, the second paragraph in the Denmark section seemed sufficient to turn it blue. But now, I think it is irrefutable that Denmark is blue, given the following: On January 13, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that the criticism of the Israeli operations on the Gaza strip was "one-sided". He said, "it was Hamas that broke the truce, and Hamas started the conflict by firing rockets on Israel. No country can just passively accept being fired on."

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but with summoning the ambassador thus in diplomatic language condemning Israel I think these two statements together (initial condemnation of Hamas and then diplomatic condemnation of Israel) make it green. What do you think?--Avala (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree with you that summoning the Israeli ambassador was an act of diplomatic condemnation. The summoning of an ambassador is not an act of condemnation, but protest. If it were truly an act of condemnation, why can we not find a single Danish publication/speech/press release that condemns Israel?

You'll recall our discussion about Mauritania, which coupled a condemnation of Israel with the withdrawal of its ambassador. In that case, I conceded to you that Mauritania should be orange. But there was no such condemnation from Denmark. Why? Simply because Denmark stands by Israel. The Danish position on the conflict has been overall support for Israel. The summoning of the ambassador represented a disagreement between friends, but not a condemnation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The summoning over a specific incident is obviously irrelevant for our purposes. The problem is that the Prime Minister seems to disagree with the Foreign Minister on what the country's stance is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. I see your point. However, the PM is clearly more pro-Israeli than the FM is anti-Israeli. I would say the PM is dark blue, and the FM is green (because he doesn't condemn or endorse anyone). So who gets to paint Denmark?

On a demi-related subject, Greenland is shown as gray on the map. Given that it's part of Denmark, it should probably be green (at least for the time being). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I doubt that Greenland gets colored as a part of Denmark in maps of this kind. It would give Denmark more visibility than it deserves, and besides, other European countries (e.g. France) have overseas territories, and the whole thing could become a mess. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and other territories fit the color of their possessor, so I don't see why Greenland shouldn't be green. I'll note that non-self-governing territories don't fit that mold, but Greenland isn't one of those.

What are your thoughts on Denmark's color? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I painted Greenland grey because of their home rule and from what I've seen around here in such issues it's usually not painted the same way as Denmark. On the other hand three countries Micronesia, Marchall Islands and Paulu have the foreign policy tied to the US so maybe they should be painted the same way as the US.--Avala (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Denmark's color: I think we all agree that the Prime Minister is blue and the Foreign Minister is green; the question is who takes precedence in a case like this. I really don't know. Somebody should check it out, and by "somebody" I mean not me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re U.S.-affiliated islands. They should absolutely not be automatically the same as U.S. They are officially sovereign states, that for various reasons tend to align their foreign policy with that of the U.S. Greenland is fundamentally different, as it is officially a part of Denmark. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Danish FM has come out with another statement. My somewhat holistic interpretation is that he criticizes Hamas considerably more harshly than Israel. If others agree with my reading, perhaps we should use this as a "tiebreaker" between the FM and the PM. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The head of state of US possessions is the Secretary of State. The head of state of Greenland is the Danish regent. So, although Greenland is sort of independent, its foreign policy is dominated by Denmark.

Absent a condemnation, the FM remains green. I think the tie should go the PM here, not because he is the FM's superior, but for a more complicated reason:

There are two kinds of green states: those that criticize both sides, and those that criticize neither. I'm sure that I could find a hundred statements in which country X doesn't criticize either side. But if I can find only one in which it criticizes side Y, it ceases to be neutral (unless there is a statement where it condemns the other side). If I find one case in which country X condemns both, and another when it condemns only one, the country would probably have to be green. But that isn't what we have here; the FM is not green because he condemns both sides, but because he condemns neither. The PM is the only partisan statement at hand (and is blue). Therefore, he turns all of Denmark blue. Am I making any sense? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making sense, and I was thinking something similar after writing my last comment. So do we have consensus that Denmark is blue? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I finally learned how to edit this map, with the kind help of ljanderson. I've updated it, and turned Denmark blue, as I'm reasonably sure that there is consensus for this. If I am wrong, feel free to revert, and we'll continue discussion. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Estonia

Blue - I'm adding this one a little late. But I think it should be blue, given that we quoted the following: "Estonia condemns Hamas's decision not to extend the cease-fire agreement and to continue using terrorist methods to achieve its goals," whereas there is no balancing condemnation of Israeli actions. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's never too late to update the article. Thanks for this one.--Avala (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blue Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Green based on a remark in this speech from 30 December 2008. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you so much, Jalapenos. I've been trying forever to find an Ethiopian source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do what I can, I do what I can.  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

France

France has condemned the Israeli land offensive[1][2] which has become the most significant part of the conflict now. VR _talk 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From the French MFA Soure 1:

"The objective is to reiterate, as this resolution does, the necessary condemnation of all violence."

"As for the rocket fire, we condemned that too."

Source 2:

"That’s the French position exactly. The two positions clearly state that we condemn the Israeli operation, and notably the ground operation, and that we have condemned the continued rocket fire. There is no difference between these positions." (emphasis added)

Source 3:

"As for your second question, let me remind you that France condemned the Israeli ground offensive against Gaza, just as it condemned the continued rocket fire on Israeli territory."

I think it should remain green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange - [http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BF93D3F62-8E5E-4862-BD73-5C02E8C7477B%7D)&language=EN France Explicit, Openly Condemns Israel, JAN 16]: France issued an explicit condemnation of Israel and called "inhumane, useless and bloody tragedy" Tel Aviv's military offensive and called it to "take risks for peace". --Avala (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As the above statements show, it condemns Hamas just as explicitly. "There is no difference between our positions." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Green, per statements introduced by Saepe. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

Blue - Hungary's statement includes the following: "Hungary supports Israel’s right for self-defence within the framework of international law." There is no reciprocal statement for Hamas, nor is there a condemnation of either side. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Avala (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blue Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Iceland

Green - I couldn't find an English translation for the source that was cited previously, so I've added a source directly from the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It includes the following statement: "Iceland has also condemned the firing of rockets from Gaza to terrorize Israeli civilians. Hamas bears a heavy responsibility for drawing civilians into the conflict zone." True, Iceland criticizes Israel a lot, too. But it does criticize both sides. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure considering they double condemned and they did it in concluding sentence "However, Israel’s actions in Gaza, the past two weeks, are both disproportionate and clearly contrary to international humanitarian law". I'd say that this sentence is their position because it looks like summing up.--Avala (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that they've condemned Israel, but they've also condemned Hamas--both of them explicitely. I don't think it gets any greener than that. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Green: condemnation should be main standard, since it's not susceptible to different interpretations, and Iceland condemned both sides. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Italy

Blue - The following statement from the Italian MFA was previously overlooked in the article: "The Italian government, with the broad consensus of its parliament, recently reasserted Israel’s right to defend itself but, at the same time, launched an appeal to its Israeli friends that they do everything possible to ensure the protection of civilians and the dispatch of humanitarian aid. Once again the gravity and irresponsibility of Hamas’ violation of the truce is clear." I have added it, and in light of it, I think Italy should be blue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Avala (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blue Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Blue - This state has expressed much regret, etc. about the situation in Gaza, but has not explicitly condemned Israel. It has, on the other hand, said that it "rejects" Hamas rocket fire. In the very least, there is ground in this to paint Mexico green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind to Green, given this article: "Mexico condemns the excessive use of force associated with the Israeli army operation in Gaza. Likewise it condemns the continued launching of mortars into Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip." Can anyone find a WP:RS that can be quoted to this effect in the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If that source is reliable then yes, it should be green because it says that they >condemn< both sides.--Avala (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked a few other news articles and painted Mexico green.--Avala (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Green - I have seen no Norwegian condemnation of either side, but only calls for peace. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

It seems that on timeline, the dramatic escalation changed their position to condemnation of Israel.--Avala (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're right. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

It looks like Norway's position may have changed soon after I wrote the above message. The Norwegian MFA released this statement: "Norway has condemned and continues to condemn Hamas’ firing of rockets from Gaza at civilian targets in Israel." I've added it to the article, and I think this should change Norway to green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On timeline did this come before or after the escalation of the conflict? We need to figure out if this statement was overwritten by the later one.--Avala (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The above statement was issued on January 12, so it postdates the escalation, but predates the ceasefire. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Green based on statement introduced by Saepe. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this piece of information can settle your disputes? This was broadcasted on the web-edition of the Norwegian State Television (NRK) on the 28th of December 2008. Check the following link for verification: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/utenriks/1.6377938

– Israels maktbruk i Gaza er overdreven. Den må fordømmes, akkurat som islamistbevegelsen Hamas’ rakettangrep mot Israel må fordømmes, mener statssekretær Raymond Johansen (AP) i Utenriksdepartementet.

English translation:

– Israels use of force in Gaza is out of proportions. It must be condemned, just as the Islamist movement Hamas´s rocket attacks on Israel must be condemned, expresses [Norway's] deputy foreign minister, Raymond Johansen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.162.226 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Blue - "We condemn rocket attacks against Israel by Hamas. We also find no justification for the scale of military operation taken in response by the Israeli side. We call for immediate cessation of military actions by both sides, resumption of peace negations with a view to establishing a permanent truce." "Condemn" vs. "find no justification." I think it is clear towards whom the stronger language is directed. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue: condemnation should be main standard. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blue Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia

Slovakia should be blue, based on this satement. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Which statement, it just leads to a page on their MOFA website Ijanderson (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009

(UTC)

Oops, sorry. I can't seem to get a url that will lead to that statement. You can get it by searching "gaza" on their site, and here's the entire text.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic conveys it’s profound concern about the further escalation of violence in the Palestinian territories following the non-fulfilment of the Mekka agreements and strongly condemns particularly the attacks of the illegal Hamas militia in the Gaza Strip.
The Ministry calls upon all Palestinian political forces to take effective action in order to solve the crises. In it’s statement on May 17, 2007 the Ministry already pointed out the necessity of a setback of the extreme fraction’s activities in the interest of stabilizing the situation in Palestine.
We are expressing a full support of the endeavor of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to settle the situation what in the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the condition for a future cooperation with the EU countries, as well as for a successful shift search from the conflict on the Middle East.
Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes according to the current key for blue, Slovakia fits in to that category. However I am opposed to grouping together countries which endorse/ support the Israeli position with countries which condemn Hamas for this reason Ijanderson (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement dates back to the Hamas-Fatah fighting of 2007. It doesn't pertain to this conflict. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right, good catch. The two Slovakian statements on this conflict are also on the website. They do refer to Hamas as "Palestinian Extremists", but should probably be green though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Spain

Green - The previous statement from Spain was incomplete and (as I recall) a foreign-language source. The statement from the Spanish FM in the article now goes like this: [The Spanish FM] "expressed his firm condemnation of the irresponsible provocation on the part of Hamas in launching rocket attacks, as well as the Israeli Armed Forces’ disproportionate retaliation." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Green: condemns both sides. BTW, although I'm agreeing with Saepe Fidelis on almost everything, I'm a completely different person. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Green Ijanderson (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

Blue - I'm adding this country to the list a little late. I've noticed that the Ukrainian MFA is quoted as saying the following: "While condemning the firing of rockets into Israeli territory from the Gaza Strip, we express doubts about the proportionality of Israel's use of military force." (emphasis added) Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the news articles I read accented the part about doubts about Israeli action. It could be an attempted spin by Russian media though to make Ukrainian position look anti-Israeli. I am not sure about this one. Another quote I found in the Ukrainian media from the MFA spokesman from Dec 29 says "Ukraine expresses its deep concern over the escalation of the situation in Gaza, and joins the call of the international community to Israel and the Gaza leadership to immediately cease hostilities and violence."[3].--Avala (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that there has been an explicit Ukrainian condemnation of Hamas, but only expressions of concern regarding Israel. If we follow your argument that we must measure a country's statements against themselves, then Ukraine is somewhere between light blue and dark blue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Searching news in Ukraine I find titles based on MFA statement like "Ukraine is not convinced that Israel is bombing Gaza rightly" (Украина не уверена, что Израиль бомбит Сектор Газа справедливо) or "Ukraine calls on Israel and the Gaza Strip to immediately halt violence" (Украина призывает Израиль и Сектор Газа немедленно прекратить насилие). If the newspapers emphasized it like this I am reluctant to twist it in any side. I am still trying to find the original statement on their MFA website but for some reason English version of the website is not showing up.--Avala (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this one and when translated through online translator it sounds rather neutral.[4]--Avala (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right that that particular statement is neutral. But their overall position is more anti-Hamas than anti-Israeli. The media filter indicates otherwise, but there own words tell us their real position. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is more anti-Hamas, but by no means are they defending Israeli actions.VR _talk 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

They're not defending Israeli actions, but they're not condemning them, either. That's why they qualify as one of the "States that have endorsed the Israeli position or condemned only Hamas." That's the criterion for being blue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue: same situation as UK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I am afraid it would be against OR policies to portray them differently from the mainstream media.--Avala (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's OR here. Ukraine condemns Hamas and merely criticizes/doubts/has concerns about Israel. The media sources you quote focus on Ukraine's position on Israel, because that aspect is more interesting to them. Even the U.S. had concerns and criticisms of Israel, but the U.S. was not neutral: their position towards each side was different, and the same is the case with Ukraine. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If we didn't have the actual statement from the Ukrainian government, then I'd agree with Avala. But, given that we have it, we must take the government's own words above what the media synthesized from them. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Gordon Brown this morning criticised Israel for using excessive force during its three-week military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Speaking en route to a humanitarian conference in Egypt, the prime minister demanded that Israel reopen Gaza's crossings and allow humanitarian workers full access to the territory.

"We are yet to discover the full scale of the appalling suffering," Brown said on an early morning flight to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. "But what is already clear is that too many innocent civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed during the military offensive."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/gaza-israel-ceasefire-gordon-brown

Adam (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

We supported the EU statement, which condemned Hamas rocket attacks and described Israeli military action as disproportionate. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue: they condemn Hamas and merely criticize Israel. The deliberate differentiation is especially apparent here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that condemnation should "be the main standard," but I'm a little hesitant to say that that burden has been met here. This statement was made within the context of agreeing with the EU statement. I'll try to see if I can find a statement by the UK, which independently condemns Hamas. If such a statement exists, this will be inconsequential. If not, we'll have to do some thinking. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, you are absolutely right. Read this (archive):

EH: And Minister as a country are we neutral on this?

BR: I think we’ve taken the right position. We’ve condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on the state of Israel. I visited Israel and the Palestinian Territories just before Christmas, I visited Ashkelon, I saw the, and witnessed the air raid sirens going on and I saw the massive pressure that that is bringing to bear. But similarly we’ve made clear that there’s been a massive loss of life within the Gaza Strip. That has included civilians, women and children and it’s reinforced our call for an effective and an urgent and immediate ceasefire.

Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell is asked in as many words if the UK is neutral or not, and basically answers "no." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

The UK has condemned/ criticised both Israel and Hamas. Yes some statements have been directed at Hamas, others at Israel and some at both. So the UK should remain beige as it has criticised both Hamas and Israel. Ijanderson (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's the thing. Almost every country has criticized both sides. The UK condemned Hamas and pointedly did not condemn Israel. Their attitude towards the two sides was fundamentally different. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalapenos, and so does the British Foreign Office Minister. He's explicitly asked if the UK is neutral, and answers "I think we’ve taken the right position." He proceeds to condemn Hamas and does not make a similar comment with respect to Israel. The UK's position is crystal clear. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

However what the table says for the UK does not correspond with the map. With the UK been blue on the map it suggests that the UK has only condemned Israel. However PM Gordon Brown (Most senior figure in the UK) has criticised Isreal Source (read first few paragraphs, it is aimed at Isreal) "Gordon Brown this morning criticised Israel for using excessive force during its three-week military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Speaking en route to a humanitarian conference in Egypt, the prime minister demanded that Israel reopen Gaza's crossings and allow humanitarian workers full access to the territory. "We are yet to discover the full scale of the appalling suffering," Brown said on an early morning flight to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. "But what is already clear is that too many innocent civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed during the military offensive." Brown's carefully chosen words indicate the government believes Israel deployed disproportionate force in its response to Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza. More than 1,200 Palestinians have been killed in the 22-day assault. The prime minister said he was particularly alarmed by the bombing of buildings used by the UN in Gaza as well as the killing of so many Palestinian children." So this suggests that the UK has not sided with either Israel or Hamas as the PM has aimed criticism at Israel, so by colouring the UK blue, it is Point of View. We should take in to account the UK's criticism of both Israel and Hamas as this is fair and Neutral Point of View. Also we need the map to correspond with the UK on the table, which is criticism of both.

Below is what the UK is like on the table, I have made bold where the UK has criticised Isreal and in italics where the UK has criticised Hamas. and Ive made bold and italic where they have condemned both/ made its self neutral.

---

When asked if the UK is "neutral on this," Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell responded: "I think we’ve taken the right position. We’ve condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on the state of Israel. […] But similarly we’ve made clear that there’s been a massive loss of life within the Gaza Strip." The United Kingdom's government called for "maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties" and for an "immediate halt to violence" and on the other side for "militants in the Gaza Strip to immediately cease all rocket attacks on Israel". The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband also warned that Israel's attack might encourage further extremism.. Gordon Brown criticised Israel for using excessive force during its three-week military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Speaking en route to a humanitarian conference in Egypt, the prime minister demanded that Israel reopen Gaza's crossings and allow humanitarian workers full access to the territory. The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote that '"We supported the EU statement, which condemned Hamas rocket attacks and described Israeli military action as disproportionate."

References

---

So to conclude we have three different types of statements from the UK.

• Criticism of Hamas
• Criticism of Isael
• Halt to violence

So we should take all thee in to account and this suggests that the UK should be painted green. Ijanderson (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we have condemnation of Hamas and criticism of Israel. The two aren't the same, and the delineation is deliberate. Unless you can find a British condemnation of Israel, the British position on this conflict must not be regarded as neutral. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you want to ignore that the PM of the UK criticised Israel, when judging the position of the UK and this is in violation of WP:NPOV. Ijanderson (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also if the UK was painted blue, it would not correspond with the table. The Map should correspond with the table Ijanderson (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a violation of NPOV, and nobody is ignoring the fact that the UK criticized Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia (for example) condemned Israel and merely criticized Hamas, and they are orange. The UK condemned Hamas and merely criticized Israel, and it is blue. And if the table doesn't fully reflect the facts, the table should be changed, not the facts. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is with this "they condemned Hamas, but only criticised Israel"? Ok they do have slightly different meanings, but this is just a journalists/ website editors choice of words. Should we really justify a countries position based on this? Ijanderson (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a journalist's or website editor's choice of words. Please read the quotes and you'll see that the difference is consistently in the words of the statements themselves. Condemnation and criticism are fundamentally different things, and foreign affairs spokespeople are very careful in their choice of words, precisely because they know arguments like this will come up. Almost all countries have some criticism of both sides, and if we decided to color all of those countries green, the map would give almost no information. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the quotes and sources thank you very much, but this does not justify why the UK should be represented as "States that have endorsed the Israeli position or condemned only Hamas." They UK has not endorsed the Israeli position and it has not only condemned Hamas either. Ijanderson (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's the thing: they did condemn only Hamas. Can you find an official British statement that says, "We condemn Israel"? I haven't been able to find one. If you can find one, I will concede to you that the UK is blue.

There are a few cases where the UK says, "We condemn Hamas," and two of them are in the table. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brown-condemns-israeli-attack-as-indefensible-1379873.html and as mentioned above, the UK has agreed with all statements made on behalf of the European Union. UK hasnt condemned Israels actions overall, just individual attacks such as on UN schools so it is wrong to say the UK is just condemning HAMAS and saying nothing against Israel. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher. And now we have a source saying the UK condemns Israel, but this doesn't matter, regardless the key is still misleading and POV, also these pathetic criticise/condemn arguments are POV. By making a country blue on the map it suggests/ implies to the readers that the country supports Israel, when sometimes they don't and vice-versa. The UK does not support the Israel or Gaza. The key needs to be changed.

• Blue = Declared support for Israel or criticised / condemned/ said negative things about Hamas only (or what other word used by journalists to portray in a bad way)
• Orange = Declared support for Gaza or criticised / condemned/ said negative things about Israel only (or what other word used by journalists to portray in a bad way)
• Green = Not declared support for either/ Neutrality
• Grey = Other/ None ect

This Key is more NPOV, because it does not rely on users interpretations of countries positions, it is based more on fact rather than interpretation. Ijanderson (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, calling counter-arguments "pathetic" and tossing the term POV around to describe things you don't agree with does not make you more right, and it does not encourage one to consider you a constructive part of this discussion. The article BritishWatcher linked to is a perfect example of the UK not saying they condemn Israel. The journalist writing the article chose to characterize the phrase "indefensible" as a condemnation: that was his right, but as we've agreed in other cases, a journalist's opinion says nothing about what was actually said, we have to read the quotes themselves. And even if the UK did condemn Israel in this case, it would say nothing about their overall position on the conflict, since they were speaking of a specific incident and not about the conflict generally. As for your alternative set of criteria for the key: we already have consensus that condemnation is the main criterion. You're welcome to try and create a consensus to replace condemnation with your system. I personally will oppose your system, for the reason I stated above and which you ignored. I might, however, support a five-color system incorporating your criteria and distinguishing between weak supporters, such as Egypt (Hamas) and the UK (Israel) and strong supporters, such as Iran (Hamas) and Canada (Israel). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then what is this 5 criteria system you have in mind? Also I could use your argument about "overall position" against your argument and say that the UK has not condemned Hamas overall, just the rocket attacks. The UK has not condemned gunfire or sniper attacks by Hamas. So overall the UK has not condemned Hamas, just rocket attacks by Hamas, which are "specific incidents". However I am willing to see this new 5 criteria first. (this 5 criteria needs a new sub section, please respond below) Ijanderson (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing a proposal for a 5-color system below, but unless and until it gets consensus and someone agrees to do the work of changing the colors, we have to continue using the present system, with condemnation as the main criterion. As for overall vs. specific incident: the equivalent to the UK's statement would be Pakistan saying "the January 3 Hamas rocket attack on a school in Beersheba was indefensible", and in several other statements saying "we condemn the Israeli aggression that negates the possibility of peace in the region, but we add that even so, Hamas should not be firing so many rockets into Israeli towns". The UK has not condemned every single type of action by Hamas, but it has condemned Hamas in statements speaking of the conflict in general. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that saying rocket attacks are specific incidents is disingenuous. There have been hundreds of them throughout the entire conflict, and they were the casus belli. They also were the characteristic operations of Hamas. Just a country that condemns Israel's invasion of Gaza (and does not condemn Hamas) must be regarded as orange, so must the UK be regarded as blue.

I am very hesitant to use a system that indicates mild and strong supporters. It can only be left up to the editors' POV to define the boundary between a strong supporter and a moderate supporter, because that delves into issues that are far less clear-cut than whether or not a country condemned a certain side and/or the other. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, before we put this 5 criteria idea on the shelf, we should at least discuss it and propose it. Otherwise we will never get a consensus. Ijanderson (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright; I cannot turn down the idea before we've discussed it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We can continue discussion on the proposed new color-coding system. But, in the meantime, we still have the existing one. Given that the UK does not condemn Israel, can we agree that it should be blue according to the current color-cording system? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose in this war/ conflict, both Israel and Hamas have been condemned for actions which have taken place Ijanderson (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, the UK did not condemn Israel at any time or for any action during this conflict. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So why did the Independent write "Gordon Brown condemned Israel's shelling of the United Nations HQ in Gaza today as "indefensible"."? This is proof that Israel has been condemned by the highest figure in the UK. Also the source is from a reliable third party. Source Ijanderson (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote in this thread - and you ignored me - that Gordon Brown does not condemn Israel in this source. The word "condemnation" is an assessment of the journalist in synthesizing the statement, and such journalistic syntheses are of no use to us since we have the statements themselves. I further wrote - and your response to this was refuted by Saepe Fidelis - that even if Gordon Brown did condemn Israel in this statement, it would still not make the UK green, as the statement dealt with a particular incident and not with the conflict generally. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1 its a news article not a script
• 2 we don't need an exact quote, we have a reliable third party source
• 3 are you accusing The Independent of lying and implying that its not a third party reliable source? Ijanderson (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also even if its just a particular incident, Israel has still be condemned by the UK and criticised on many other occasions. This is certainly nothing other than green. Israel and Hamas have both been critisised also the UK has called for an immediate halt to violence. How can you say it is not green? Ijanderson (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that the consensus reached long ago about condemnation being the main standard refers to the use of the word "condemn" in the actual statement by the country. This is for good reason. Journalists can use whatever descriptive words they please, especially when they report on selected aspects of a complex statement, which they often do. None of this adds any information about what was actually said, beyond what you could get by just reading the statement. I could probably find an RS that uses the word "condemnation" to describe Bildt's criticism of Hamas, but I wouldn't use that to push for Sweden being blue, unless the word appeared in Bildt's actual statement. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have no doubt that Israel has been criticized, perhaps condemned, by the UK many times in the past. On the other hand, they supported Israel in theory in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. So what? This map is about countries' positions on the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict, nothing more, nothing less. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the new color system, can we agree that the UK is light blue? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Building consensus

Eritrea

Green - Reading the statement that's in the article right now, Eritrea does not condemn Israel. It calls the events in Gaza "atrocities," and this is certainly a strong term. But let's take a closer look at it: Israel has also said that Palestinians are subjected to "unacceptable atrocities." The intent there being (of course) that Hamas subjects them these. Eritrea does not stipulate an actor, so even if it did condemn the "atrocities," it would be green, unless it pointed to Israel as their originator. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They have another statement, as well as an interview with the President briefly mentioning the situation, here (search for "gaza"). They seem to have the U.S. in mind as the originator of the "atrocities" (and evidently they really really hate the Bush administration), and the President's interview is neutrality city. But still, if they express sympathy with the Palestinians and not with the Israelis, and they condemn in the sharpest tones actions being taken by Israel while ignoring Hamas actions, it's hard to see them as green. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's the thing: where do they condemn actions by Israel? They condemn actions that cause Palestinian suffering, but those aren't necessarily Israeli. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Green - In the text, Sweden does not condemn Israel or Hamas. The country does criticize both Israel and Hamas. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that Sweden's position has been deliberate neutrality, marred by a slip of the tongue of the Swedish FM. But to impose that opinion upon the article would be WP:OR. When he calls Israel's operations "A massive breach of international law, massive breaches of human rights, a massive humanitarian crisis", he's indisputably being more critical of Israel than I've seen Sweden be of Hamas. Have you seen Swedish condemnations of Hamas? If so, please provide some links here. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But condemnation has to be the main standard used. The number of sentences used to criticize each side in a statement can simply be a reflection of the context in which the statement was made. If Sweden had wanted to condemn Israel ,they would have done so, and they didn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Bildt is known to be gaffe prone but he will have to make a new statement for us to accept it. Otherwise I agree with Saepe Fidelis that it would be OR to look at it in any different light.--Avala (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here is a new statement by Bildt, a speech at a January 8 press conference. A paragon of neutrality, I think you'll agree. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a paragon of neutrality (and I also agree that Sweden should be green), but this statement has no bearing on its color. If there is even a single orange statement from Sweden, the country must be orange, unless there is also a condemnation of Hamas. Thus, the question returns to whether or not Sweden technically condemned Israel. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But Sweden hasn't condemned Hamas either. They've criticized both sides, sometimes focusing more on one, sometimes focusing more on the other, but they've also taken pains to show that they're neutral. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I think they should be green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of all their statements on Gaza. They have 3 statements on the overall situation, all 3 of them neutral. I think it's time to change them to green. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Any objections? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Having seen none, I went ahead and made Sweden green. We'll see if it sticks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl Bildt condemned Israel therefore it is not green. Ijanderson (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he didn't. And Sweden is really the greenest of the green. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, can you produce an explicit condemnation of Israel by Carl Bildt? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

YES I CAN. Sweden condemns Israel's Gaza invasion "Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt harshly condemned Israel's deadly assault on Gaza late Saturday, insisting the invasion would seriously hamper diplomatic attempts to find a solution to the conflict." Is that good enough. I think it would help if User:Jalapenos do exist read sources instead of rejecting what he doesn't approve of. I think that Sweden is not "really the greenest of the green" after all Ijanderson (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(*Sigh*) Again, condemnation does not feature in the actual quotes from Bildt; it is a word used by the journalist to describe Bildt's criticism of Israel, and Bildt had equally harsh criticism of Hamas. This would have been evident to you had you read the three original statements by Bildt that I linked to earlier in this discussion and which I, for one, actually read. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If Sweden were even half as opposed to Israel's position as you say, why can we not find even a single statement by the Swedish government that explicitly condemns the Israeli offensive? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

Green - The article was quoting a media source, which referred to a statement by the Vietnamese ministry of foreign affairs. I found the statement, and decided to quote it directly. Here is what is now in the article:

Vietnam condemned "all indiscriminate attacks against civilians," and urged both parties to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. Vietnam's Deputy Foreign Minister said, "We urged Israel to stop the excessive and disproportionate use of force, end its military operations and immediately withdraw forces from Gaza."

As can be easily seen, this statement does not condemn Israel only, but all indiscriminate attacks against civilians. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Vietnam condemning both Israel and Hamas so yes Green Ijanderson (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They're kind of borderline between green and orange. Here you can find all their statements on the conflict (beats me why they made so many). In one statement they "denounce" Israel for the operation generally, without denouncing Hamas. But they also condemn both in a roundabout kind of way. It's a tough call. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

After mulling it over some more, I think Vietnam is the exact counterpart of Slovakia - they seem to sympathize with one of the sides more, but they're straining to be neutral. If Slovakia is green, I think Vietnam should be green, too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Slovakia is now light blue. If this statement is not sufficiently neutral to persuade editors that Vietnam is green, I would be more than happy to introduce their statement at the UNGA that condemned both sides. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing a statement condemning both sides would convince me that Vietnam is green, regardless, of course, of Slovakia. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I read a statement under the wrong country. Now we're back to interpreting the Foreign Ministry's words. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Countries that didn't make statements but appear on the map

I removed Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea and Bahamas from the map. They made no statements according to this article but were painted on the map.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Avala. That must have been a glitch. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Partisan colours?

Countries which have condemned Hamas only should not be Light Blue. It should be a shade of colour which has not been used yet. I originally used Purple. I'm not saying that Light Blue means mild support for Israel, but shading it Light Blue may imply to the reader that it is similar/ associated to Dark Blue, which is a completely different position. We don't want to confuse the reader, therefore for this reason I will change all the Light Blue to Purple. Ijanderson (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have tried to reach consensus, or at least discussed it, before making this change. I oppose it, because it makes the map quite difficult to understand, to the extent that I wonder, why have a map at all. In a conflict with two sides, there is an inherent connection between condemning only side A and supporting side B, so the implication that the two colors are associated is a correct implication. Look at it this way: we've had lots of arguments about whether a country should be light blue or dark blue, based on different interpretations of their statements; but would we ever argue about whether a country is light blue or orange? We wouldn't, because a countries are never borderline between light blue and orange. They are, however, often borderline between light blue and dark blue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalapenos. Condemning only Hamas is taking sides to some extent, though not as much so as overtly stating support for Israel. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention. The pink color really turns me off. If we wind up choosing something other than light blue, could we choose something less provocative for the eye? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok choose another colour than pink, but not a shade of blue. Ijanderson (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there was never a consensus to change it to light blue, it was originally purple. Ijanderson (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, please refer to the previous discussion. Jalapenos and I agreed that a shade of blue would be most appropriate, and there was no objection. So I think it's fair to say there was consensus.

Also, I must confess that I'm dumbfounded by your opposition to making these countries a light shade of blue. When two groups are at war, condemning one of them has certain implications about the condemner's neutrality. The argument that condemning Hamas does not in any way imply taking sides does not hold water. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should change to a 5-tier system, similar to what Jalapenos originally suggested. We should probably have a color for countries that condemn only Israel, and countries that support Hamas. North Korea's stated that it "fully supported Palestinians’ struggle to expel Israeli aggressors from their Territory and restore their right to self-determination." So there's no longer a fear of that category being empty. We could have the colors go as follows:

Dark blue -> light blue -> green -> light orange -> dark orange

Expressed support for Israel -> condemned only of Hamas -> condemned both/neither -> condemned only Israel -> expressed support for Hamas

Gray would still symbolize countries that have not commented.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Better IMHO Ijanderson (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Turns out Libya also made a statement that seemed quite supportive of Hamas. I'd imagine Syria and Iran have statements to that effect somewhere. Anyone want to help me find them?

Also, I'm not really the best at updating the legend. Could someone please do that? Thanks, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the colors wrong. Blue en green are mostly associated with positive things and the color red is commonly acknowledged as negative. The red should be yellow. Randam (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Is it me or are the refs totally messed up ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. I think the reflist might not be able to handle to 600 or so refs we have. Anyone know how to fix it? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed this...I think. It was some pesky missing closing curly brackets in one of the early refs. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Malmo

i don't think, all participants of the demonstration were jews/israelis. therefore, the incident does not belong to this category.--Severino (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the category, because there have been a lot of violent responses not targeted at Jews or Israelis. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK--Severino (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

attacks against jews

why is a boy holding a sign reading "jews are terrorists" an attack against jews? its political speech, just as comparisons with nazis arent anti-semitic either (although i know there will be alot of disagreement on that one). think about it, though.if someone compared chavez to hitler for his seemingly "anti-intellectual" politics, no one would accuse that person of being anti-latino. true? Untwirl (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I really agree with Untwirl here. We need to distinguish between mere free speech and actions that involve trespassing, vandalism, etc. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We also need to distinguish between antisemitic events, and those that were allegedly antisemitic. We shouldn't be calling any event antisemitic, unless we have a source that calls it as such.VR _talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

on that same note, only incidents that sources say are directly related to this conflict should be here. one article states the attacks against jews have risen 300%. doesnt that mean at least 1/3 of those attacks are not related to this conflict? Untwirl (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In theory it would. I agree that only those related to the conflict, as shown by a reliable source (not speculation), should be here.VR _talk 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• And let's please used reliable sources.VR _talk 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends who's speculating. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose police/official speculations should be taken seriously. But it is very common for non-official figures to get overly emotional and make accusations without sufficient evidence.VR _talk 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on a previous conversation, I know the photo of the san fran protest was MBZ1's attempt to compare pro-Palestinian protesters and the pro-Israeli protesters as hatred vs peace loving, respectively. But it is well-known that there has been much anti-Islam and anti-Palestinian sentiment in pro-Israeli protests. For example there were Jewish protesters in New York holding signs like "Islam = Cult of Death"[5], I don't think it is balanced to mention the "Jews are terrorist" sign, when the mudslinging is coming from both sides.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy really doesn't like juice: [6] Chesdovi (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Seriously Fal? It seems every time there is an Israel war the whole world goes crazy against Jews. I'm not denying that there has been anti-Muslim/Arab protests by Jews turning violent, but to equate, or hell....comparing is utterly absurd. This whole situation further solidifies the growing need for a Jewish state. Remember, 15 million Jews...1.2 billion Muslims. Let's not play the victim game...we know who wins. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the right to victimhood was a game. And when was being a victim the same as winning? BTW, I tend to believe that people on both sides should own up to what they do, while you say there can only be one side that is the victim because they are simply Jewish. This is just not ethical as in the case of the protesters from the same pro-Israeli rally in NY who called the conflict the second Holocaust, what does 1300 Palestinians dead mean to people like you!! BTW, I know Pal is an offensive shorthand for Palestinian, if you don't like to say Palestine or Palestinian, just don't say my name. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are implying that the vicious treatment of Jews around the world as a result of this war is equal to the "unfriendly" treatment of Muslims/Arabs? Give me a break Fal. Also: Stop Wikipedia:SOAPBOXING. I'd be more than happy to lay the smackdown and I know several buddies who'd be happy to enlighten you, but I won't take the bate. So don't make the situation combative and don't play the victim, it's truly insulting to the millions of Jews being harassed by tolerant Muslims and their mindless supporters. Really, it's sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I would like to continue to bait you as that would bring more evidence leading to yet another noticeboard report on your uncivil behavior and personal attacks, I just don't have the time. Good luck on your next crash and burn moment, which might be soon. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have the time to stir up falsehoods and wage Wikipedia:SOAPBOX wars against other users. Back to reality: I think this article could use a little bit more pictures? I think I found one showing the 10,000 German Muslims mob protesting in Jewish neighborhoods, not sure if it's fair use though. I have to go look up the laws on that one lol! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitic incidents section

The article Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been undeleted. The overlapping section in this article should either be summarized or removed completely (there is a summary in the main 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article). Material that has not already been integrated into the "antisemitic incidents" article should be integrated. Note that some of the incidents in this section, such as the West Bank stabbing and Denmark shooting, were anti-Israeli and not antisemitic. They should remain, either in this article or in the main "Israel-Gaza conflict" article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistency on Coloring Countries

There's been a lot of recent discussion on the question of condemnation. Namely, when can a country be considered to have condemned one side or another. There are three points of disagreement:

1. Does criticism of a country constitute condemnation?
2. If a third-party source (such as a newspaper) says that Country A condemned Side X, does that suffice to qualify as a condemnation?
3. If a country condemns a single action by a belligerent, does that mean the country can be regarded as having condemned that belligerent?

It is no coincidence that editors have split into two camps on this: the "Yes" camp and the "No" camp. The former answers "yes" to all three questions, and the latter answers "no" to all three questions. I myself am part of the no camp.

But whichever camp we choose, we must be consistent. There must be an all-or-nothing approach. That is why I am presenting the figures below for comparison of the two camps. Discussion on the reasons for coloring countries one way or another can be found above.

Draft A - "No" camp

Draft B - "Yes" camp

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note: these figures do not include the newly-implemented five-tier system of colors. If that system sticks, I may change the figures to reflect it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Maps to increase NPOV

I think it is wrong to put countries on an overall position based on one word, "condemn". Countries can be really pro Hamas/ Gaza, but they can still condemn Hamas for rocket attacks, so the map can give the wrong impression, by categorising based on the word "condemn". Also the same applies for Israel, the country may support Israel, but may condemn some of its actions. I think the best way to sort this is by having for different maps. I think it will work out more neutral, so that we are not giving an overall position on a county. So this will solve disputes.

• Map 1: Countries which have endorsed the Israeli position/ supported Israel's right to defense.
• Map 2: Countries which have showed support towards Hamas.
• Map 3: Countries which have condemned/ criticised Hamas.
• Map 4: Countries which have condemned/ criticised Israel.

This way we can say what each country has done and not give an overall position. We shouldn't tell the reader the overall position, we should let them figure that out themselves, but this way we can give them the facts to help the reader work out the overall position. The reader can tell from the maps, what the country has done. Also multiple maps will make the article richer in information. Hopefully my proposal is neutral and people from both camps will agree with me. Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, your intention here is admirable, and your heart is certainly in the right place, but I'm hesitant to do this. We as editors do so much work on Wikipedia that we often forget that the average reader comes to take a few glances and move on. Four maps would be quite a hefty load, making the matter far more complicated than it needs to be.

Also, to nitpick a little, countries that support Gaza should not be lumped together with countries that support Hamas, since this conflict was between Israel and Hamas, not Israel and the people of Gaza. The government of Israel has said time and again that the people of Gaza are not its enemies, and it has supported them in word and deed. So it would really fall under the category of a country that supported Gaza. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was separated from Wikipedia for a day and returned to find that productive dialogue did not suffer in my absence, in fact it seems to have flourished (now what does that say about me...). I still stand by what I said that there was a consensus on the matter currently being discussed, but I fully concede that the consensus I believe to have existed is moot, given this discussion. Ijanderson, allow me to apologize for my somewhat harsh tone toward you at times. I have patience issues, especially when I feel that people are talking past each other. In the future, if I agree with Saepe Fidelis in substance and disagree with you, I'll just let Saepe speak for me, since he's obviously a more patient fellow. And on that note, I fully agree with Saepe about your suggestion: it's a noble idea, but too complicated for the reader. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

@Saepe Fidelis, Simple Wikipedia is for people who want a quick glance. I don't think we should let this article become degraded for that reason. And not ever reader does take a quick glance. I see no harm in having 4 maps. It would also stop disputes as it is based more on facts instead of agreements based between users. It wouldn't even be hard to create these maps either. Also I've taken in to account your point about Hamas and Gaza. I've changed it to just Hamas

@Jalapenos do exist, not need to apologise mate, this is a very sensitive article. All I want is for it to be NPOV and this 4 map system will certainly increase NPOV. Also I would like to see this consensus if you please. Ijanderson (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the benefit of four maps. This map distills information into one graphic. Besides, every country that's dark blue would also qualify as light blue, and the same for red. But no country crosses colors. The only benefit to four maps would be showing which states condemned both sides, and which condemned neither. I suppose we could do that for this map without creating additional maps. But, in all honesty, I don't see the use in distinguishing between the two. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, that's the thing: I don't think the article is all that sensitive, which is part of the reason I felt that our bickering, or at least mine, was getting lame. About the consensus: the consensus that (a) statements and direct quotes take precedence over media syntheses of statements and (b) the main standard we're looking for is condemnation, was established on 20 January in the discussion on Ukraine (Archive 2). Saepe Fidelis and I explicitly argued for these elements, and when we did so, Avala and VR did not dispute either the argumentation or the conclusion thereof regarding Ukraine, nor have they to this day. The four of us were the only active participants in the discussions at that time, and we all agreed on those elements, two of us explicitly and two tacitly ("Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community" - from WP:CONSENSUS). Now if I understand you correctly, you still accept element b, but you do not accept element a. Interestingly, the roots of element a are deeper: it was established as our modus operandi already in mid-January. See archive 2: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland and Spain. In the discussions for all these countries, direct quotes were all that were being used, and nobody expressed a problem with this. And as long as we're on the subject of consensus: consensus carries a lot of weight in Wikipedia, and so it makes sense - indeed, it is expected - that there will be legitimate arguments about whether there was consensus on various matters and about what, exactly, was included in the consensus. But since I argued that your position violated consensus at least since 25 January (Archive 2: UK), I feel that it was poor form for you to dispute the consensus five days later (Here: UK), after exhausting your arguments about OR and POV. That's all I have to say on the matter; if you want to have a last word, I will gladly read it, but I hope that we will then be able to resume actually working on the article together. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No because this way we can show criticised and why condemned, which this map does not show Ijanderson (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Jalapenos. It seems you're totally right. I never noticed the "silence implies consent" rule. I guess we did have consensus. Anyhow, let's hope we're making our way towards consensus again. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just split it into three categories: countries which criticized Israel only, countries which criticized Hamas only, and countries which criticized both to some extent?VR _talk 14:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also. I think "States that have called for an end to hostilities, and have condemned neither/both belligerents" is a bit too general. Grouping states full of condemnation (for both sides) with those who condemned neither doesn't seem like a good idea.VR _talk 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So ok, I'm proposing 5 categories instead of the current 6: 1. States which opposed Hamas actions only. 2. States which opposed Israeli actions only. 3. States which opposed the actions of both sides. 4. States which made other comments. 5. States which made no comments.VR _talk 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Another point: Just because a country condemns Israel doesn't mean it doesn't recognize its right to self-defence. What is means is that the nation doesn't see the Israeli offensive as amounting to self-defence. Similarly, if a country condemns Hamas, it doesn't mean it doesn't recognize the Palestinians' right to resist occupation. It just means that the country doesn't see Hamas rocket attacks as an act of resistance. This means that recognizing Israeli right to self defence and condemning the Israeli offensive are not mutually exclusive positions.VR _talk 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last point is well taken. I'll try to think of what wording best reflects the category. Any suggestions?

Your first point has been thoroughly discussed on this page, though I am in no way opposed to discussing it again. Criticism is not tantamount to opposition. If it were, nearly the whole map would be green. Also, the question of what constitutes criticism is not very clear-cut. You may find the border to be somewhere far from where I see it. The only clear-cut language on the matter is the question of condemnation. Countries deliberately use (or avoid) the verb "condemn" to express sides. Being "deeply concerned," etc. does not necessarily indicate that a country is choosing sides. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last point: the current wording, for examples, codes North Korea red for supporting the Palestinians' struggle to expel IDF "from their Territory" and establish the "right to self-determination". I find it extremely hard to believe that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, all colored light red, don't support both these struggles. It is even a bit misleading to paint North Korea a darker shade than Syria, where the latter is consistently pro-Hamas (even harboring Meshaal).

Why not just paint those countries that criticized only Israel as red, without distinguishing those that support the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation?VR _talk 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Very few countries have explicitly stated their support for Hamas. This is not surprising, as Hamas is a terrorist organization, and few countries want to be seen as supporting a group that's in blatant, habitual and inexcusable violation of international law. But there are still a few countries that have expressed not only support for Palestinians' "right of resistance," but specifically for Hamas' operations. These include North Korea, Iran and Libya. As of yet, I have not seen a Syrian statement to this effect. But if you find one, please feel more than free to include it, and change Syria's color.

The coloring system did not, until fairly recently, distinguish between countries that condemned Israel and those that expressed support for Hamas. But the two positions are fundamentally different, and should not be combined. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again the coloring system misleads us to believe that Syria doesn't express support for Hamas. We both know this is wrong.

Also, it equates support for Hamas with Israel right to self-defense. The more appropriate equation would Palestinians' right to resistance with Israel's right to self-defense, support for Hamas with support for Operation Cast Lead.VR _talk 07:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the map criteria are symmetrical; I don't know if this was done since your comment. Do you have any objection to the way it currently is? Regarding Syria, did they openly support Hamas in the context of the conflict? If there is a statement to this effect, the country should be dark orange. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Protests

When mentioning the number for the protests (in the sortable column) we shoudl use the highest number (not multiple numbers). This is because, at least in theory, there is no limit at how small a protest can be (except at 0). Smaller protests also ten to be less notable. What's more notable is how large the protests were.VR _talk 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i see your point about notability, however a range of numbers seems to more accurately represent what conflicting sources say. maybe we should use the most commonly reported figure, not just the highest one.Untwirl (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that other figures should be deleted. I'm just saying that in the "size" column, we should only one number, and only a number. This is due to technical reasons. I think we should have no problem agreeing to this.

I'm also saying that the one number we use should be the largest one of them. Presumably this should also be the most repeated? Is there an example where the two are different?VR _talk 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

no, i think i'm agreeing with you, only with that condition. as long as the largest number is the most repeated it should be the one we use in the box, with an explanation of what the (less reported) sources say in the box next to it. Untwirl (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Who thinks that there should be a cut-off figure for protests to be included. I mean there must have been thousands world over. This list gives the impression that each and every one is listed here. Is it important to note the protest of 40 in Minneapolis? In Sde Dov, I saw a clip in which the protestors said they would return every day. The fact that we have one source stating that one day 21 showed up is really drawing at straws, if you know what I mean. Thoughts? Also, see Sakhnin demonstration. I have since seen an estimate of 30,000. I also think one figure should be placed in the size box. In the Israel demo list, I preferred to use the figure given by the police as authoritative. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be hard to agree upon a cut-off figure. My argument above, that we should consider the largest demonstration, was corrected by saying we use use the one that has acquired most notability in the media. This means that a 100 people demonstration in Damascus will hardly come as a surprise to anyone, but 100 people demonstration in Vatican (because the population is only 900) or Saudi Arabia (since public display of politics is banned there) will be treated as far more notable.

You don't have to worry about protesters returning every day, because we quote only one number per city in the Size column.VR _talk 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the 2nd Cairo protest. I know this was brought up earlier on; what the the decision? Do we just add all the numbers for each protest in each city? This is not how the Israeli demo is set up. Also, if 20 people turned up for a week at Sde Dov, do put the figure at 120? How do we verify this? I get your take on notability. I therefore think that those towns in the UK & USA which have no figure be inserted as a sentance: "Protests also took place in mnay USA & UK towns". I am still unclear what firgure to use for Sakhnin. 150,00 seems inflated to me. Chesdovi (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't add the number, we take the largest one, or the most notable one (but I think the largest is always more notable, correct me if I'm wrong). As for Sakhnin 150,000 is form a reliable source. No reliable source seems to contradict it. Therefore I see no reason for changing it.VR _talk 07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the "take the largest one" formula came from, but I highly resent it. Al-Jazeera is reliable in certain situations, but when it comes to Israel, and this isn't just a user's opinion, it is extremely prejudice. It is based and supported by the Gulf States, a region of the Middle East that has taken a particular stance against Israel in the recent war. That it in itself should pose a threat to conflict of interest. I also think it is quite ignorant to choose from an organization, while oddly championed as reliable by some editors, claim there were 150,000 protesters over the 10,000+ reported by more moderate outlets that don't have a political/financial/religious motive to embellish. Besides, the facts are clear. Two sources: Palestine News Network, which has the journalistic integrity of a blog, and Al-Jazeera, a recognized media organization that has largely become a comedic tool, are the sole soldiers of truth against the lies of the West. Ok, that was in jest...but let's be real. 2 sources that have a reason to lie against 5-6 that "officially" don't (I rather not count BBC since they too dance with Palestine News Network when it comes to Israel but what the hell LOL). Can we move on now? Please? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the largest always the most notable? In London, the smaller pro-Israel demo at the embassy was reported in most papers due to the violence that occured there between the rival protestors. What is the decsion on the numerous US and UK towns? Chesdovi (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I will have to check, but I could have sworn that the news reports showed Turkey having mutliple instances of protests of 500k to 1 million protestors.146.235.66.52 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is plausible considering the large population in Istanbul, but something of that scale must be government-sanctioned as I know for sure their protest laws are extremely harsh. Most protests in the Middle East are typically exaggerated since # tend to be more persuasive. Anything that isn't concrete should be avoided IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

References