Talk:Operation Hot Winter

108 dead palestinians

Barak said today. Flayer (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Jihad's participation

According to Ynet, Islamic Jihad was directly targeted in the operation, meaning that it can be listed as a participant. I don't know whether it responded directly to the IDF, but considering that it does fire Qassams constantly, it should definitely be included. Flayer: Do you have a link to the Channel 1 program stating that the Jihad was not involved? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Warm or Hot?

Is it Warm Winter or Hot Winter? I've seen the latter far more often in sources... —Nightstallion 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli publications call it 'Warm Winter' in English, although Hot Winter is a literal translation of the Hebrew name. I support the usage of 'Warm Winter'. Both have many sources. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If Hot is actually more correct and more literal, *AND* it's at least as common (in fact, more common) than Warm, we should use Hot, I'd say. —Nightstallion 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Givati?

What is "Givati" supposed to mean in "8 wounded (Givati)"?Bless sins (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the source. It says that there were 8 wounded in Givati alone. I have no information on the other forces which participated, and it's likely that there were no other injuries, considering that it was a Givati operation. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While we separate casualties by civilian and soldier we don't separate them by their division or location or regiment etc. I'm moving the details down to the content.Bless sins (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation over?

It appears that the operation itself is completely over, not just the first stages, and most sources confirm this. However, the IDF Spokesperson has not made a press release confirming that the operation finished, or whether the IDF considers it a success or failure. Even so, should we state that the operation is over? It certainly seems so. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide sources? If the sources say it, I'd go ahead and put it. Last I read Olmert was threatening that Israel would re-invade Gaza (and I think he did end up re-invading). In anycase, I'd wait a week or so - you never know how things can twist in that part of the world.Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't have much time to search, but this article comes to mind off the top of my head. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says "after the first phases of the fighting were completed." There may be more phases to come. Is there any specific quote you want me to look at?Bless sins (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources stating that the operation ended: English, Hebrew Reshet, Hebrew NRG (op-ed) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the above source, and the fact that the news sources are largely silent about it now (no new casualties have been reported), I'd agree.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, maybe the article should be modified to past tense. What do you suggest we put under "result" - perhaps "tentative cessation"? -- Nudve (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't noticed that you guys replied. Anyway, I suggest 'claimed success' as the result. I guess we can't simply put success because no one knows what really happenned there or what the true aims of the operation were, but it does appear that Israel meant for it to last 48 hours and Israeli/IDF sources claimed that the operation was a success. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nakba

The Holocaust and Nakba are two different events, but the Palestinians call the Nakba 'their holocaust'. When discussing what Vilnai meant by a 'worse holocaust' when threatening the Palestinians, it is important to mention that the Palestinians constantly use that phrase to describe what happened in 1948. When threatening Jews, Armenians or Palestinians with a 'holocaust', each one would take that to mean something else, based on their own collective national experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.80.228 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant commentary

We can't have irrelevant commentary in this article that calls specific organizations "anti-Israel", unless that commentary is directly connected with Operation Hot Winter. Think of it this way: would it not be inappropriate if someone inserted commentary saying that the United States is anti-Arab, right after the U.S. reaction. Would it also not be inappropriate if someone brought in references to "Israeli apartheid" while discussing the Israeli reaction?

Irrelevant commentary that attacks particular organizations and is not relevant to the operation should not be in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Very bad comparison. The Non-Aligned Movement identifies itself as anti-Zionist and has always been part of the anti-Israel bloc of states at the UN.[1] Do you know how many Wikipedia articles have criticism and label the criticizer as pro-Israel? Check Robert Fisk, check B'Tselem, off the top of my head. This is where the organization is coming from. As far as the Human Rights Council's bias against Israel, that argument has been made by high-ranking UN officials including Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, in addition to the US and EU. It is a way for Arab states to bring forth their opinion on international level, which (per their majority) they can do. And to that there is a sourced counter-argument. No biggie. And please make sure the whole idea of the reaction is given by each party. --Shamir1 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet none of those labels are presented in the context of Operation Hot Winter. Again if you wish to include the allegation that the NAM is "anti-Israel" then I can also include the allegation that Israel is an "apartheid state" - where both allegations are irrelevant to this article.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Inserting that Israel is an 'aparetheid state' to this article would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE, while the Non-Aligned Movement is usually seen as anti-Israel and is in fact anti-Zionist (remember Zionism = racism?). Your comparison is flawed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt so. Alleging that Israel is an apartheid state is actually a popular concept (though it may be completely wrong, we are not discussing that). The NAM includes 118 countries of the world (including the world's largest democracy, India). Also my point remains: none of the commentary in the article is related to operation hot winter. Neither you, nor Shamir1 has responded to this point.Bless sins (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was merely stating that your comparison was flawed, not commenting on the relevance of the statement. About the actual statement in the article, it's meant to provide some context to the reaction of the NAM. I wouldn't mind it being changed to 'anti-Zionist' instead of anti-Israel, although it's pretty much the same thing. Even if this might not be the best argument for keeping the commentary, I certainly haven't seen a better argument for deleting it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument for deleting it is simple: the commentary is irrelevant to operation hot winter. When the sources made those comments they certainly didn't have operation hot winter in mind. However, when NAM condemned Israel, it was doing so because of Israeli activities during operation hot winter.

Also no one has provided a good comment for not having allegations of Israeli apartheid in the article, should I place them in as well?Bless sins (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the commentary seems to violate WP:NOR, which says "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context ... you are also engaged in original research;" You are clearly using the commentary in a different context - as none of the sources were made in the context of operation hot winter.Bless sins (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png

The image Image:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

'Background' section and reason for rocket barrage

I was reading up on this and how it relates to the current, Dec08/Jan09 conflict. On the page for the 2007–2008_Israel-Gaza_conflict and here too, neither mention the reason for the rocket barraged launched on 27 Feb that struck Ashkelon. However one of the links from that page links to this article: washingtonpost.com

The fighting Saturday was greqtest yet following a significant escalation Wednesday. In the four days since an Israeli missile destroyed a van carrying five Hamas members suspected of plotting an attack inside Israel, 94 Palestinians have been killed and more than 300 have been injured, according to hospital sources in Gaza. During the same period, at least 180 rockets and mortar shells have been fired into Israel, causing one death and 11 injuries, the Israeli military said. The Israelis are following their plan to stomp the Palestinians who attacked them off the map.

Shouldn't the 'background' section at least mention the reason for the flareup? 192.156.56.34 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We can go round in circles forever like this - the Hamas fired the rockets because Israel destroyed a van because Hamas fired rockets because Israel killed a certain Hamas leader because Hamas fired rockets because ... etc. The background section isn't meant to be a brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rather, it details which events caused the operation to take place. The Israeli hit on a Hamas van was not one of the reasons for Operation Hot Winter. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Massacre

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.“WarKosign” 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Hot Winter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080310004942/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gas24zdOxdQcBQRTEuKAHPpObsPgD8V84ELG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gas24zdOxdQcBQRTEuKAHPpObsPgD8V84ELG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

libya flag

old libya flag is still in use here maybe needs to be fixed? I don't know actually though, I sorta like the old Libyan flag more lol :)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Operation Autumn Clouds which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

2008 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip → Operation Hot Winter – for disambiguation, since the 2008–2009 Gaza War was also a "2008 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip". In fact, the other operation was larger, so it may be the primary 2008 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip. This would revert a move of 22 December 2019‎ that followed an RM discussion recorded at Talk:2006 Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun § Requested move 8 December 2019. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Support, we need to avoid confusing between these articles Ridax2020 (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.