Talk:2006 Gaza–Israel conflict

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 Gaza–Israel conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Eliyahu Asheri

Would you include the kidnapping of Itamar settler Eliyahu Asheri in this? They were kidnapped near Ramallah on Sunday night and being held also as a bargaining chip. However from what I read they are not garunteed to be alive. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was also reportedly another today, which should also be included somehow. Rangeley 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand then with info I get regarding him and the situation. I see the name spelled in some sources as Eliahu Asheri, the teen is 18, he is being held by the PRC and his identity card has been shows as proof they have him. [1] Regarding the 3rd the source says:

"As the search for Asheri continued, Palestinian militants linked to President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party claimed that they had seized a third Israeli hostage, a 62-year-old man from the city of Rishon Lezion, according to the AP news agency. The Fatah statement says that the man was kidnapped on Monday and more evidence would be released later. It is signed by Abu Fouad, spokesman for the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in Gaza. Police are treating it as a missing person case."

I will update with other information I get. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt has beefed up security to prevent the transfer of the prisoner out of Gaza into Egypt and to prevent an influx of refugees into Egypt. [2] They have added 2,500 policemen to the border of 750, and imposed a curfew. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some put this as a Palestinian victory, which is false.Maxflight 18:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Rangeley 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a vandal I fixed the numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is now reported in press that the 62 year old settler died of natural causes according to the IDF autopsy. Palestinians just found his body by the roadside and thought it could be useful to also claim his kidnapping to put more pressure for female prisoner exchange. So it was just a media scam invented by the palestinians. 195.70.32.136 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strength and Casualty Figures

I don't think these numbers are correct (certainly 2400 Israeli casualties for this operation seems impossible). Also, isn't it a little bit early to decide that this is a "Decisive Palestinian Victory"? ThreeBlindMice 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my above comment - the page got changed while I was typing it. ThreeBlindMice 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a vandal I fixed the numbers. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though, the 3,000 for Israeli stength is correct. I re-added that. Rangeley 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

What do you mean by 700 under Israel?

Just a vandal ignore it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Exchange

Any thoughts on adding the prisoner exchange offer from Hamas and the events of th 1994(?) hostage rescue attempt? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know anything about the 1994 event, however the prisoner exchange is worth mentioning, though Israel has turned the offer down. Rangeley 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>The militants who seized Shalit have demanded "the release of all female prisoners and all prisoners under the age of 18"

That is 300 people all-together, all of them held in "administrative detention" indefinitely, without any trial or charging. Much like Gitmo. Includes some toddlers as young as 18 months! Arabs think the only way to free them is with kidnapping hostage swap. There is a thorough BBC article on the issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5122056.stm

It Was Not Hamas Only

from The Guardian "Hamas' armed wing had claimed responsibility for Sunday's raid, along with the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and a third group calling itself the Islamic Army". We can't say that only Hamas did it as stated in the article. --Lanov 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ignore my comment , the article was edited while I was writing it.--Lanov 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US reaction

Would someone please put in some info from this article? I'm not comfortable enough with wiki to do so. Basically, the US supports Israel in the operation: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,19625342-5001028,00.html

just a well done

I just wanted to tell you all what a great job you've done. I mean this article was only created about a day ago. Yonatanh 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in only 6 hours it has come far. Rangeley 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some thing of interest; i:e content... maybe; http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=613 User:Alnico

Yeah, great coverage!!! Gtrojan 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futility and the meaning of the operation

Until now, the article just sums up what you can read in the news. Should a comment on the futility of this action be added?

I don't think thousands of troops can bring Gilad Shalit home safely; and how could any army of this world comb through the thousands of households that are located in Gaza? I think, putting the Operation Summer Rain into such a perspective enhances its NPOV value; and I think a neutral commentator would tell you that this Operation is intended to hide Israel's recent trauma and not to rescue this soldier. --Keimzelle 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's been only 24 hours or so, isn't it a little too early to talk about how futile the operation has been? --kutukagan 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to be drawn into conspiracy theory; but could this be another Gleiwitz incident happing before our eyes? User:Alnico

It could be, but with what probability? The most disturbing thing is that Mahmoud Abbas, in the eyes of the Israeli politicians, is the only guy that can make Hamas to release Gilad Shalit. If Abbas would really be that powerful, Shalit wouldn't have been kidnapped in the first place; and any agreement between Israel and and the Palestinian leadership would be a matter of some few days. And finally, I use to tell myself that peace is only possible between two partners possessing equal power and rights. Everything else is wishful thinking.--Keimzelle 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While interesting to ponder (for some atleast), as an encyclopedia we cant really delve into that stuff too deep. We dont know how it will end, we just know what has happened so far. And thats all we can say. Wikipedia isnt a crystal ball, remember. Rangeley 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should gather our best people and develop a free crystal ball that anyone can use. --Keimzelle 23:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that there's a striking difference between Gleiwitz and this one. As far as I know, there had been no clear Polish aggression towards Germany before that incident - although it was a set-up - or its immediate predecessors, which too were probably setups. However, you've got Palestinians and Israel here, it's hard to talk about any of them being unprovoked. --kutukagan 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not out to side track; just making sure people have their ' thinking hats on ' User:Alnico

Now THAT would be far-fetched. Are you implying that the IDF captured their own soldier and pretended to be a number of known palestinian organizations? Come oooon. Be real. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Rangeley 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about the solider, the family and a Nations pride and right to protect it's self; it seems to be a (any) excuse (by any means) to get a ' unnoffical war' on the go. History, even in our own time is ladened with these events. User:Alnico23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'd argue that there's no similarity - at least of the nature that you talk about - between Gleiwitz and Summer Rain. A very rough analogy would be to argue that Turkey had hit her own aircraft and gave its pilot to the Greek Cypriots to have a pretext to intervene in Cyprus in 1974. --kutukagan 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Israel is damned if it responds with force and damned if it doesn't. Terrorists launched a major attack. If they don't respond, it invites more attacks. If they do respond, people say "they're just looking for an excuse". Also short-term risk of casualities on both sides goes up.

It was not a terrorist attack, because the target were soldiers (IDF), not civilians. When combattants among the ocupied nation fight the occupiers with wepons, they are called insurgents or partisans (russian and yugoslavian term used in WWII) or see the "french resistance movement". Terrorism is not possible against armed forces. Even suicide bombings are not terrorism, just kamikaze, if done against armed forces. It was done in WWII Japan and Vietnam War with great results, it also ousted american army from occupied Lebanon.

By the way, post-WWII international treaties clearly recognize the natural right of occupied people to conduct armed struggle against the occupiers based on the experiences of WWII. 195.70.32.136 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None the less; great article. User:Alnico 1:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Isreal is tired of the BS coming from the Palestinians, and is saying enough is enough.Maxflight 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a dicussion forum and users are prohibited from making offtopic remarks, unrelated to this entry. El_C 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had a small typo there. What you meant to say was "This is the Talk page for discussing changes to the article. Please keep your comments on-topic and civil." --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm-doing-what-now? El_C 08:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could put a "possible outcome" section. PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah strategy so far consisted of kidnapping Israeli citizens (civilians or soldiers) to trade with convicted terrorists held in Israel. Usually the trade was very uneven - dozens of palestinians for one Israeli. This is effective because of the huge pressure a kidnapped soldier's family can put on the goverment. This tactic wouldn't work the other way around. As it is perceived by most Israelis, the operation has 2 main goals, in addition to securing the release of the kidnapped soldier: 1. To give every Israeli citizen confidence that everything is being done for them, in the event that they are captured. 2. To make sure the "Prisoner capturing" strategy doesn't pay off, and so to stop the use of such a strategy. There could be other views, of course. This operation also could mean that Olmert and Peretz need to show that while Sharon is not PM anymore, this doesn't meant that they can be intimidated by Hamas. 128.139.226.34 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts are worth considering. In what aspects is this military operation different from those in the past? Perhaps it is the single event in history in which an army mobilized thousands of troops trying to save just one soldier.--131.152.23.73 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) And amazingly, if during the operation just one Israeli soldier is killed the whole operation was for nought in numerical terms. (extended and signature added, --Keimzelle 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

A 'possible outcome' or 'futility' section would be original research by every definition and will definitely be speedily deleted. Joffeloff 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a discussion of the future as you say, I agree. But if you put refrences indicating the evidence or the philosophy behind the operation, it could shed new light. There were enormous efforts (still continuing) to get Ron Arad released, that indicate a concern to missing soldiers that is unparalleled in other countries in the middle east, and perhaps around the world, this might be relevant for the article. Also, an overview on the Hamas would explain/give possible reasons why it started this operation now, of all times. 128.139.226.37 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a section named 'similar operations' linking to those articles - anything else would be opinionated unsourced material. Joffeloff 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things Missing From Article

New to this but can someone add that they are also occupying the airport. [3] Also this says that Hamas officals have gone into hiding.[4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.202.171 (talk • contribs) .

Got it. El_C 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone should also add that Israel has threatened that they will attack unless Galid Shalit is released. Also, I don't see any references to negotiations although there are egyptian and french (Galid Shalit is also a french citizen) negotiating teams. [5] [6] --LongKong

Fly by in Syria

Does anyone have more info on Israeli airforce flying over the presidential palace in Syria? Syria said they had shot after it. I only have a swedish language ref. which refers to syrain state television. http://svt.se/svttext/web/pages/133.html

Here are links from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1150885870124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and from Ha'aretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/732362.html

Cymruisrael 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more on Syria's involvement:

"Abbas and Egyptian dignitaries tried to persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to use his influence with Khaled Mashaal, the Hamas leader exiled in Syria, to free Shalit. Assad agreed, but without results, said a senior Abbas aide."[7]

"The flight was undertaken ``based on the understanding that Syria provides patronage and support for the leaders of terror organizations, for the most Hamas, responsible for the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shilat, the IDF said in the statement."[8]

And this one has a lot of information on what the Syrians say and similar events [9] LongKong

Also the quote from a Syrian official in the "Reaction" section is out of context. It is a reaction to the fly by, not a reaction to the operation in Gaza.

Actually, the Syrian official went from yapping about how his great AA chased the Israeli planes away, to talking about this very operation. So it belongs here. Joffeloff 11:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

i think that the term kidnapping carries pov connotations. It favours Israel, are captured palestinians refered to as 'kidnapped'? this man was a SOLDIER. If this is kidnapping then all the inmates in US detention centres are also kidnapped. This reflects a fundemental statist bias in the language used to describe armed conflict eg. the use of the words 'terrorism'.

The kidnapped soldier was taken by an armed group and is held somewhere, like a hostage. The captured Palestinians are held in prisons. General consensus on the definitions of these words are followed, and they're not going to be changed to something most people would scoff at because a minority thinks they are 'statist'. If the Palestinian Authority had captured the soldier and imprisoned him, he would not have been 'kidnapped' in the eyes of this Wikipedia article. Joffeloff 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, captured soldiers goto prison, kidnapped soldiers goto some room in a random building or some location. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The soldier is held as a Prisoner of War. The term kidnapping is wrong because it assumes that the act is criminal and illegal. See the kidnapping article. One can not reasonably state that it is illegal for Palestinian militants to abduct Israeli soldiers and at the same time say that it is ok for Israeli soldiers to abduct Palestinian militants. And you can use the word "abduct" instead of "kidnapped." 213.131.147.169 12:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A prisoner is someone in a prison. A Prisoner of War has rights as well; including they cannot be shown in the media, they must be allowed to see a representative of their country etc. This soldier is not a prisoner of war. His life has also been threatened, a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. So he is obviously not a POW. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a categorization it should be Prisoner of War, not kidnapped. He was captured after a military confrontation. He is held hostage but he was definitely not kidnapped. Read the articles I have linked to for the full definitions of these words. 213.131.147.169 12:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not being treated as a prisoner of war by the definition of international conventions, and so he is not a POW. Using 'abduct' instead of kidnap wouldn't make much of a difference since both actions are 'criminal' and 'illegal', as you said. The Palestinian militants are using him as a bargaining chip to get their prisoners released - if that's not this:

'It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of persons against their will, regardless of age, as for ransom; since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.'

..then I don't know what is. (taken from the kidnapping article you kindly linked to). Joffeloff 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. The 3rd Geneva Convention says the guy is a POW. If he is being mistreated, this is a violation of the Convention, but this mistreatment does not suddenly make him a non-POW. Please use common sense. mdf 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the term 'captured' has no connotations of the legitimacy of the operation and is an appropriate replacement for 'kidnapped'

All the big newspapers (which are neutral) use the word "abducted" so I'm pretty sure we can use it as well. He is not a POW as he has been denied the rights of a POW. We can also use the word "taken hostage" if people like it more. --LongKong

I agree, if that somehow makes this more neutral, then by all means. It's the same thing. Joffeloff 12:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both "taken hostage" and "captured" are perfectly neutral and fine (AFAIK). 213.131.147.169 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind saying he was captured, but we then have to say the Palestinian Government has violated the Geneva Convention

Part II: General Protection of Prisoners of War
- Article 12: Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
- Article 13: Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. violated
- Article 19: Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. unknown
- Article 23: No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. unknown
- Article 39: Every prisoner of war camp shall be put under the immediate authority of a responsible commissioned officer belonging to the regular armed forces of the Detaining Power. Such officer shall have in his possession a copy of the present Convention; he shall ensure that its provisions are known to the camp staff and the guard and shall be responsible, under the direction of his government, for its application. is this the case?
- Article 70: Immediately upon capture, or not more than one week after arrival at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, likewise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital or another camp, every prisoner of war shall be enabled to write direct to his family, on the one hand, and to the Central Prisoners of War Agency provided for in Article 123, on the other hand, a card similar, if possible, to the model annexed to the present Convention, informing his relatives of his capture, address and state of health. The said cards shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible and may not be delayed in any manner. Getting close

I am sure there is more, thats just skimming. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zero Faults, please be advised that this talk page is about the article in question, not a forum for propaganda, or, if you prefer, political rhetoric. Nor is it a forum for the conduction of original research, let alone the adjudication of matters relating to the Geneva Coventions. Life becomes alot easier if you can simply find a source that has asserted, documented or even merely allege violations: introduction into the article at that point would be a no-brainer. mdf 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, zerofaults seems to have failed to read the article. Whatever his/her opinions may be about the capture/abduction/kidnapping of the Israeli soldier, it's quite clear there is no clear evidence the Palestinian government had any knowledge or involvement. Nil Einne 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comment fully. What you fail to understand is if people want to say this soldier was "captured" because of their being a war, then you have to acknowledge the Geneva Convention, as the first section I posted states, "Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. " Hence if he was captured, then its the responcibility of the Palestinian Government, according to the Geneva Convention that is. And he is then afforded those X ammount of protections under the Geneva Convention, hence making the Palestinian Government in violation of the Geneva Convention. So he was kidnapped because if he was captured by Palestinian soldiers then the GC comes into play. Thank you for your attempts to demonize me, perhaps if you want you can see I contributed quite a bit to the article. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't add pov. So far there is no evidence that Palestinian government exists. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can use words used in "classical" way of fighting for this situation. There are no "rules" for terrorists nor really for fighting terrorists (e.g. Guantanamo Bay) since this is not the classical enemy vs. enemy situation. So, let's just stick to words such as "taking hostage" and "capture" so we have to avoid going into the Geneva Convention and so on. I think it's clear that terrorists (in general, including palestinian militants) do not follow any convenctions, no need to state these thing, in my opinion. -- LongKong

I don't consider it a POV issue, just a semantic issue. "Kidnapped" isn't really the right word to apply to adults. I would just use "captured". Especially in a military situation when two sides are warring, kidnapped is simply inaccurate; captured is much more precise. --Cyde↔Weys 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"kidnapped" has become synonymous with "abducted" despite its root words. You might be able to make a case that the soldier was "captured", but "captured" would only be appropriately be applied to a soldier involved in a conflict, which wouldn't apply to the abducted civilians. One doesn't generally speak of civilians and being "captured" even during war time--so it wouldn't be very appropriate to speak of the settler as "captured". I suppose you could make a case that they were "arrested" for being a settler or something, which is viewed by many to be illegal. But no pretense of legal authority to make such an "arrest" has ever been made by the people who took him (and would be a dubious claim even if they did, as they are not acting under any legal system.) It would be different if Hamas or the PLO, or even possibly a shadow government, had ordered the "arrest", but obviously nobody did that (or atleast no official claim has been made to such effect) which makes it extra-judicial. --Brentt 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansions into Northern Gaza

I think we need more information here. Some things to be added:

"But the military signaled the prospect of a new front being opened in the northern part of the strip when it dropped leaflets late Wednesday into the area, urging residents to avoid moving in the area because of impending military activity."[10]

"Israeli army bulldozers moved in Thursday to clear agricultural lands in northern Gaza, witnesses said, apparently so Palestinians couldn't hide there. A small number of tanks entered a buffer zone between southern Israel and Gaza, as they have done in recent weeks."[11]

-- LongKong 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with references

There is a problem with references. Check reference 18 in the text, for example. It links to reference 16 at the botom of the page, not to reference 18. Anyone have an idea why this happened? LongKong 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no problem with references. Please, don't introduce more confusion. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...I see it now, sorry.--LongKong 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Our language should not support either side in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. When we describe Isreals as 'arresting' and Palestinians as 'kidnapping' or 'abducting' we prejudge the legitimacy of Israeli control over captured territory.

it has nothing to do with legitimacy of control. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate? --Cyde↔Weys 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the settler and soldier were detained in an extra-judicial action. i.e. outside any legal process (and no, claiming "Israel acts illegaly all the time" doesn't mean thier arrests are in general extra-judicial--not that they havn't been involved in extra-judicial detentions and killings, i.e. kidnapping and murder, in the past, just not in this case). This has nothing to do with whether or not one thinks it is justified or not. The fact is that it is an extra-judicial detention--i.e. a kidnapping. I suppose you could get all philosophical and ask "is there really a difference?", and most people would still say yes, the difference is that there are legal processes, paperwork and rules-of-conduct and such (however loosley adhered too) that people follow in judicial detentions. These are completely absent in the case of the "detained" (and now sadly murdered apparently) Israelis. Get it? --Brentt 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, everyone

Please ignore my ignorant edit - it has been reverted, and rightly so. I'm pretty dumb. WilyD 14:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural translation

Why does it stand in the translation from Hebrew: Operation Summer Rains, whereas it's singular in English? Who made up the name by the way, I think it's rather beautiful ;) Shandris^the ^azylean 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A direct translation is apperantly Summer Rains, but the english media is calling it Summer Rain. But the plural version is nonetheless worthy of note, next to the Hebrew. Rangeley 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew גשמי is geshmey (plural construct state), not geshem (which would be the singular). AnonMoos 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion article should be moved. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.....to? Shandris^the ^azylean 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Operation Summer Rains? -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But all newspapers call it in singular! Shandris^the ^azylean 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But they are mistaken! -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be titled by their most common name in English. If the newspapers are calling it Operation Summer Rain, then Operation Summer Rain is where it belongs. What it's called in foreign languages is irrelevent. While it may be interesting to note in the article, it's not appropriate to move the article. Having Operation Summer Rains redirect here is probly right. Please see WP:NAME for more details WilyD 17:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]