Talk:Killing of Khalil al-Mughrabi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Neutrality concerns

This article is heavily biased against Israel/IDF. Both in general, in terms of the background, and specifically, in terms of the minimal coverage given to the IDF version. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, thanks for edits, looking forward for your more contributions to the article.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

The entire article, from the words "According to testimonies" seems to have been copied, word for word, from the B'Tselem report. Not sure what to do about this. Millmoss (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a subpage has been created to try and fix the issues. This is available at /Temp. Any issues should be worked out there. nableezy - 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked the text a bit more to make clear what is direct quotation and moved it in place of the previous article. MLauba (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mlauba, thanks a lot! I really appreciate your help! many thanks, -- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article must be deleted

Shall I openn an article for each Israeli victim from Palestinian gunman? This article is not more the a null propaganda. Exx8 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New sources, but I think the page should be deleted.

In 2003, Michael Sfard represented the pacifist Yoni Ben-Artzi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's nephew ) in a military tribunal while Kostelitz served as the military prosecutor. . .Ben-Artzi tried to explain what differentiated him from five other refuseniks whose trials were simultaneously taking place at the military tribunal. One of the five was Shimri Tzameret, who kept a diary. On August 5, 2003, he wrote about his testimony in which, among other things, he described a report he had read by the human rights group B'Tselem.

"This is the story of 30 children who were playing football one Saturday in July 2001, in the Yibneh refugee camp in Rafah, close to the border with Egypt. The game started after the afternoon prayers, at approximately five. A short while later, a tank passed close by -'quietly, without firing at us,' as one of the children related. After the game, the children rested and at about seven in the evening, they started to go home. 'I was two meters away from Khalil al-Mughrabi,' one of the children told a B'Tselem field worker, 'when I suddenly heard a slight noise and I saw Khalil's brains flying out of his head and [landing] on my face and clothes.'" The single shot had come from the Israel Defense Forces' observation tower. "The children began fleeing and as they did so, very strong fire opened from the observation tower," the boy added. Another two children were hit, one in his abdomen "and his bowels spilled out." The other was hit in the knee. The IDF spokesman said at the time that "dozens of Palestinians were rioting next to Rafah and endangering the lives of the soldiers... The soldiers acted with restraint and moderation and dispersed the rioters by using means for dispersing demonstrations, and by means of live gunfire into an open area distant from the rioters." The chief military prosecutor at that time, Col. Einat Ron, said in her response to B'Tselem that the IDF soldiers involved were not suspected of any criminal behavior. Apparently her letter included, by mistake, the operative file on the event which included her personal opinion, where she wrote frankly. "A reasonable possibility is that the fire did not hit the children who were identified as rioters" but rather "the children at the football game, at a distance of 1,000 meters from the location of the event. If these were warning shots," she wrote, "they were fired in contravention of the orders which instruct that shooting be done from light weapons, not from heavy machine guns, and not in the direction of children."Ron proposed to the army three possible reactions to the incident: an investigation by the military police; disciplinary steps because the shooting was unjustified; or determining that the firing was justified, that the entire region is dangerous, and that the IDF regrets that innocent people were hit - and that a letter to this effect be written to B'Tselem. "A Chronicle of Covering Up" is how B'Tselem entitled its report. Tzameret testified in the military court about how shocked he had been by the whitewash. In the middle of his testimony, a man and woman in uniform entered the courtroom and sat down next to Kostelitz. Tzameret did not know who they were, but when he mentioned the name Einat Ron, "the look that the military judge and Kostelitz gave the woman made it clear to me that none other than the chief military prosecutor had just entered the courtroom... Out of the 16 hours that I testified, she arrived for precisely the 15 minutes when I was speaking about her." Ron has retired from the army and since 2007 she has been a judge in the Petah Tikva Magistrate's Court. In this capacity, in January she extended the gag order on the case against Anat Kamm, who has been accused of aggravated espionage. Kostelitz, who served under Ron in the military system, told the newspaper Makor Rishon in 2003: "From the state's point of view, obeying the law is an existential condition, and anyone who crosses that line can expect to be punished, even if he did so for conscientious reasons. It is difficult to exaggerate when describing the danger embodied in ideological refusal, which could bring about a disaster on the state [because of] those who wish, on the face of it, to bring it redemption."

‘in one case, an investigation by B’Tselem clearly showed that the death of Khalil al-Mughrabi, an eleven-year-old boy, was caused as the result of a deviation from the regulations and unlawful shooting. Despite this, the JAG’s office decided not to order an investigation by the Military Police and presented a false version of the events, raising questions as to the manner in which the office chooses toi implement its policy’

On 7 July 2001, prominent Hamas spokesperson, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, quoted in The Guardian, stated that Hamas vowed to send ten suicide bombers against Israel to avenge Ithe Israeli army’s killing of an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, Khalil Mughrabi in Rafah (in the Gaza strip). The blood of the martyrs has to be avenged.’

(7) *James Bovard, Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 pp.280-i

'On July 7, 2001, 11-year.old Khalil al-Mughrabi was killed by a bullet from a tank's heavy machine gun as he rested on a pile of dirt after playing soccer at the Yubneh refugee camp in the Gaza Stroip; two friends of his were also wounded. Though Israeli regulations prohibit soldiers from firing warning shots with long-range weapons, an Israeli tank passing near the Egyptian border apparently did exactly that when some Palestinians sought to obstruct the road with debris and barbed wire. Colonel Einat Ron, the chief military prosecutor, concluded in an internal report that "it is likely that the shots (fired by Israeli soldiers) did not hit the children who were identified as rioters, but rather children who were some distance from the place of the event." Though Col. Ron recognized the facts, her official letter to B'tselem declared:"Live gunfire was not aimed at the rioters, and no hits were detected as a result of this gunfire." The internal documents show that Col. Ron formally considered three different explanations for the event, then knowingly chose a false version that completely exonorated the IDF.'Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(8)*'Hamas Threatens 10 Suicide Bombs After Boy's Death,'
New York Times
, 9 July 2001

Name

Per common naming conventions for articles that are about someone dying, they should be about the event and not the person, unless there is a significant amount of information about the person outside of their death available. Clearly, for an 11 year old boy, that's not going to be the case. So, I propose that this article should be, after the AfD is over, renamed to Death of Khalil al-Mughrabi. SilverserenC 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--
WP:RX 08:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also would suggest that the same motion be made at the inappropriately titled and
The murder of Yehuda Shoham. Tiamuttalk 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The second one is already being discussed:
Talk:The_murder_of_Yehuda_Shoham#Title_of_article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The first one is interesting and may be an exception. It depends if the article is focusing primarily on the incident it caused, which it does appear to do, and if it was described as an incident by the reliable sources available for the subject. SilverserenC 22:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"incident" is a euphemism, suggesting an event of relatively low importance, so
Death of Muhammad al-Durrah, but for now I'm just noting my view that it should be changed. --NSH001 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

edits by Crystalfile

Regarding these edits. The lead already said that the IDF initially said that it was responding to rock throwing. It is the first line of the second paragraph. However, the Israeli army's investigation later concluded that there had been no rock throwing when al-Mughrabi was shot, and further it said that he was "innocently playing football" when he was killed. Placing that line as the second sentence of the article when it was later established it was untrue is a poor attempt at trying to distort the events that took place. nableezy - 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits also make the lead disjointed. nableezy - 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive moved the line added to the second paragraph where it discusses the Israeli army's initial reaction. nableezy - 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have the user explicitly attributing to B'tselem what is reported by such sources as AP, NYTimes, Ha'aretz. Really now, this is getting ridiculous. nableezy - 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the reports show that this interpretation is based on Btselems analysis. This is shown when reading the sources. Crystalfile (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read the sources, thank you very much, and no that is not what the "interpretation" is based on. The sources all report that the military records indicate such, not that B'tselem's "analysis" of the records indicate that. What you are doing is distorting the cited sources, and if you do not remove the distortion I will be asking for administrative relief. nableezy - 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nableezy here. The source that those sentences are cited to DO NOT attribute the information to B'tselem. To say that that information is "according to B'tselem," a source that says so explicitly is necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though the lead was not only one place where this was inserted. See this diff. nableezy - 22:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now the removal of "initially". The "initially" is there because the army's report later found that to be untrue. nableezy - 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) This is one view not to be said in wiki voice. source does not say this you do. Crystalfile (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that that's why it was there. I don't know how I feel about it. It certainly is better writing to say initially, since two sentences later we have the chief military prosecutor denying that statement. My problem is that I don't know enough about the Israeli military to know if the chief military prosecutor is part of the IDF or not. Maybe we don't have the luxury of good writing right now. I disagree with Crystalfile that we would need a source to say that, but I don't feel like arguing about it right now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to have stable version before summarizing in the lead in our own words. the source does not say this. This is nableezys views. i think we work together in getting all views in the article and then step back and see what is good summary to use in wiki voice. Crystalfile (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right. The "initially" doesn't have anything to do with summarizing anything in anyone's own words. It obviously refers to the next but one sentence following it, where a military investigation denies the statement. Is that actually not clear to everyone here? How do you take it as a summary of anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I have looked at say the israeli military prosecutor did not disclaim internal documents. it is different to say this is an official retraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with this. It makes me wonder why your original explanation mentioned summarizing things, but never mind that. Anyway, I've changed it to "immediately," which is manifestly true from the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant material in article

this article is not about mcgreal or the idf, it is about this child. so, while i tried to remove:

"In just ten weeks in 2003 McGreal instanced six similar cases in that area: Haneen Suliaman, an 8 year-old girl, had been killed by an IDF sniper’s headshot while strolling out to buy a packet of crisps; soon after Huda Darwish, a 12 years old girl, was shot in the head while at her desk at school and left blind for life; a boy Abdul Rahman Jadallah, who attended Suliaman’s funeral, was then shot under the eye after attending the funeral of a Palestinian fighter the next day - among a group of kids, he stood forth and hung a Palestinian flag on a fence, and was shot in the face; Ali Ghureiz, 7 years old, was shot in the head, below his left eye, outside his house in Rafah; Haneen Abu Sitta, aged 12, was killed while walking home from school near a Jewish settlement fence in southern Gaza; Nada Madhi, aged 12, took a bullet in the stomach and died, after leaning from her bedroom window in Rafah to watch a funeral procession for another child that had just been killed."

nishidani felt otherwise. so...anyone? comments? Soosim (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) definitely irrelevant and pov pushing. It has nothing to do with the article and should be removed.Crystalfile (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex comments to back one party, Crystalfile, will be ignored. If you wish to elide a substantial section of an article, you should argue the case before doing so. Otherwise with standby editors like Crystalfire on call, you just invite an edit-war.
It's called context. McGreal's article dealt with the kind of killing of which Khalil al-Mughrabi's death was an example, and he listed it, and the follow-up controversy as to how the IDF investigates such incidents. He went to the trouble of getting interviews for all the cases. Unlike the Yehuda Shohan travesty, where context is suppressed in order to highlight an event purely for its POV value, this article covers context, circumstances, investigations, controversies etc., as such articles should do. To repress context is to fashion POV articles one way or another. Israel has a POV. Palestinians have a POV, third parties have a POV, and we must include them all if and where RS dealing with an event mention these contexts and circumstances, as McGreal obviously does. You cannot make articles just out of immediate newspaper reports that ignore all context, because we are writing encyclopedic articles for the long term, not bulletins. Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But his POV is about IDF investigations and nothing about this specific case. to add it all here is ur POV! it was about IDF not khalil which this article talked about.Crystalfile (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV means 'point of view'. He raised the case of Khalil al-Mughrabi specifically in the context of many other similar shootings in the head. He connected this with the inadequacy of IDF accounts of such shootings. No one can doubt it is RS, no one can deny that McGreal cites the al-Mughrabi case, and he does so to illustrate his general investigation's results. You clearly haven't read the source, so until you do, please refrain from making inaccurate comments.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This material is so obviously relevant, not only for context about this death, but also to show the place of the death in the discourse surrounding the phenomenon of which the death is a part. Both belong in the article. If McGreal did not place al-Mughrabi in this context or discuss the context with him as an example it wouldn't be relevant. McGreal does both; it's doubly relevant. Suggest that Crystalfile at least read
WP:POV before invoking it like an incantation; it doesn't mean "leave out everything I don't like." It means "put in material on topic from reliable sources whether I like it or not."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

So obviously relevant that I cant see what the dispute is here. McGreal uses this instance as an example of a wider issue. He explicitly raises this event in that, and compares it to a number of other cases. How is it not relevant? nableezy - 16:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so if i understand what you are saying is that we can add material that is more general and deals with context. for example, explaining the pros and cons of btselem. (people should their context, yes?) Soosim (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in another incident

Activism, it is nice that you have had an apparent change of heart on including context, however your edit has several problems. To begin with, you added this incident to a sentence that begins The spokesman for the Israeli army said that the troops had fired back following these attacks. Did the spokesman for the Israeli army also say that in another incident, two Israeli soldiers were lightly injured when a roadside bomb exploded near the village of Asira al-Shamaliya? Or that it was a reason for troops to have fired in Rafah? The material on those two soldiers being injured can certainly be included, but your edit attributes it incorrectly and places it in a place where it makes no sense. nableezy - 18:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that as long as the ref mentions it, we can put it next to that ref. Just like that Palestinian security agent wasn't in that hospital, nor was he attached to a respirator. Perhaps I interpreted it wrongly. --
1234 18:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Besides, the edit doesn't say whatsoever the spokesman said that. It includes what the spokesman says, then moves on to another incident. I dont have a problem breaking it up, which I'll do now. --
1234 18:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

page move

Anybody object to moving this to

WP:DEATHS this should be uncontentious. nableezy - 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

if somebody objects move it back, but as nobody has and
WP:DEATHS would have this titled Killing of Khalil al-Mughrabi Im going to move it. nableezy - 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Khalil_al-Mughrabi&oldid=1204649765"