Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Background graph

The top graph is broken and shows no information. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to that Shin bet analysis meant to show only that the terms of the November 2012 truce were broken by rocket fire from Gaza? I have no problems with such a graph, as long as it is accompanied by a balancing graph indicating that Israel broke the terms of the truce around 300 times in the same period. Unless that is done, the graph is just a violation of NPOV, and is being used to make a unilateral case for Israel, and should be removed until a balanced graphic representation of the violations by both sides is forthcoming.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant balancing graph can be found here (Middle Eastern Monitor) which remarks 'just 17 of the nearly 120 Israeli ceasefire violations over one year following the 2012 ceasefire were reported on by the New York Times' or

here, 'Ceasefire Dynamics Nov.2012-May 2014.(Gaza Cease-Fire Dynamics Explained: What Cease-Fire will Work? The Jerusalem Fund 15 July 2014)

As to Shin Bet, 'The Israeli human rights group B'tselem, citing the Israeli Shin Bet, notes that nearly 14,000 projectiles were fired from Gaza from 2005 to 2013. UN OCHA noted that Israel fired about the same number of artillery shells into Gaza in 2006 alone.'

So attempts to jigger the narrative by prioritizing Israeli official statistics that exclude the statistical work of the Palestinian version of this history are unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This might simply refer to the fact the graph is visually broken. The hatch marks, labels and legend are offset a notable distance to the top (or the bars and axes to the bottom). At least, this is the case in my Firefox and Internet Explorer. 82.166.114.239 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

^ This it is visually broken the legend and labels are seperated on my browser.It makes it unusable. --Youngdrake (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks correct for me in chrome, but indeed is broken in the latest IE. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Same in Firefox :P Strygalldwir (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have various problems with the Background subsection, mostly relating to the breaking of the November 2012 ceasefire. There is text relating to these violation in the text prior the "Violations of the truce". There is duplication of content. There is conflict of information with at times Israel having seemingly justified Operation Protective edge because of the teenager kidnappings/killings and at times because of rocket fire from Gaza. I also have a logic issue with "violations of the truce" because it refers to the ceasefire with Hamas, and then provides evidence which includs the west bank over which Hamas has little practical control. In fact, a graph of rocket fire from Gaza shows that Hamas was remarkably successful in curbing attacks from the area under its control. This needs serious attention. I propose an enitely new section named "Violations of the ceasefire", with all material pertaining to that contained within this proposed section, and with evidence, references and graphs that are pertinent to the content. I will endeavour to provide a draft soon Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The graph showing violation of the Nov.2012 ceasefire agreement by Gazans who fired rockets and mortar shells, this graph seems to annoy someone. Time and again this graph gets erased. Shame on you for doing this, hiding facts from the public! gever_tov (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gever tov: As has been explained to you multiple times, this graph is primary sourced, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. You have added this graph multiple times after it was removed. This has also been explained to you on your talk page. If you continue this behaviour, you might get blocked. Kingsindian (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede; # of paras

"The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." See wp:lede. We are at nine. Efforts to shorten the lede to fewer paragraphs would be helpful, though I understand it may be difficult. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, each of the last four paragraphs — which begin "On 21 July US Secretary...", "The conflict is the deadliest..." (formerly "The Israeli name..."; I just renamed it), "According to OCHA...", and "Human rights groups have argued...", respectively — would all be better positioned if they were in the article, rather than the lead. Indeed, I have just moved two of those paragraphs. -sche (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the "Israeli academics" say ... from the lead

I am removing this from the lead: "Some Israeli legal experts have declared Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians to violate international law and constitute war crimes. Israeli academics have debated whether or not the UN agency, UNRWA, who are alleged to have returned rockets to Hamas, have violated international law and therby committed a war crime."

I think these are WP:UNDUE.

• The first sentence is based on Israel Democracy Institute's report which has been hardly covered outside of very marginal sources. The source cited is "Washington Free Beacon" who as someone said is well to the "dog shit" end of the spectrum. Moreover, the allegation that Hamas committed war crimes is already present in the previous sentence.
• The second sentence is a discussion between a couple of Israeli academics on whether UNRWA committed war crimes in relation the rockets, one of which is again the Israel Democracy Institute. Only cited in Jerusalem post. We can agree that Jersualem post is RS. However, I do not see how this belongs in the lead. The statement is very vague and there does not seem to be agreement on whether UNRWA did commit war crimes. Just a discussion or debate between Israeli academics carries little weight. There might be a case to put the statement in the UNRWA rockets section, though I seriously doubt that this is worth including even there.

--Kingsindian (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

While I don't know what the consensus view of editors are in that particular part of the lead, I agree that the sentence about Israeli academics was right to be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingsindian had removed sourced content from article summary rather than move that info to the section that deals with the subject in detail. In doing so, the neutrality of this article has been compromised by removing sourced content that would provide a range of views on the subject of international law and war crimes. Those edits are entirely unhelpful and risk the article being tagged as biased in favour of one party. I will be correcting these errors by re-adding the sourced content to the article'a section on the topic. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty My apologies: if you believe that some material should be included in some other section, go ahead. I just didn't think it belonged in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: I have moved the allegations against UNRWA in the "legality" to the "UNRWA school incident" section to keep it all in one place. Also elaborated somewhat on the legality section Kingsindian (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, just saw your edit after I completed mine. I think you're right that legality shouldn't be duplicated, but the main place for such content should be the legal section... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: In the legality section, I am

• Removing "American Thinker" as a source. I do not know that source and I doubt that it is WP:RS. There are enough other sources as it is, so no big loss.
• The sentence about Ibrahin Khraishi has two parts, one about conceding that Hamas committed war crimes and second that "Israel adhered to international law". Regarding the first, I have no issue. Regarding the second, the statement only says "in many cases, Israel warned people to evacuate" and in this case "the law considers this a mistake rather than intentional killing". The conclusion from this that Israel adhered to international law (in this or other cases) is not correct and just seems to be a conclusion from the writer in the "Israel Today" article. I am removing this part of the sentence. Also removing "Israel Today" as a source because Ynet is already present as a source. I do not know what "Israel Today" is, but I doubt that it is WP:RS.

If there are any issues, we can discuss it. Kingsindian (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

State of Palestine in the infobox (Edit: Belligerents section)

Isn't having the State of Palestine (i.e. a flag followed by "Palestine") listed in the infobox misleading? Readers might think Israel is at war with Mahmoud Abbas.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Its not misleading since Gaza is part of Palestine. AcidSnow (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Palestine is leading a war against Israel? The "State of Palestine" is what the West Bank Palestinian government calls themselves. That is completely different from Hamas. Let me make this simple: Israel is at war with Hamas, not the State of Palestine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a ship of fools. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad there's at least something we can agree on.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In case I caused any confusion. I am referring to the belligerents section of the infobox, not he location section. The Gaza Strip is a location, so having "Palestine" there is appropriate. But the "Gaza Strip" is not a combatant (a mere location can't be a combatant), so it and "Palestine" should not belong in the Belligerents section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaza is part of the "Palestinian territories", Gaza is controlled by the government of Hamas, and Israel is at war with Hamas. This is akin to, say, having anti-fascist forces fighting Vichy France in battle X having the French flag there in the article for said battle, I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The belligerents section of the infobox now says "Palestinian insurgent groups" instead of "Palestine"/"Gaza Strip". This is much better. Whoever that changed it, thank you.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that having the state of Palestine as a belligerent is misleading. Israel is fighting Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, and other militant groups in the region. Abbas' government is not at war with Israel, and in fact, if I recall, PA authorities are collaborating with Israeli forces in the West Bank. The fact that Hamas is part of the Palestinian government now (I think?) doesn't matter; Hamas and friends are acting independently here. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we add citations for some of the belligerents?

The role of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is well noted in the news, but not the other factions listed under "Palestinian insurgent groups" in the infobox. The article for Operation Pillar of Defense has citations in the infobox for these folks, and considering how hard you have to dig to figure out what, for instance, the PFLP is doing to get itself listed in the infobox, citations would be useful for the reader. QiwXAatUnL (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of flights section to own dedicated article

Please discuss here, I would like to reach a decision by the end of the week. Jab843 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just do it. WP:BEBOLD. Having that section here is undue weight.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire section shouldn't be gone, but almost all of it ought to be out of here. All that's needed is a brief paragraph (or maybe less). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See also discussion in Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Proposed merge with 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans and Talk:2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans. Obankston (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding Palestinian rocket attacks in 2014 to "timeline" section

@Warkosign: Your edit seems unnecessary and WP:UNDUE. The link deals with the whole of 2014, and is already present in the "See also" for the background section. The "Operation Timeline" section just deals with the timeline after July 8th. The rockets fired after July 8th has already been mentioned in the "Casualties and losses" section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the root of the problem is the identify of the page. It is currently called "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", but is clearly centered on Operation Protective Edge - the timeline sub-page clearly only deals with the 4 weeks of the operation. If the page is about the whole of 2014, it should mentioned attacks by both sides equally. Currently, "Operation timeline" (of the "conflict", another identity problem) centers about how IDF attacked hamas, and has no mentioned of the rockets fired from Gaza. Imo, one way to solve this would be to have separate pages - one for the whole year, one specifically for this operation, perhaps each with timeline sub-pages. WarKosign (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: That is fine, but as it stands, the section only deals with the timeline after July 8. I do not see the point of including the list of rocket attacks for the whole of 2014 in that section. As I said, it is already present in the "Background" section and the "Casualties" section. Even if the page is dealing with the whole of 2014 (it is not, as the lead makes clear), the link does not need to be duplicated. Kingsindian (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You are correct, however at the moment 'operation timeline' section deals only with one side of a conflict. The timeline page suffers from the same problem. I added the link as an attempt to reduce the problem. Do you have other ideas ?WarKosign (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKoSign: I do not have a better idea, since there does not seem to be a breakdown for before and after July 8 on the page. Perhaps there should be a separate section on the other page for rocket attacks after July 8. I suppose we can leave the link as it is, right now. Kingsindian (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to add this link, it belongs in background. Not under casualties of this specific war. --Sloane (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Not sure if this has been addressed already, but I think we should start considering making a timeline article, like Timeline of the Gaza War. You know, the article's pretty lengthy and will only grow; there's no end in sight for this conflict yet.--ɱ (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow! great minds think alike! merging my section from just below! Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we are there yet, but at some point if this conflict continues longer we are going to have to move to a much more WP:SUMMARY style rather than detailing every WP:NOTNEWS encounter on each day. While at a human level each attack and death or wounding means a great deal I'm not sure of the lasting encyclopedic value of that level of detail. Perhaps a timeline article would be more appropriate for some of that level of content (but still probably not all) - and the main article should be a much higher level summary. Think how long the articles on other wars (or even individual campaigns and battles) would be if they were discussed at this level of detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's yet responded, so I'm going to "be bold" and do it. The article already passed the 50kB readable prose size recommendation for splitting the article.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was considering making the bold move today since no one had commented so you beat me to it - Galatz (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the lede is timeline, the info should be merged into the section 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Operation timeline and/or the separate article Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Obankston (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans

The flight ban is worth including, but I'm not sure that it warrants its own entry. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See commit message here for the reason why I made a new article. Hhm8 (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, the subject in question is barely relevant to the current article, adding more will do nothing more than clutter the current article that we are trying to craft. If anything, this section should be reduced to 3 sentences and a redirect to the other article. Jab843 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The separate article 2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans should remain, because the information for that subject is changing frequently. The article 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict should have a section that summarizes the subject, but not have information that needs to be updated frequently. Obankston (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As argued below, the section here breaks WP:Undue, since the article prioritizes a minor blip in a war lastying over three weeks. Everything else, the political negotiations truce proposals, background, actual war, has been drastically edited out and this section is anomalous given its triviality. It may be important to tourists, it is not an important part of the war. At most one can write (with an in-line link to the new article)

Flights to Ben-Gurion airport were interrupted for some days (link to new article) after a Hamas missile struck an area in its vicinity.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Ben Gurion Airport, the ban duration was relatively short, looks like WP:RECENTISM to me. Brandmeister^talk 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The article started off there. See [6] and [7]. Hhm8 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• See also discussion in Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Proposed move of flights section to own dedicated article and Talk:2014 Ben Gurion Airport flight bans. Obankston (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to the "Protests in Israel and the West Bank" section and change to the Palestinian casualties.

I think it should be changed to "Protests in Israel and the Palestinian Territories". There were anti-Hamas protests in Gaza which resulted in Hamas shooting 20 people. I also think the Palestinian casualties in the combatants section should include Hamas executing "alleged Israeli spies" in Gaza.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Report-Hamas-executes-alleged-spies-shoots-protesters-in-Gaza-369331

Hamas shot some 20 Palestinians on Monday night for protesting against Hamas for the massive destruction inflicted on their neighborhood in Shejaia by the IDF in the past weeks, Channel 10 reported on Tuesday.

Over the past few days, Hamas has executed more than 30 civilians from various parts of the Gaza Strip which it suspected of collaborating with Israel, unidentified Palestinian security sources told the Palestine Press News Agency. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties

@WarKosign: I have removed most of the edit here due to the following reasons:

a) Removed blogs as sources. b) Removed the clause "therefore, many of the civilians are militants", not present in the Jerusalem Post article. c) Removed the gender-based breakdown of casualties (redundant).

I have also moved the remaining stuff down into the next paragraph. Kingsindian (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I understand why you made these changes, however i'm not certain an average reader would understand why hamas using 'agents in civilian clothes' or the ages of the majority of the casualties are related to the numbers of casualties. The obvious (to me, and hopefully any sane person) implications is that many of these so called civilians are in fact militants - but it's probably OR until I can find a RS for that.WarKosign (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: How about this sentence: "Analysis of demographics of civilian casualties reported by PCHR indicate that many of them are likely to be in fact combatants, as was the case in previous conflicts." ? - WarKosign (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• Honestreporting.com is not a good source
• The time source is an opinion piece by a person from CAMERA. The point about different classifications by different orgs is already present in the section, like the figures given by the ITIC and IDF and so on. I do not see a case for inclusion of this in the article. Kingsindian (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You could say about almost any article that it's an opinion. Until all the fighting is done and several researches publish their analysis, all we have to go by is more or less based opinions. What is wrong with honestreporting.com ? - WarKosign (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: By "good", I did not mean anything about quality. I simply meant more-or-less neutral, and WP:RS. With such a lot of coverage on the topic, using marginal or partisan sources is not good. You can see the HonestReporting wiki page to see that this is a fair description. As to the second point, there are many other sources than opinion pieces, like those already mentioned, IDF, the Israeli ITIC, the UN OCHA, various human rights orgs with their staff and so on. An opinion piece by "pro-Israel" Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America carries much less weight than the other sources I mentioned, who already make the point about different classifications of civilians and millitants. Kingsindian (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Background

I am removing a signifigant amount. It was still too close to the original plagiarized piece in structure. The paragraph also used sources predating the conflict to justify an assertion made in the copy righted opinion piece which lead to a form of original research. An attempt to disrupt the combined government might very well be part of the reasoning behind the conflict (I don't know either way) but it did not deserve that much weight. Plagiarism, original research, undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No one should be tampering grossly with the lead or background without first addressing the talk page. The lead summarizes the article and yet the second major paragraph has no connect with the background, in fact it contradicts it.

By 7 July, 100 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israeli territory, towards Beersheba, Ashdod, Ofakim, Ashkelon, and Netivot, and Israel struck several sites in Gaza.[10][11][12] Overnight, Israel hit 50 targets in the Gaza Strip,[13] and by 8 July, Palestinian militants in Gaza had fired over 140 rockets within 24 hours into Israel, as far north as Hadera, beyond Tel Aviv. Israel's counter-rocket defense system, the Iron Dome, intercepted about 30 of the rockets. Israel also thwarted an infiltration from the sea.[14] Israel commenced the major military response on 8 July. On the same day, Hamas declared that "all Israelis" had become "legitimate targets".[15][16].

The background showed once that exchanges of IAF attacks and Hamas rocketry had been going on for a week before the decision to conduct an operation against Gaza. That is nowhere in the lead, as opposed to the background. Instead we have a list of Hamas actions provoking Israel. It violates WP:NPOV by following the IDF Israeli official line, and is a disgrace.

This also, in the background, is POV pushing:

however, Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said that he can neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, and congratulated the abductors

('however' here is editorial nudging to suggest 'whatever Hamas says, they wouldn't come clean'). Meshaal's statement was made to stress that, since they had (their public position which is all that counts for us) no knowledge of the incident despite Israeli accusations of responsibility, they could neither confirm or deny the facts. In several statements Hamas and other groups said they were reading the kidnapping as something staged by the IDF to provide a pretext to hit Gaza. Silly, but that is one impression they had, given some credibility because everyone knew that the government pretended the boys were alive for three weeks in order to provide the ratio for a massive crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a crackdown that, in strategic terms, left Hamas in the dilemma of either not defending their own, or retaliating. Hamas formally broke its Nov 2012 agreement with Israel after an IAF attack on one of its rocket squads on June 29, by relòeasing a rocket barrage on June 20. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe any of your suggestions are related to my edit so all I can say is be bold and fix what you see needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.160 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They are all related to your edit. You removed substantial text that had been stable, and then alerted the talk page. One is not supposed to do that. This is supposed to be a (ha!ha!) consensual drafting, not an obiter dictum followed by an executive expunging of text no one till you found problematical.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It was by no means stable. The edit went through by a single editor before the ground operation started and we saw increased traffic on the page. It was reported to a noticeboard within 24 hours of the original insertion since it was in obvious violation of copyright. Pardon me for being dense, but I still don't see anything I removed as being at all remotely related to your tl;dr personal blog/attempt to start a debate for the fun of it/diatribe. I'm not engaging in an argument with you. Fix it or don't. Just make sure to not copy and paste a single source in then add unrelated sources throughout in an attempt to make a point. Have you even looked at the dif from the edit or were you too busy trying to convey your own point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.8.173 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I expect rational discussion to make analyses, compare them to relevant policy issues, link to relevant noticeboard discussions, etc. You haven't done that here. You made assertions. Document them closely and they will be examined.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Completeness of "Background": Quote: "The operation follows a chain of events that began with the abduction of three Israeli teenagers Naftali Fraenkel (16), Gilad Shaer (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) in the West Bank in June 2014, for which Israel blamed Hamas." Why start there? Why not step back slightly and look at the full picture since the start of the recent tension, because that start was NOT as the article currently states. Here is the sequence as I have gleaned it:

http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/EnTerrorData/Reports/Pages/default.aspx

2013: No Israeli fatalities from Gaza during 2013 January 2014: Shabak – 11 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) February 2014: Shabak – 7 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) March 2014: Shabak – 22 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) April 2014: Shabak – 10 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths) May 2014: Shabak – 4 (no reported Israeli injuries or deaths)

During early/mid May 2014 twelve Palestinians were wounded by the IDF in a series of events http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10331 Then, on May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed by the IDF and eight civilians wounded during commemorations of Nakba day. On May 20 video evidence became available showing that the youths were posing no threat at the time - http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/palestine-teenagerskilled.html. The USA called for an inquiry. The IDF reported that “live fire” had not been used, a claim refuted by B’Tselem. On May 22, as Michael Oren (former Israeli ambassador to the UN) suggested on CNN that the boys may not be dead, the UN released a report of a sharp increase in Palestinian casualties over recent periods [8].

June 9: The body of one of the teens, Nadim Numara, was exhumed and an autopsy performed which found that a live bullet had killed the boy. “The willful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime” Human Rights Watch -http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/09/israel-killing-children-apparent-war-crime. A senior Palestinian official called the killings a "deliberate execution" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27488135

On June 12, three days after the official autopsy result, three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped in the West Bank. Is this pure coincidence?

The rest of the saga DOES appear in this article. I believe the full lead-up needs to be laid out, and not one of selective memory. Any objection to this being done?Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue I see with these additions is that there are many reliable sources linking the conflict and the kidnapping. Are there reliable sources that are discussing the timeline as far back as you have in the context of this conflict? If not, it is WP:OR to say they are linked. IF there are, then we get into an issue of WP:WEIGHT regarding what perponderance of reliable sources make that linkage. If such sources exist of sufficient number and reliability making that linkage I have no objection, but if not, any point to start is just as arbitrary as any other. We would end up recounting back to the 60s, or the 1600s just as easily. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil response, Gaijin42. You are correct that there are reliable sources linking the conflict to the kidnapping of the Israeli teenagers. I am pointing out that there was also an earlier event, only days before, not decades before, involving deaths of Palestinian youths, that is also part of the post April flare-up. You ask for sources linking the current period of conflict back to before the kidnapping of the Jewish lads. Sure there is - the whole screed of bellicose events that I listed from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. The fact that Hamas or others did not go on a mass revenge operation as Israel did, and hence make copious amounts of news, in no way detracts from the cause-and-effect chain. Regarding proof that the kidnapping of the Israeli youths was related to the deaths of the Palestinian boys, since the perpetrators of those latter kidnappings have not been found, their motivations are equally speculative, yet the article presents these copiously without censure. Why the bias?

The most obvious way to reconcile our differences is to support the merger of this Operation as per the "Move Request 1→ 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", something that you have opposed. You seem to support a salami tactic in the current flare-up. You claim that “we could end up going back to the 60’s". I suggest that is a red herring, because the flare-up that started in early-May and continues to this date was clearly preceded by a limiting period of months of relative calm that even the Israeli Security Agency noted.

So, unless the facts from a fuller timeline are allowed to be presented, without any POV commentary, in the “Operation” article, I have no option but to support the incorporation of this Article into the broader 2014 conflict. Salami tactics rarely assist an honest evaluation of history. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section added to "Background" Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand much of the earlier discussion. But I fail to understand Erictheenquirer's edit, and moreover, this whole "Background" section is a mess. I do not exactly see where the "proposed section" was proposed. No doubt there is a lot of background, and I am not unsympathetic to including some of it.

• The statement "We have been instructed by the political echelon to hit Hamas hard." is spoken on July 8, much after the kidnapping of the teenagers. Why is it in the first paragraph?

• I fail to see the criteria of inclusion of things in the Erictheenquirer's edit. And there is all kind of incoherency in the whole section. It jumps around chronologically all over the place. And what kind of language is this: "The pro-Israeli version is that..."

My head spins just trying to read this Background section. Kingsindian (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Background section is a mess. Perhaps this is a consequence of the topic being one which is currently evolving. In fact, I do not see how there can be any real logic to having an intricate Background section in an Article that is essentially an Annual timeline. And as you noted, the timeline is thoroughly messed up. If one were to step back, there seem to be a few fundamental "bits" that contribute to the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: 1) The November 2012 Ceasefire: How did in progress in 2014?; 2) What were the lesser violations that did not result in week/month-long conflict; What was the detailed timeline within the continuous conflict that started in early-May; how did the chain-of-events evolve? There is much merit in adding the Israeli 'Operations' into this section rather than to slice them out as events that somehow are unrelated. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If we want to keep a background section, we have to start somewhere as Gaijin42 mentions. I suggest that we start after the 2012 ceasefire. That should be a logical starting point. We can then give some criteria about what to include in the background. The logical things which should be included, seem to me these: we can summarize the violations of either side in a systematic and neutral manner. Right now, it's not clear to me what is the criteria for inclusion of most of the incidents. The killing of the 2 kids near Ofer prison seems notable because of RS mentions, but is it representative in some way? And how is it related to the current airstrikes etc.? The shooting incident, sadly, just seems to me just one in a long series of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. The second thing to mention is the Hamas/Fatah unity deal and Israel's reaction to that. The third thing is the kidnapping of the teenagers and subsequent Israeli activities in the West Bank. The fourth should be Hamas/Israeli actions which triggered the airstrikes. These are the four important things which around which the section should be based. What exactly to mention in each category can be discussed, but there should be some logic to inclusion of various incidents. Kingsindian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you have pretty much got an excellent framework outlined there. Agreed about the start point. So background is Nov 2012 to 31 Dec 2013. Thereafter the ‘relatively’ detailed timeline starts. Regarding what to include, it should preserve a level playing field. I do believe that is imperative to summarise the reason for the start of the June rocket fire from Gaza even if that reason originated outside of Gaza. There is already an article on the kidnapping of the Israeli teens. We can discuss ‘wrinkles’ on Talk as we go along. Many thanks for your positive contribution. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

<------- (Merging a section from below)

This section needs trimming of all accessory irrelevancies. This is my suggestion.

The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014. Following the Israeli threats regarding Fatah-Hamas reconciliation efforts during April 2014 the pattern of relative calm since late 2012 changed abruptly. On May 15 two unarmed Palestinian teenagers were killed, one certainly by live ammunition, by the IDF during the Nakba day commemorations, and video evidence revealed that they had posed no threat at the time. On May 22, the UN released a report of a sharp recent increase in Palestinian casualties, and the same pattern continued through June. Soon after abduction of three Israeli teenagers took place on 12 June. This last incident, it is also argued, formed the essential background for the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately blamed Hamas, of which the two kidnappers were known members. No evidence of Hamas involvement was forthcoming Hamas leaders denied any involvement. and its political chief, Khaled Meshal could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping, though he did congratulate the abductors. Further, the alleged murderers belong to the Qawasameh clan which is notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. Israel launched Operation Brother's Keeper, a large-scale crackdown of what it called Hamas's terrorist infrastructure and personnel in the West Bank, ostensibly aimed at securing the release of the kidnapped teenagers. 10 Palestinians died in numerous raids, and several hundred senior figures and Hamas representatives were arrested, . among them many of those recently freed under the terms of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. On 30 June, search teams found the bodies of the three missing teenagers near Hebron. Israeli authorities appear to have known almost from the outset that the three had been shot almost immediately after the kidnapping, and it later emerged via Micky Rosenfeld that Israel police work on the assumption that the abductors were a lone cell operating independently of the Hamas leadership.

The BBC reporter has now revealed that the Israeli authorities do not believe Hamas was behind the kidnapping, though blaming Hamas was a crucial element in the leadup to the war.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The above seems fine to me. I will put it in the background section provisionally. If we have more issues, we can discuss later. Kingsindian (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian & @Nishidani The new background although has the benefit of being short, has some major problems which should be modified:

• POV problem arises from the SHABAK source which is used here to show how the situation had been quiet after 2000! in this regard, the editor has mentioned " rocket attacks from Gaza" as a criteria to prove the claim which is an obvious POV.
• The readers need to know how the Hamas-Fatah negotiation could be regarded as a factor for moving toward the conflict. Hence, we should present the reactions to these talks. The new version only has one sentence in this regard which might be disputable without other completing sentences.
• The part talking about the chain of the events right before the conflict is very brief, we'd better have some of the former materials for this part. Even we might have a time line table for showing the major effective incidents from the peace period up to the conflict.
• The citations are really used in an awkward manner.

In whole, I believe that this version plus this analysis makes a better background considering the current one. Moreover, The peace periods after the 2012 cease fire can be mentioned using WP:RS without mentioning any data or report from the sides-related sources. The new edition needs to have all of the parts in a rational order. Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein. I rewrote one part of the background because it was written in bad English, had excessive incidental details, and irrelevancies (Michael Oren) etc. What appears to have happened is that the part I copyedited, with an adjustment, has been used to replace the whole background, which is what this version you prefer retains. I have no problem in restoring all of the matter in that version, preferably keeping the changes I made in my copyedit. This has a long history, as one of my edits from that Guardian article showed before it was removed, and as

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014

and *Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' +972 Magazine July 15, 2014

J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza"

show. The background should, as before, start with the Guardian analysis, use sources like Zahriyeh and Landau to show the firing patterns, the November 2012 ceasefire and its violations, then deal with the second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Netanyahu's vehement opposition. The section I rewrote is essentially the short term, immediate background to the event, dealing with the attempt to blame Hamas for the kidnappings. I suggest therefore that you ignore the section I proposed and be adopted, and rewrite or repaste for comment nd eventual inclusion here your preferred version of the 'older background'.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein & @Nishidani & Erictheenquirer My apologies, I misunderstood the part which had to be replaced, and drastically changed the background section. I am fine with including the Guardian view etc. Kingsindian (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani That's a good Idea, I'll take care of that and paste my proposed version here. By the way, I think the first paragraph in the current version contains OR and hence should be reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No need for apologies. It is difficult enough handling the flurry of changes, let alone trying to read and think through RD. We now have

• Ehab Zahriyeh 'Citing past failures, Hamas demands an enforceable cease-fire,' Al-Jazeera 16 July 2014
• Idan Landau 'The unfolding lie of Operation Protective Edge,' +972 Magazine July 15, 2014
• J.J. Goldberg's piece in The Forward, "How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza" Nishidani (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As to OR, just cite the sentence(s) here. If no one can back the content up with a ref to both the operation and its background where that content is mentioned, we will drop it immediately. All this can be done rapidly by simply addressing everything, issue by issue, here. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Mhhossein: Just FYI, I had already added JJ Goldberg's Forward's piece as a source for the sentence that Israel knew about the deaths of the teenagers almost from the beginning, when I put in Nishidani's ce. So it is already present in the article. Perhaps more stuff from there can be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: This is just an example; this sentence: The Israeli State Security (Shabak) data show that 2013 had been one of the quietest years since 2000, and that rocket attacks from Gaza continued to be at a background level until April 2014, is an obvious OR, the source has presented only the data, the editor is analyzing the data! whole paragraph should be replaced by a correct and suitable one. I'll take care of that. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Take it out then, but since several of the sources we have speak of 2013 being a period when Hamas rocket activity, and rocket firing from Gaza was at an all-time low, just substitute it, when you do your general edit, with one or two of those sources mentioning that fact as they discuss the present war. WP:OR is avoided by simply finding a source which connects the data on the rocket lull prior to the war underway.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: My proposed background is ready and available here. It contains 2005 withdrawal, violation of peace 2008-2012, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation and immediate events as was discussed before. Please make comments on this essay. The background will be replaced by the proposed one. We even have the option of making a daughter article as "Background of 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict". Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: A general comment. As I mentioned above, in my opinion, the background should more or less start with 2012 ceasefire, with some major things from earlier periods included from before. Specific comments: 1. I am fine with including the Guardian view that the roots are in the 2005 withdrawal 2. I am skeptical of including all the ceasefire violations etc. going back to 2008 in detail. One can mention that there were two prior ceasefire agreements in 2008 and 2012, but to have sections for them seems not correct to me. 3. The 2008 and 2012 wars/massacres already have articles for them. And they have their own summary of the ceasefire violations prior to the wars. The sections for the 2008 and 2012 wars are quite far from the sections in the articles for those wars/massacres and will inevitably be seen as violating NPOV. 4. I do not see any references for the 2008 violation and for the 2012 violations, there is only one reference to Israeli violations. Again, this will be seen as violating NPOV. 5. The last two sections are more or less ok. However the statement by Moti Almoz was uttered on July 8, after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. It belongs in the last section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks for your review and your useful comments. Truce violation sections, as you said may be summarized while keeping the major points (what are these points from your viewpoint?). Do you have any Idea for mentioning the trend of cease-fires? please include it at the very bottom of this page. I tried to use WP:RS for writing these sections and have mentioned each side's justification for violations to maintain NPOV. However, I'll search for more sources dealing with violations. By the way, I'm in agreement with moving statement by Moti Almoz to its suitable section. Mhhossein (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I found this article very good on the background. This is by a mainstream political scientist in the "realist" school. Kingsindian (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Violations of international humanitarian law

@Gaijin42, I.am.a.qwerty, Nishidani, Sloane, Al-Andalusi, and CoffeeWithMarkets: @Tritomex and Nomaed:

(apologies if I have missed any people who participated in the "Human shields" etc. discussions)

I have consolidated all the allegations of human rights violations and their responses in one place. Earlier, they were scattered all over the place, in the "Casualties" section, the "UN section" the "legal issues" section. The UNRWA school part was duplicated in both the latter two sections, other things were duplicated between other sections. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thus far I do not see any issues with your consolidation. Good work. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I have also added one or two things from Amnesty International, in addition to the consolidation. Mostly from here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindain: I think it's a good idea to have a separate section for all the violations, alleged and real, but I don't see logic in the exact sub-sections and their order and what they say:

• Civilian deaths - there are so and so palestinian casualties and what are Israel's excuses, including claim of hamas using human shields.
• Warnings by Israel - Israel gives warning prior to attacking militants in civilian areas, maybe the warnings are not effective.
• Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians - disproportionately short
• Destruction of homes - the section seems ok to me
• United Nations - mixture of UNRWA installations being hit by either side and of UNWRA's schools being used for storage of ammunition, and UNWRA transferring this ammunition to hamas.

• Bombing of UNRWA schools/shelters - out of several incidents only one is covered.

I would like to understand the logic behind the current division of facts into these sections. A different division that makes more sense to me is first by type of violation and then by side or first by side and then by type of violation:

• Intentional targeting of civilian population and infrastructures (covers rockets attacks on israel and palestinian deaths above), as well as destruction of homes and attacks on the UNWRA schools/shelters. This sub-section will probably be the biggest, maybe split it into population and infrastructures ? not always possible.
• Use of civilian population as human shields (mentioned very briefly as one of israel's excuses in 'civilian deaths' above)
• Violations by the UN - transfer of the found rockets to hamas

Perhaps a table showing how each of the alleged war crimes applies to each side is in order ? - WarKosign (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I made the different sections based on the different allegations made against each side. I do not see much difference between your categories and the ones already present. The first section "Intentional targeting of civilian population" which you say will be the biggest and will have sub-sections, that is precisely what is done there. The alleged violations by the UN are present in the last section, use of civilian population as human shields is mentioned in the "civilian deaths" section. I don't know if I would call it "brief". It gives the arguments made by Israel with lots of references. It is also alluded to in the reasons given by Israel in the "destruction of homes" section, perhaps it could be somewhat elaborated there.

As to the length of the sections, I kept the first section "Civilian deaths" as short as possible, but clearly it needs to be the biggest. The quote by Amnesty International in the first paragraph was added later by someone else. The section now is perhaps too long and needs to be shortened somewhat. The Hamas rocket attacks on Israel section is the shortest simply because nobody disputes the charges. I don't think it is "disproportionately short". It seems fine to me. The other sections are a bit longer because each of those sections needed a claim and a counterclaim. Similarly, the UN Beit Hanoun shelter bombing is there because it was disputed by Israel, though it seems to me that now Israel doesn't dispute it any longer and it can be shortened somewhat. Kingsindian (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindain: I think the main problem is that the size of current sub-section is disproportionate to the severity of the alleged war crime:

• "Civilian deaths" deals with gazan civilians deaths - which by itself is not a war crime. It belongs in another section dealing with casualties. Intentional targeting of civilians and use of human shields are war crimes, but both are mentioned only briefly. I suggest to split this section into two (targeting of civilians, use of human shields), and to split it further by side.
• "Warning by israel" is not a war crime. It is a part of the argument against accusing Israel of targeting civilians, so it belongs into the "targeting civilians" section.
• "Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians" - only 5 lines are given to thousands of rockets fired specifically at civilian population ("civilians became a legitimate target"). No mention of attack tunnels that lead into civilian areas.
• UN - ok, let's leave it as is for now. It's a mess, but it will be clearer what to do with it once the rest of the sub-sections are organized.

- WarKosign (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The section deals with the violations of international law, not just war crimes.

• It is not possible to separate out the section into targeting of civilians and use of human shields. Firstly, it is not necessary for there to be deliberate targeting of civilians for it to be unlawful. Reckless, indiscriminate attacks are also unlawful. Secondly, all the arguments are totally interlinked. Israel claims that there are lots of deaths, partly because there were human shields used. The devil is in the details of how "human shields" are defined, as has been made clear in the section. There is also the factor of Hamas using populated areas to launch rockets, which again contributes to civilian deaths, according to Israel. These arguments are all linked and there is no neat way to separate them out. The second argument made is that there were warnings provided, and therefore the strikes were lawful. That has been dealt in a separate section. It may or may not be a war crime, but it is unlawful under international humanitarian law (according to Amnesty and HRW), as has been made clear in that section. At least this argument can be separated out from the others, so I made it a different section. Perhaps this should be included in the "Civilian deaths" section, but it will make that section even longer.
• As to the rest, I am afraid I do not see your point. It just seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For tunnels, if you can find a WP:RS claiming that they are war crimes, we can discuss it. As to "proportional to the severity of war crime", I am afraid that is rather subjective. Are thousands of rockets more severe violations than destruction of homes with whole families killed in Gaza? The latter section is even shorter. Kingsindian (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: I've re-read International humanitarian law. The only way I see to cover all the possible violations is to go over each of the applicable provisions and describe how it might be violated by each side. Any other way is picking which laws you like and which ones you do not. When there is an overlap, it should be mentioned. Attacks on UN facilities (rather than any other civilian facility) or UN taking sides does not violate the humanitarian law, but does violate international treaties dealing with UN neutrality. Does anyone else have an opinion on this subject ? - WarKosign (talk) 06:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

infobox clarification

We use bold in the casualty section to indicate the source of casualty figures. However, this seems to be causing some confusion regarding Hamas' claims of Israeli casualties and the IDF's claim of Hamas casualties. See for instance, this edit or this talk page question. Can we make it more clear that the bolded text refers to the source of the reports, not the source of the casualties? I suggest Hamas spokesman or IDF Spokesman's office or something to that effect. Similarly, where we currently say Israel we should say something like Israeli government or Israeli media.GabrielF (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This needs to stay up. It's clear this article is not NPOV but the tag is being deleted so the bias of that article is not as well known. If you check this page and see that NPOV is not up please put it up as vandals are taking it down. --Youngdrake (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time its put up someone comes to the talk page, addresses their concerns, and then they are addressed. You did not do that, so please explain so they can be addresses, dont just put it up and walk away - Galatz (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a list of imbalances in just three day sections, and they were ignored. I don't see the major problems being addressed here. To repeat, there are two parties (at least). Statements about one side's strikes or declarations require balancing statements about the other's, cited neutrally. Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see they were "ignored," just not supported very highly. Anyway, cut-paste your concerns again, please, but Youngdrake is really the editor who needs to do this. I personally see no bias in this article, as many neutral news sources are used, facts are stated dispassionately . . . I wish everyone would just look at the facts and set their personal politics aside, as an online encyclopedia is not the place to battle it out, and anyone that gets their personal motivations inspired from Wiki articles, quite frankly, needs to seek counseling. As has been stated, this is not the place to right great wrongs as various editors may perceive them.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"following an increase in rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas' militants." This over plays the threat they posed considering they did not even get a kill before israel invaded. "The Israeli government declared acceptance for the proposal, and temporarily stopped hostilities in the morning of 15 July." Does not mention that they continued sniper attacks on palestinian civillians during this time. Video exists of them shooting the wounded during the ceasefire.

"Violations of the truce" The graph is not done properly. The side bars are not overtop the graph.

"Similarly, according to The Jerusalem Post, Palestinians in Hebron cheered as Gazan rockets were fired at Tel Aviv" Why is this even included? The other source was credible and did not take a side. This one is a jewish newspaper with jewish intrests. Youngdrake (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that a newspaper or news source with any connection to Jews is somehow inherently lying and wrong in everything they say, as you assert, is simply wrong as well as, frankly, racist. It's completely a spurious objection.

You have the news organizations Al Jazeera English and Ma'an News cited in this article, as they should given that they have reported breaking news pretty well / credibly, and those groups are mostly run by people with Arabic blood. Are we supposedly supposed to strip out those references to, by your logic, since the writers' Arabic blood makes them inherently untrustworthy? This is nonsense. Utter nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No you try not to use sources with close connections to the subject. Claims from the palestinians should not be considered reliable nor the jews. Both undoubtably have serious reasons to lie. They can be used but any usage should be The Jerusalem Post Claims such and such. So as not to lead the reader to think that what they are reading is the truth. Just stating the source of the information and not using the word claim makes it appear a reliable source. Which it very clearly is not, since they are clearly supporting one side. Please avoid personal attacks. --Youngdrake (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel vs Israel Defense Forces

In the infobox, should it say Israel or Israel Defense Forces? Isn't all of Israel involved in this conflict? TL565 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Israeli military is actively considered a belligerent in this conflict, the 93 year old man in the assisted living house is not part of this conflict. So... it should only say IDF. Jab843 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It involves Israel as a country not just the IDF. The Operation Pillar of Defense article lists it as just Israel. TL565 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been thoroughly discussed on this page, a vast majority of the articles on any previous conflicts pertaining to these types of situations are not up to wikipedia standards on either neutrality or agree with the style of wikipedia. They are not to be used as examples of what this article should be, if you look at the discussion of why this was moved from Operation Protective Edge, to it's current name, it will perhaps enlighten you as to how the wikipedia community has evolved. In regards to picking IDF or Israel, it is best to let the community voice an opinion before we come to a decision. It seems that it is the IDF fighting, not the country as a whole. As this develops, we will resolve it. Jab843 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

IDF is doing the fighting, but it is doing so at the direction of the Israeli government. On the Palestinian side, things are more complicated. Some of the various militant groups are part of Hamas, some are just aligned in purpose. Hamas was elected as the government of Gaza, and then more recently as part of the Unity government to cover all Palestinians. As declared from the Israeli POV its Israel (although IDF is the boots on the ground) vs Hamas (& militants) - The Hamas POV is that its Israel vs Palestine (or vs Gaza). The rest of the world generally falls into one of those camps, or hybrid camps. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs in the casualties section

@WarKosign: Reverting this edit.

• The caption for the first photo seems to be modified without any justification. Why is the wikilink to Pallywood added? Is there any evidence that the photo is staged? And is there any evidence that the person is or was surrounded by Hamas militants?
• Having two pictures of children being injured is not "redundant". How many pictures would you suggest be included there? Please discuss, instead of using WP:IDONTLIKEIT to remove content. Kingsindian (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• @Kingsindian: In order to maintain some kind of neutrality, there should be a somewhat similar number of pictures representing damages to both sides. Already there is much more images of damage on gazan side than damages on israeli side, and yet another picture of a wounded
• In the picture of the adult male, there are two people in blue uniform with guns - some kind of militants. There is no evidence that the person in the picture was injured at all, leave alone by Israeli bombing. Palliwood describes how pictures are sometimes staged or attributed incorrectly to promote specific agenda, and the link is intended to warn the viewer about this possibility. -WarKosign (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• The first picture. You are missing a simple thing: they are security guards or police. See the photo here for an example. As to the Pallywood link, any such thing would need to go into the "Media coverage" section, not here. Putting it here implicitly suggests that the photo is staged, with no evidence at all.
• When you say that there is no proof this photo is true and so on, that is just the nature of Wikipedia photo policy. Most photos from newspapers etc. are under copyright and can't be used. The photos are therefore taken from Wikimedia commons.
• There are already many pictures of damage in Israel. If you have photos of Israeli civilian or soldier deaths, you can put them on commons and people can take it from there. I am not sure of the photo policy, but I doubt that the policy requires the same number of photos from Israel and Gaza. Kingsindian (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a picture of two IDF soldiers covering a boy with their bodies during a rocket attack, anyone has any idea why it was removed or how it can be recovered ? There are a lot of pictures of children running to shelter or lying on the floor covering their heads in the newspapers but they are copyrighted, anyone has or can accuire a similar free picture ? Obviously there won't be a picture of Israeli's dead or wounded, we respect our people. - WarKosign (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It was moved into the timeline article when the paragraph it was linked to was moved over there. Timeline_of_the_2014_Israel–Gaza_conflictGaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Thanks, I've re-added it into the main article under "impact on residents". - WarKosign (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a rabbi

The first Israeli civilian casualty wasn't, as the article says, a Chabbad rabbi. Please remove this note. He was indeed providing food and sweets to the soldiers at the Erez crossing. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4544237,00.html 81.218.206.82 (talk)

Suggested background section ce with one major addition

Merged with "Background" section above:

Operation Timeline rewrite

It seems that the operation timeline has become a shopping list, in that it has been changed from prose to a bullet style of formatting. This seems to be at complete odds with what we strive to achieve on wikipedia, if necessary, yes, it will be used. Yet, on this page, we had a workable set of prose that was changed to these bullets. I would like to see it turned back into prose and will be working on it this afternoon. Please let me know what ya'll think.Jab843 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change. The section is titled "Operation Timeline". Timelines tend to be written in list format. Also, lists are easier to update and easier to read than prose.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede is way too long

and is a hot mess. Just saying. -- Y not? 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

?? Lede?? the opening? Jab843 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede = WP:LEAD Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

that's what I thought, I just didn't know if I was missing something :). Jab843 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the lede is timeline, the info should be merged into the section 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Operation timeline and/or the separate article Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Obankston (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: It is of course true that the lead is way too long. But the solution is not to remove many whole paragraphs like this edit. Any such drastic action must be discussed on the talk page first. If whole paragraphs are removed, they should be replaced with a summary. I am reverting this for now. Kingsindian (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Field hospital

Hello. As you can see, my English sucks. Therefore I ask you to write that the IDF opened a field hospital to treat wounded Palestinians in Gaza. Here are some sources: http://www.haaretz.com/1.606129 (12PM section) http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/IDF-sets-up-field-hospital-at-Erez-border-crossing-for-injured-Palestinians-363541 http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/idf-to-open-field-hospital-for-gaza-civilians/2014/07/20/

I know that all of those are Israeli sources, but I can see that you allow using Haaretz.

I'm sure a photo will pop up as it did at Qalandiya checkpoint, before being removed, where Israel regularly shoots demonstrators and provides medical care for some of those who survive.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this talk page was supposed to be about improving and maintaining the article, not expressing cynical viewpoints by bringing up a separate place or event. If there's a RS about a field hospital, the answer is yes, mention the field hospital. Right? tharsaile (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously can someone do a perma ban on nishidani? she's/he's obviously a pally sock puppet and is not concerned about being objective.Anyway i will add it into the articleLoveandpeace=happy (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think nishidani is a Palestinian nor a sock puppet, but a diligent editor. Just somewhat biased. tharsaile (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2005 Withdrawal

Removing this entire section. It's irrelevant,it's focusing on a oped viewpoint and it ignores the well sourced fact in 2005 israel did not have control of the borders, the water access and allowed freedom of movement. An "Agreement on Movement and Access" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was brokered by then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to improve Palestinian freedom of movement and economic activity in the Gaza Strip. Under its terms, the Rafah crossing with Egypt was to be reopened, with transits monitored by the Palestinian National Authority and the European Union.http://www.state.gov/s/l/2005/87237.htm

"In the view of The Guardian, the roots of the conflict go back to Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, which, it is argued, was a tactical measure to both gain concessions on the West Bank and postpone a final peace settlement with the Palestinian National Authority, thereby weakening it. Exercising a form of 'occupation by remote control, ' Israel retained control of Gaza's borders, its coastal waters, and the movement of Gazans, leaving them without any freedom, and hence strengthening the PLO’s more militant rivals. Finally, Hamas, which felt less pressure after the disengagement went on to win the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and the conflicts originates from this group's coup of 2007 as a stage for the periodic confrontations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveandpeace=happy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Loveandpeace=happy At most you could remove some related sentences, although I believe you should've added other sources to maintain NPOV instead of removing the whole section. So, I'll restore the previous materials and please :

• Add any otherWP:RS to maintain NPOV
• Remember that the last lines of this para is completely relevant and should be included under the same title Mhhossein (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Mhossein. You're right i let my annoyance cloud my judgement, i will rectify it and try to make it npov, how about i just add "claims" "assertions" and other terms to make sure it does not become a POV dispute? or add the contradictory agreement i referenced earlier since usually from what i've seen so far i think it might be changed back again. Loveandpeace=happy (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rocket and tunnel attacks on Israeli civilians section

In this section there's the following bit: "Interrogation of arrested militants showed that the intention was to infiltrate nearby communities and there to kill and kidnap as many Israeli children as possible. Some of the tunnels already contained explosives located underneath kindergartens."

I'm not saying these tunnels don't exist and that Hamas is all nice and doesn't target civilians. But this wording seems something of a stretch. The reference used for this is The Daily Caller which doesn't strike me as a very neutral source. If anyone thinks this page shows a neutral unbiased view on the subject matter I'll eat my shoes: http://dailycaller.com/buzz/israel/

Unless there's any objections, I'll delete said segment.BabyNuke (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a big objection. This section states important facts, backed by sources. I added CNN.com and time.com - is it neutral enough for you ? - WarKosign (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The founder of Time was born in China a few days before Annie Oakley offered her team of 50 female snipers to William McKinley, should the Spanish-American War happen to happen. A month after launching his magazine, Britain recognized Transjordan as a state. The year he wrote about "The American Century", the "Allied Powers" wrote an Atlantic Charter. The day he died in Phoenix, The Beatles (who were bigger than Jesus) postponed recording Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds because "They know it is awful now". It rose from the ashes the next day. Then 1967 in Israel happened.

In our day, a very influential encyclopedia calls him the most influential private citizen in the America of his day. He himself was apparently influenced by LSD when he met with God, and his name lives on in The Henry R. Luce Initiative on Religion and International Affairs.

But you're talking about Time.com. They seem neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tunnels are in violation of international humanitarian law?

@WarKosign: Is there any WP:RS which claims that tunnels are in violation of international humanitarian law? If not, what is the picture doing there? And I do not see any logic of putting it in the section "Rocket attacks on civilians". What do tunnels have to do with rockets?

I don't see any references in this section anywhere which say that tunnels are violations of international humanitarian law. The statement which comes closest is that the IDF discovered a tunnel inside a mosque, which is a different issue altogether (co-locating military and civilian structures). The tunnels themselves are just military targets. Kingsindian (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Kingsindian: Tunnels are built to attack civilians, either by terrorists coming out of them at Israel territory or firing rockets from the tunnels that are within Gaza. Updated the image caption and added a reference.

Im mixed. Tunnels themselves are not violations of law. Attacks on civilians are, but a tunnel me be used for an attack on civilians or on military targets. That Hamas tends to only to the former and not the latter, does not make all tunnels illegal. Use of tunnels under Palestinian civilian areas, mosques, hospitals, schools etc as alleged would be illegal, but those are not the same tunnels as pictured. Use of tunnels sending across people dressed in IDF uniforms may be, I am unclear on if espionage/false flag is generally a war crime, or just subject to summary execution.

However, our content should follow the WP:RS are pictures of cross border tunnels used in RS to illustrate alleged war crimes? If not neither should we. However, more narrowly targeted photos (being used in a civilian attack, or under civilian areas) would be more acceptable. Use of this photo elsewhere to illustrate the generic Palastinian tactic is entirely appropriate though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is illegal to use the military uniform of your enemy to attack them.

Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land provides that: "It is especially forbidden....(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army....(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and military uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention".[10] Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions expanded the rules of prohibiting certain type of ruses as defined in Articles 37, 38, and 39.

Honestly, this should be added to this article under war crimes since Hamas used IDF uniforms to attack them.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4547679,00.htmlKnightmare72589 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42, WarKosign, and Knightmare72589:

• Please keep to WP:RS which argue that tunnels are war crimes. Tunnels are a military tool, which can be used in any way at all. Arguing that tunnels are war crimes is about as logical as arguing a gun or a mortar is a war crime.
• I haven't seen any report of tunnels being used to attack civilians (though the CBC article quoted by User:WarKosign does give Israeli claims, but no attacks on any civilian has been reported). And there are plenty of reports of tunnels directed specifically against military targets, and Hamas passed up chances to attack civilian targets. For example, here. Even if tunnels are used to attack civilians that would say nothing about tunnels being against international humanitarian law.
• Knightmare's passage has nothing at all to do with tunnels, and I do not see the point of citing the Hague conventions. Again, please provide a WP:RS claiming that tunnels are war crimes. Kingsindian (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: Your analysis is probably correct, but it smells of OR. There should be a source saying that hamas use of IDF uniforms is a war crime, but so far I couldn't find one.

@Kingsindian: Added a paragraph on where some of the tunnels lead and how they were intended to be used, with a reference.

@WarKosign:

• You have missed the point of the critique. Obviously tunnels can be used to target civilians. Just like a gun can be used to kill civilians. Would you put a photograph of a gun in this section? Or a photograph of an airplane? Or photograph of a rocket? The question is whether tunnels are themselves war crimes. They are not, as far as I know. If you find a WP:RS, saying that tunnels are violations of international law, include it. Unless we find something like that , if you want to put a photo of a tunnel in the article, it belongs in some other section.

• The reference is to the Daily Caller, and is an opinion piece. To establish facts, one does not cite opinion pieces in fringe magazines. One cites news reports. Please see WP:RS. More importantly, whatever is claimed in the article that Hamas was planning to do or not, it is irrelevant to the fact that there has been no attack on any civilian through a Hamas tunnel so far. So that statement needs to be removed, because this is a section on violations of law, not a section on Hamas' nefarious motives. Kingsindian (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I added references to articles on CNN.com and times.com that say that the tunnels are leading to civilian targets. A gun or a plane can be used to kill civilians, but a tunnel leading into a kindergarten and filled with explosives can ONLY be used for murdering civilians. The fact that didn't yet murder anyone is irrelevant. The intent, planning and action to murder civilians is already a violation of any possible international law. The fact that the IDF so far was one step ahead and twarted their attempt does not change the fact. Otherwise one could argue that firing (or even attempting firing) rockets on Israel is not a crime since the iron dome intercepts them.

@WarKosign: Can you please read WP:SOAP? We are not fighting a war for Israel/Palestine here. It is ok to have biases (I certainly do), but one has to keep to WP:RS for assertions of fact. I will ask again, one last time. If we cannot agree, I will open a request for comment.

• Is there any WP:RS which claims tunnels are war crimes? If so, please provide it.
• The CNN and Time piece say nothing at all about kindergartens or explosives. I am not sure where you get the statement from.
• The Daily Caller piece is an opinion piece, not a news piece, and is published a fringe, partisan outlet. It cannot be used to establish matters of fact.
• There are of course Israeli claims that "purpose was to attack people on the collective agriculture community." But there have been no reports of any attacks on any civilians. And there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, like the article here. More importantly, the whole question is irrelevant. If you have any WP:RS which claims that tunnels themselves are war crimes, provide those. Kingsindian (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Notifying, since he removed the very edit which I and WarKosign were discussing. Kingsindian (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein and Kingsindian: CNN says "The tunnel ended near a kibbutz in Israel, Azouli said, adding its purpose was to attack people on the collective agriculture community.". Times says "The dramatic gun battle unfolded only about 650 ft. (200 m) from Kibbutz Nir Am, an agricultural commune founded by immigrants from Eastern Europe in 1943. Residents were ordered to remain indoors and roads were closed for the next five hours as the Israeli military officials were unsure if some of the Palestinian militants might have succeeded in breaking away from the group.". In this case the attack was stopped by the IDF soldiers that were around Gaza, but clearly hamas didn't invest millions of dollars and years of work digging the tunnels directly into civilian communities just in case some IDF soldiers would be passing by.

@WarKosign and Kingsindian: About the paragraph dealing with tunnels, it can be said that:

• It is an obvious POV according to WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL, hence such disputed opinion (not fact) should be corrected based on these two criteria.
• What CNN says is no more than an opinion or guess, and it is not a fact. So, you can't say they are for sure meant to attack people. In fact there were no attack to people through these tunnels (which attack was stopped by the IDF soldiers ?!).
• You are acting based on your own analysis when you say:"clearly hamas didn't invest millions of dollars and years of work digging the tunnels directly into civilian communities just in case some IDF soldiers would be passing by," which is obviously a POV and WP:OR.
• You can't find any WP:RS claiming that tunnels themselves are war crimes.

Only the first reason is enough to prove removing that paragraph was completely right. Mhhossein (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein and Kingsindian: There have been several attack attempts such as this http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4547392,00.html. Here, this states that the tunnels violate the international law - by violating the borders of a soverign state. http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/31/the-uns-tunnel-vision/.

@WarKosign:

• The section is not about international law, but International Humanitarian Law, which is a subset. It talks about the conduct of the war, not about the legality of the war itself. If you use the bigger set of international law, each and every action of Israel is illegal in Gaza. That is not the issue. This kind of confusion is what happens when you base yourself on a blog post on Algemeiner (a partisan, fringe source) which is not WP:RS. Again, please realize that this is not a battleground. WP:RS gives guidelines on how to use fringe or partisan sources.
• I do not see where the ynet article says that any civilians were targeted. It says that civilians were warned to be in their homes etc. And again, you are missing the point. The fact that militants come out of the tunnels and perhaps go into civilian areas says nothing about tunnels being war crimes. Kingsindian (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir

Why is missing of Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir from the article?--Falkmart (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It is (and has been for a while) mentioned and linked-to from the first paragraph of the lead. It seems to have been lost from the timeline in the body of the article in some shuffle or other, probably inadvertently (understandable; this article is getting edited a lot); I have added (back?) a mention of it. Cheers, -sche (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Bolding of "operation protective edge" ; is using the name even appropriate in the lead?

I removed the bold surrounding operation protective edge. I don't think it belongs per MOS:BOLDTITLE even though "operation protective edge" is arguably an alternative name for the article. All of the examples of bolded alternative names come shortly after a bolded original name. Since per the requirements there is no other bold here using bold for "OPE" draws undue attention to that biased name, which moreover is completely superfluous. (Why couldn't it say "On 8 July 2014, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a military operation in the Gaza Strip"?) If it is not superfluous, should we add that Hamas calls this conflict "Al-’Asf al-Ma’kul" or "the Eaten Chaff Campaign"? AgnosticAphid talk 22:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Its a matter of WP: Common name. Regardless of our personal feelings if we think it is biased or not, most reliable international media outlets refer to it as Operation Protective Edge. And yes the Hamas name should also be added. EkoGraf (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Women with heart attack

Do we really want to include the heart attack casualty? As long as she isn't included in tally's made by the media, I don't think we should. --Sloane (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think not. Only casualties that are unquestionably cause by actions by one side should be included. Her heart attack could have been caused by the events, or they could be merely proximate the events. More importantly if WP:RS are not including her, then we should not either. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While her death is relevant in that it was covered by RS and connected as such to the conflict, I think there's credible reason to not mention it in the lead next to the other 'casualty counts'. It's the sort of thing that belongs in the article's body text. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although death didn't result directly by a lethal weapon, reliable sources talked about her and noted her death was caused by the stress of the rocket attack that was ongoing at the time. She shouldn't be included in the overall toll, but should still be noted in small part with an asterix in the notes section. Would like also to remind at this point that the toll for the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war includes a person who died of a heart attack stressed on by a Hezbollah rocket attack in a virtually same situation as this death. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rreaction/links

[9] (the requisite link would be Indian MujahideenLihaas (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

400 "soldiers" wounded

The source (independent, UK) used as reference for IDF claim regarding casualties, nowhere states that 400 soldiers, but that 400 Israelis were injured. Please correct the wording in accordance with the source.Tritomex (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to manipulate or spin the data by making out soldiers in combat are interchangeable with citizens generally are not acceptable. Harriet Alexander, 'Gaza conflict: Ceasefire ends after less than three hours,' The Telegraph 1 August 2014.:'Sixty-one Israeli soldiers have been killed in the fighting and more than 400 wounded.' Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of IDF figures by User:EkoGraf?

Even though the article is pertaining to current events, as they happen, that is hardly justification for removing the IDF's figures as stated in [[10]] the edit listed, seeing as wikipedia is not a news site, it is hardly relevant if the figures have been updated recently or not. Futhermore, the IDF doesn't update the figures until the families have been notified and the deaths confirmed, thus contributing to a significant lag time. I could be mistaken, but the justification based upon the fact that they have not been updated recently hardly seems keeping in line with policy. Please let me know if otherwise, as I am inclined to restore the information. I also forgot to add the removal of citations... Comments? Jab843 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

the IDF doesn't update the figures until the families have been notified and the deaths confirmed Since when does the IDF notify Palestinian families of Palestinian deaths? I removed the figure of militants killed according to the IDF because it was a week old and missleading. I did NOT remove the IDF figure of their own soldiers killed, whose families they DO notify after confirming their deaths. And like I said in the edit summary, the ITIC is an organisation closely linked with the IDF and the figures that they dish out are in large part coming from the IDF itself. So they are a good enough replacement. EkoGraf (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on subject has become irrelevant. IDF has issued today an updated number. EkoGraf (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox pics

Hey, I haven't edited in a while and just came upon this article. I'm just wondering why we have a lack of symmetry in terms of what the photographs show. Sure, it's an editorial choice, but these photos would seem to be sending an underlying messages: While Israel enjoys technologically superior defense systems, Gaza is being pummeled by the Israeli army.

Now, while both statements are true, my question is how and why these two photos were chosen? For example, we could've just as well have chosen a photo showing IDF troops in tanks, rockets being fired by Hamas, IAF airplanes dropping bombs, a body of a Palestinian killed by an artillery shell? I obviously don't think some of these are good ideas for an infobox photo, but I'm just trying to get an idea how these editorial choices are being made... Yonatan ^talk 16:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who selected those pictures, but, the current infobox image strikes me as reasonable as it shows both sides of the conflict.BabyNuke (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The pictures were selected "organically". when this article was first created as protective edge, the Iron Dome picture was added. Someone flipped the picture to the Palestinian image, I restored the original protective edge photo to put one from each "side" into the infobox. If you think a different picture would be better, I do not think there is a strong consensus for the iron dome picture (other than that its been in the article for a while now) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, these images do draw a picture of what is happening - IDF is using its technology to protect the citizens, hamas is using its citizens to protect itself. What would you suggest ? Later on there are pictures of damage to property in Israel, and there are pictures of hamas' technology - concrete tunnels. Perhaps a picture of kasam rocket shards is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just brainstorming here as I know these sort of articles tend to be highly-volatile. To me it would seem that the choice of pictures at this point give a message that could be modified to be more NPOV or portray a wider context. That message would seem to be:

1. Israel is strong and enjoys military superiority over its enemies. It defends its civilians. 2. Hamas\Palestinians are suffering due to the Israeli attack on Gaza.

In my eyes, it sort of puts Israel as an aggressor that's unaffected by the fighting, and Hamas as a defender against Israeli brutality. Now, naturally the damage on both sides is incomparable, as are the casualties, but I still think that portrayal isn't precise.

I think we need to choose whether we want the pictures to portray the damage\threats to both sides (Israel: an underground tunnel\rocket launch\home destroyed, Gaza: IDF troops\IAF strike\home destroyed). The alternative is to show the offensive capabilities of both sides (which again translate into similar photos, Israel: IAF\IDF troops, Hamas: tunnels\rocket launch site). Would love to get some input to see what you guys think and any other options\suggestions you may have. Yonatan ^talk 08:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We portray the damage to both sides proportionately to the damage. I.e.the estimated total Palestinian death toll is 1,739, over 9,000 injured, close to a quarter of the total population of 1.8 million displaced, and its physical infrastructure devastated. A few buildings have been hit in Israel, and two civilians have died. Proportionality does not mean parity of coverage. Of course, Hamas is the only aggressor, as you can see by the statistics.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, except its very loosely related to what I wrote. There is quite obviously a disparity between the two sides that needs to be portrayed in the article, and no one claimed otherwise. I also know full well that the IDF has caused exponentially more damage than Hamas... all of this is irrelevant to our current discussion.

The main issue from the Israeli side is the tunnels that cross over into Israeli territory (ie. the reason cited for the ground invasion). Why should the Iron Dome system be prioritized in the photo over the tunnels, for example? It's an editorial decision, which is why I want to understand the logic behind it. Are the photos supposed to portray the military superiority of Israel and the disparity in damages? Who says this is the main thing that needs to be portrayed in the photos? It needs to provide an image of what the conflict is about for either side: for Israel that could be a photo which shows people running to a shelter or an offensive tunnel aimed to harm Israelis, and for Hamas that could be a photo of the destruction of Gaza. However, the Iron Dome is not something that represents the conflict, it is a system being used successfully to protect civilians, due to the main problem, from an Israeli POV, which should be portrayed as such. This image could, for example, cause people to think that Israel initiated a conflict as part of a PR campaign, something which is not supported by any reliable source, as it is a fictitious conspiracy theory. From what you're saying, we should just have one photo with a Palestinian body with the heading: 1,700 dead, alongside a second photo with an Israeli soldier in full gear saying the IDF launched a ground invasion on Gaza (60 dead). Yonatan ^talk 10:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The tunnels were not cited as the reason for the ground invasion, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip long before tunnels were devised, and in previous operations never mentioned them: that came up later. The tunnels arose as a system in Rafah originally intended to protect civilians, by supplying them with a means of trade (smuggling) of goods denied entry by both Israel and Egypt. In a blockade you dig tunnels, all over the world, to get out or get means of subsistance denied you by the enemy. One of the most famous strategems in the bible is the invention of Hezekiah's Tunnel, glorified justly in Jewish history. Hamas's military tunnels go into Israel as Israeli settlements go into 'Palestine', and the IDF has stated their purpose is military, not civilian. If you know the area, there is nothing easier than getting a tunnel into the numerous kibbutzim along that border. The Iron Dome is the most important thing guaranteeing that the numbers of Israelis threatened with death by Gazan rocketry (40 have died in 13 years) is reduced to a minimum. It has been an outstanding success military-wise, just as it is an outstanding success that Israel's bombing, strafing and shooting into occupied territories has resulted in the same period in 8,000 Palestinian dead. ou quibble about photos seems pointless.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, I will assume good faith on your part and so I will explain. This article is not about previous operations, it is about the current one and therefore the reason why Israel entered the Gaza Strip previously are irrelevant. There is no evidence contrary to the reason relayed by both the Israeli government and the international media, that the aim of the operation from the Israeli side is the destruction of the tunnels. New York Times, for example There are three types of tunnels, whose differences are outlined in their goals:

1. Tunnels into Egypt (Rafah area, SW Gaza Strip) - used to transfer goods (and arms) into the Gaza Strip - Egypt has destroyed these tunnels and Israel has not focused on them in the current operation.

2. Tunnels from the "outer" Gaza Strip to the center, for various, mostly military, uses. There is no need for tunnels to transfer food and medicine from Beit Hanoun to the Gaza Center, for example - there are roads and there is no Israeli presence.

3. Approx. 30-40 tunnels leading from the various towns that are within 2km of the border with Israel. The only use that has been claimed, by both Hamas, Israel and reliable sources, has been that these tunnels are meant to carry out attacks in Israeli territory. There have also been at least 3 documented cases in which Hamas has put these tunnels to such use. One of them was documented by Hamas using a video camera.

So, in conclusion, the blockade and supposed shortage of supplies in Gaza has nothing to do with the third type of tunnels, which are the reason that was stated by Israel for the initiation of the conflict and whether you believe it or not, is one cited by reliable sources. The Iron Dome has been a success, but that has nothing to do with it not being the most dominant part of the conflict. I do not see how the purpose of Israeli settlements is in any way related, and in any case, searching for views held by a minority radical faction of Israelis' claims that the settlements are there for security (not military-there's a difference) purposes in order to justify their necessity in the eyes of the Israeli public, is also completely irrelevant to this article. You don't mention every opinion that exists, just because it fits your POV. By the way, one could similarly state that from a military POV, Hamas' great success in this conflict has been these tunnels, whether used for infiltration into Israel or in order to flank Israeli forces. So should the photos display the military successes of each side, or the dominant threats to each side? Because it is not in any way NPOV to have one photo presenting military successes and one focusing on the damages incurred.

I urge you to focus on the issue at hand, and not try and move this discussion into the wide irrelevant realms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yonatan ^talk 13:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rocket attacks graph added again

User:Gever tov seems adamant on adding this graph, however it's original research based on a primary source (violating WP:OR) and completely based on data by a biased source (violating WP:NPOV). On top of that it leaves out any mention of Israeli airstrikes. Can we get some consensus on removing this graph? --Sloane (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The source being biased does not necessarily make its use WP:NPOV - biased sources are still often WP:RS, but could you give some details as to how you think WP:OR applies? Does the source not actually present those numbers? If you could point us to the ultimate source, that would help in evaluating both your complaints I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not NPOV because the graph calls attention to itself in a way that text does not. And it's physically bigger. "A picture is worth 1000 words" is a relevant metaphor here. If there were two graphs, one to show one thing (I don't know what the opposite side would necessarily show, except for "violations of the truce" in the same way as the graph showing the rocket attacks as "violations of the truce") and the other to show the other side's point of view...that might be ok. So the graph is really WP:UNDUE. The text showing that both sides are "guilty" (as it were) is reasonable. The graph merely emphasizes the one side over the other, and that's really the bigger issue, in my opinion. Hires an editor (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a great deal in the article (and of course in the infobox) stemming from official sources on both sides. That doesn't make it inappropriate to reflect as long as there is not another reason to reject it. The above complaint is not a reason to reject it -- anymore than to reject all the statistical information based on the Gaza Ministry of Health, etc. Attribution is key in these circumstances. Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have several issues with the edit that Gever tov has been making: 1. The graph has been added and removed 4-5 times at least so far. He has been unwilling to discuss it in any way despite being notified on his talk page and the talk page here in the section above. 2. There is a paragraph which he also insists on adding:

Israel argues that this attack on the Gaza Strip is also in reaction to hundreds of rockets and mortar shell launched by Gaza residents (not necessarily Hamas members) from Gaza Strip into Israel during a period of 19 months in 2012-2014. Israel claims that the ceasefire agreement achieved at the end of Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012 with Hamas, did not prevent firing into Israel during that period, as shown in the graph below:

This is clearly WP:OR. 3. The source for the graph cited is in Hebrew and as far as I can see does not even lead to any graph. I do not exactly see how this graph came about. It seems to me that it is through WP:SYNTH taking the figures from each month in that page and putting it in the graph. 4. I am not aware of the policy of sourcing for graphs, but is the website for Shabak an ok source for this? Is it supposed to be a primary source or what? I am not sure. 5. I do not see why there should be a graph in this section of truce violations by Hamas but not one for truce violations by Israel. This seems WP:UNDUE to me, as per the reasoning above. Kingsindian (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The source being in Hebrew is not an issue. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing_non-English_sources Further, the source directly and explicitly counts the number of incidents, and break them out by month. There is a single source, directly and unambiguously presenting the information presented in the graph. There is no way that is WP:OR. It is further not WP:SYNTH because it is a single source. One would have to argue (unsuccessfully imo) that a government agency does not meet WP:RS (although certainly they have their own bias and agenda) or perhaps more with more chance of success that the graph itself is WP:UNDUE or otherwise does not have consensus via our normal editorial discretion. I see no policy based reason thus far that mandates removal. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I found this article and accompanying chart. If we were to create something like this and place it, would that be an acceptable way to get around this issue? Then we would have 2 charts. Likewise, we could also create an article showing Israeli truce violations as detailed as List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 to show how this is relevant. Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The aljazeera link is a 404, did you make a typo somewhere? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/16/gaza-ceasefire-accountability.html is the correct link. At first glance I do not see a problem with using the information from the graph (although it would be good to find the original source where their data came from) - the graph does confuse me a bit though the biggest color in the graph is "fisherman" but since injury and death are already counted in other bars, I am unsure what this represents (and the text of the article does not appear to clarify). The graph also appears to have a slight apples to oranges issue comparing individual injuries and deaths to "attacks" each of which could cause zero-to-many injuries and death, also the "incursions" seems to probably double count against the deaths and injuries. But those issues may be resolvable, especially if we can find the original source that may offer better apples-to-apples numbers for use. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: As far as I can make out the data in the Al Jazeera article comes from the Jerusalem Fund here which consists of a list compiled by the Palestine Center of ceasefire violations reported by various media. The graph in the Al Jazeera article comes from here, aggregating the data present there. Kingsindian (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I addressed the "primary source" argument above. In addition, there seems to be some thought that the act of putting information into graph form may be "OR." If the information itself is not OR, then putting it into graph form does not make it OR. This is reflecting in passing in this discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42 and Epeefleche: 1. Perhaps this was not clear. I referred to the paragraph which he keeps insisting on adding (the one I quoted) as WP:OR, not the graph. 2. As I said already, I have no idea where the graph comes from, since I cannot read Hebrew. I guessed how it came about and perhaps this does not count as WP:SYNTH, I am fine with it. 3. The unwillingness by Gever tov to discuss the graph and the paragraph was one of the main reasons they kept being removed. Perhaps some of the material he added is still salvageable, that is a separate issue. 4. For the graph, my main reason for opposition was WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:PRIMARY for the reasons mentioned above. Kingsindian (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• The problem I have with the graph is that it's sourced from Israel's intelligence services, of which the reliability is questionable. It's war-time propaganda. Plus it's a primary source, and Wikipedia encourages to rely as much as possible on secondary sources. It's not problematic to use statements from the belligerent parties, but usually we do tend to at least go through secondary sources, not take statements directly off of twitter feed/blogs/propaganda websites. I also think it gives undue weight to Palestinian attacks whilst completely ignoring Israeli attacks. If we have this graph, we should get one showing arrests of Palestinian, raids on Palestinian homes, and Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip (this is one source [11] but the IDF blog tends to remove information rapidly, and again primary/propaganda source). --Sloane (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another problem with the graph is that it doesn't offer a lot of perspective, adding in the months of November 2012 and July 2014 would make the rocket fire seem like background noise. Of course, the author of the graph deliberately chose not to do that. It's original research in that sense at least. --Sloane (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sloan, how can include the fact that there were many rockets fired into Israel for several months prior to the current conflict? This plays a significant role in the background to this conflict. gever_tov (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to all participants in this talk. I was not proficient in the use of Talk tool until recently. I will discuss the graph and related issues, willingly. The rocket attacks on southern Israel during 2012-2014, prior to the subject conflict play a important role in the decision of Israel to attack. How can we include this fact in the Background section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gever tov (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Will someone please enlighten me as to why User:Spud770 referenced this section when he applied a WP:POV template? As I don't see how this discussion is relevant. Otherwise, I am going to remove the template, because the graph isn't currently included.Jab843 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what is the consensus on the graph, I have replaced one version of the paragraph which Gever tov was adding based on Shabak data which I found WP:OR, and replaced it with data from Israel Foreign Ministry website. You can see the edit here. Kingsindian (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the reliability or the nature of the two sources is different. Shabak and Israel Foreign Ministry work together.Kingsindian's edit looks arbitrary to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gever tov (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gever tov: You have misunderstood. I did not say I found Shabak to be unreliable. What I did was to directly quote the Israeli Foreign Ministry figures instead of using imprecise words like "dozens of rockets". If you want, you can add the Shabak figures as well, they are somewhat different from the Israeli Foreign Ministry website. Kingsindian (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We now have an independent analysis that talks in extenso of the rocket exchanges between Hamas and Israel after the November 2012 attack, and this should be used. Graphs function to catch the eye and occupy space: the facts are far more complex. See Nathan Thrall, 'Hamas’s Chances.' London Review of Books Vol. 36 No 16 21 August 2014 (August 1 on line) pp. 10-12 Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole article underrates the importance of the rockets/mortar shells fired into Israel from Nov. 2012 to June 2014, in Israel's decision to go to the current war. The kidnapping was only the last straw. The issue should have a more prominent place in the article.BTW,Nishidani and Kingsindian,Graphs are a concise and quick way of delivering information. They are used in scientific and other presentations.gever_tov (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

our comment is useless. He is an expert widely published, and you are a wiki handle, like myself, and neither of us has a right to second-guess experts. Graphs like this can be used, if they are accompanied by graphs indicating the sort of evidence provided of IDF strikes for the same period. These exist. I linked to them. Who issues the graph is also problematical. Numerous experts are pulling apart the laughable graphics and time lines devised by the New York Times to push their absurd distortion of reportage. Patrick Connors Inhuman shield: How ‘The New York Times’ protects US elites from Gaza’s brutal reality August 2, 2014. 40 Israelis have died in 13 years from mortar and rockets from Gaza. 8,000 Palestinians have died from IDF firepower, something which 'underrates the importance' of impact of the world's 4th most advanced military force on a backward bantustan.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I think there should be an article about anti-Semitism worldwide as a result of this conflict.

The precedent is from the Gaza War.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Antisemitic_incidents_during_the_Gaza_War

There have been many anti-Semitic incidents during this conflict.Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't need permission to create an article, but just like many of the other articles that have been created in this area recently, its likely to get nominated for deletion by someone. If you do create it, I would make sure you have some very good sources in it ahead of time, and make it in a draft userspace first, to avoid getting deleted right out the gate. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that skilled in the creation of articles. I can however provide the sources.Knightmare72589 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued

@Knightmare72589:, please provide a few sources for a section on this article. If there is enough content on the matter, I'll can help with the page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC) @I.am.a.qwerty: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.605977 "Anti-Semitic slogans were chanted on Thursday at an anti-Israel protest in Berlin, held following the attacks in the Gaza Strip. The protesters, who waved Palestinian flags, yelled, "Jews, Jews, cowardly pigs, come out and fight!"" http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4543153,00.html "A protest pro-Palestinian rally in Paris ended in violence on Sunday, with protesters trying to storm two synagogues in the French capital. Six police officers and two members of the local Jewish community were wounded in scuffles." http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/07/28/north-miami-beach-synagogue-vandalized/ "For the second time in just a few days messages of hate targeted members of South Florida’s Jewish community. Early Monday morning, spray painted swastikas and the word “Hamas” were discovered on the pillars of the Congregation Torah Ve’emunah, at 1000 NE 175th Street, in northeast Miami-Dade. “As I was rolling by I noticed some coloring on the wall,” said Yona Lunger. “I back up again, looked again and I said ‘Wow, it’s a swastika’…It’s very disturbing, very disturbing.”" http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/14/anti-semites-hold-hateful-demonstration-in-seattle-pro-israel-rallies-disrupted-in-los-angeles-boston/ "Behar wrote that protesters also revisited other anti-Semitic themes, including the blood libel, that Jews kill Christians to drink their blood, even more ironic because of Kashrut laws that forbid Jews to eat any animal blood. “While you may have thought that blood libel accusations are a relic of the past, in fact the slander was alive and well in downtown Seattle this past Saturday,” he wrote, noting that one poster depicted “a Jew eating a gentile child along with a cup of blood to wash it all down.”" http://www.timesofisrael.com/antwerp-rally-features-call-to-slaughter-the-jews/ "Approximately 500 people attended Saturday’s protest in the capital of Belgium’s Flemish region, where one of the speakers used a loudspeaker to chant a call in Arabic that means “slaughter the Jews The protesters also called out “Jews, remember Khaybar, the army of Muhammad is returning,” referencing a seventh-century slaughter against Jews in Saudi Arabia." http://www.jpost.com/International/Neo-Nazis-Islamists-chant-You-Jews-are-beasts-during-protest-of-Israeli-operation-362742 A demonstration in Frankfurt against Operation Protective Edge erupted into violence, with protesters tossing stones at the police. Eight police officers were injured. One sign at the rally was titled, “You Jews are Beasts.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/world/europe/anger-in-europe-over-the-israeli-gaza-conflict-reverberates-as-anti-semitism.html?_r=0 This week, the police in the western city of Wuppertal detained two young men on suspicion of throwing firebombs at the city’s new synagogue; the attack early Tuesday caused no injuries. An anonymous caller to a rabbi threatened last week to kill 30 Frankfurt Jews if the caller’s family in Gaza was harmed, the police said. Even in historically tolerant Italy, anti-Semitic smears have appeared on the streets of Rome. Jewish shop windows in several neighborhoods were defaced this week with swastikas and tags reading “Torch the synagogues” and “Jews your end is near.” Police suspect that right-wing extremists, possibly along with pro-Palestinian activists, carried out the acts. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.607433 In Britain, police have recorded more than 100 anti-Jewish hate crimes since the Gaza conflict began, including an attack on a rabbi by four Muslim youths in Gateshead, a Hassidic enclave in north-east England, and bricks thrown through the windows of a Belfast synagogue on two successive nights. In Norway, police have recommended the temporary closure of two Jewish museums, for fear of attack, while in Copenhagen on the weekend police dispersed a pro-Israel rally out of concern for the safety of the participants. German TV showed protesters from the country's Arab minority threatening violence against Jews at a demonstration in Berlin on Thursday. Similar incidents took place in Frankfurt and Essen recently, according to police. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.604572 Zachary Gomo told JTA he was walking to a shop around 10 P.M. in a Jewish neighborhood on Thursday night wearing a T-shirt from his service in the Israel Defense Forces when he was set upon by two young men. “I noticed them when it was too late. They jumped on me, started punching, screaming ‘kalb Yehud!’ (Jewish dog), ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is great) and something about Gaza in Arabic,” Gomo said. http://forward.com/articles/202647/belgian-cafe-posts-no-jews-allowed-sign/ A Belgian watchdog on anti-Semitism complained to the mayor of a suburb of Liege against owners of a cafe whose window display featured a sign that said Jews were not allowed inside. The Belgian League Against Anti-Semitism, or LBCA, filed the complaint Wednesday against the parties responsible for hanging a Turkish- and French-language sign at a cafe in Saint-Nicolas, a town located just east of the southern city of Liege. The Turkish text reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Jews are not under any circumstances.” The French text replaces “Jews” with “Zionists.” Last week, the Belgian Jewish newspaper Joods Actueel reported that a shop owner in Antwerp had refused to sell an Orthodox Jewish woman clothes “out of protest.” An employee confirmed that the shop had temporarily adopted a policy of not selling to Jews. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4545097,00.html A Turkish daily affiliated with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called on the country's Jewish community to apologize for the Palestinian casualties of the Israeli operation in Gaza. "You came here after being banished from Spain," Yeni Akit correspondent Faruk Köse wrote Wednesday in an open letter to Hakham Bashi, the chief rabbi of Turkey's Jewish community. "You have lived comfortably among us for 500 years and gotten rich at our expense. Is this your gratitude – killing Muslims? Erdogan, demand that the community leader apologize!" Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I think we need an article about anti-Arab sentiments in Israel, and calls of genocide of Arabs by Israeli politicians as well as civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC) "Marching Israelis In Tel Aviv Chant 'There's No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left" http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/29/israelis-chant-there-are-no-children-left-in-gaza_n_5630601.html "Mothers of all Palestinians must be killed – Israeli MP" http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/17/mothers-of-all-palestinians-must-be-killed-israeli-mp/ "Times Of Israel Publishes Op-Ed About 'When Genocide Is Permissible', Then Deletes It". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/times-of-israel-genocide-article-post-deleted_n_5641971.html FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk, this specific talk is about anti-Semitism outside the conflict zone. Please don't hijack this talk thread. Thank you. Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) As you wish, I will make a new section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC) @Knightmare72589:, Thank you, I've begun with general statements on the subject under the Impact section, feel free to add the above material perhaps broken down be country. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Miami incident added. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of UNRWA equipment for building tunnels

@I.am.a.qwerty: Regarding your edit here:

• Algemeiner is not WP:RS, I don't think.
• What does the diversion of aid and other material like cement and building material etc. by Hamas to tunnel construction have to do with the section on use of civilian structures for military purposes? Kingsindian (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: See Algemeiner Journal. It actually was originally the Der Morgen Journal, a well known Yiddish paper dating back to the turn of the century. No reason why it is not RS. And use of civilian infrastructure (like Hama storing missiles in schools and using UNRWA material to build tunnels) is entirely related to the subject at hand. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Algemeiner carries too many tendentious articles to be considered RS.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It meats WP:NEWSORG hence its WP:RS.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: Diverting building material like cement to military use is nowhere near the use of civilian strucures for military purposes like, say using a mosque to store weapons. I have no idea why you think they are related, nor have you said anything except your assertion that it is so. Also, is there some WP:RS claiming that the former is a war crime/breach of international humanitarian law? Kingsindian (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious? Take a look at the WP:RS page and check out the Algemeiner article. This isn't a case of "being tendentious." You've got to prove that point instead of making these unsourced blanket statements. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: For the moment, let me drop the WP:RS issue (though I still feel the same way about it). What about the other issue? I need two things:

• Any relation between diverting building material like cement to military use, and the use of civilian strucures for military purposes like using a mosque to store weapons.
• Any WP:RS claiming that the former is a war crime or violation of international humanitarian law. Kingsindian (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a clarification: Recall what the section is about: It is about civilian deaths due to Israel and others claiming that mosques etc. are used as weapons storage. How on Earth is this related to Hamas diverting building material for building tunnels? Kingsindian (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: this isn't the first time you've contested sourced material based on an invalid WP:RS claim. Please be more careful in the future. As I see it, Hamas using humanitarian materials to construct tunnels is either a violation of international law or at the very least useful background information providing context to other stronger claims of Hamas misuse of UNRWA property (such as hiding missiles in schools). Perhaps you may wish to clarify that by adding some sort of qualifier to the statement rather than delete relevant material on the subject. Or you may wish to start a subsection on the misuse of humanitarian aid by Hamas and move the statement there. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: This is totally unfair.

• The section is not about misuse of UNRWA property, it is about use of civilian structures for military operations, one of the reasons Israel gives for high civilian casualties in Gaza. You have given no reason at all how diverting building material to constructing tunnels is relevant to this, except asserting that you think it is relevant.
• You are inverting the burden. It is not up to me to find sources claiming that using UNRWA material like cement etc. for building tunnels is a violation of international humanitarian law. And I will not start a section for this. Kingsindian (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter from 12 human rights orgs to Israeli govt.

@I.am.a.qwerty: Regarding your edit here. You are mistaken about what the reference is. It is not a letter by Gisha, it is simply hosting the letter on its server. It is actually a letter by 12 human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Gisha, PHR, PCAT, Adalah. You can find the list at the bottom of the letter. This has been made clear in the section itself. Kingsindian (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)