![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 | ArchiveĀ 3 | ArchiveĀ 4 | ArchiveĀ 5 | ArchiveĀ 6 | ā | ArchiveĀ 10 |
Wikinews:Israel attacks Hamas leadership targets in the Gaza Strip
The page was started 30 July 2014.
199.119.232.209 (
talk)
17:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
"138 schools and 26 health facilities have been damaged, the homes of 900 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged and the homes of 5,295 families have been damaged but are still inhabitable."
Someone might want to deal with this redundancy too.
199.119.232.212 (
talk)
20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Obama calls for release of Hadar Goldin, captured Israeli soldier
Soldier believed captured by Hamas was killed in action, says Israeli army
199.7.156.143 (
talk)
05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
All the images that are not coming from WP:RS are not verifiable we have no way to know where they where taken and if the captions are true.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: I am not sure what you mean by WP:SYNTH in the two cases mentioned below:
As it became clear that unrest in Egypt wouldnāt lead to Sisi being ousted or to the return of the Brotherhood, Hamas saw only four possible exits. The first was rapprochement with Iran at the unacceptable price of betraying the Brotherhood in Syria and weakening support for Hamas among Palestinians and the majority of Sunni Muslims everywhere. The second was to levy new taxes in Gaza, but these couldnāt make up for the loss in revenue from the tunnels, and would risk stirring up opposition to Hamas rule. The third was to launch rockets at Israel in the hope of obtaining a new ceasefire that would bring an improvement in conditions in Gaza. This prospect worried US officials: it would undermine the quiescent Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and disrupt the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that John Kerry had launched in the same month as Sisiās coup. But Hamas felt too vulnerable, especially because of Sisiās potential role in any new conflict between Gaza and Israel, to take this route. It was sure that the peace talks would fail on their own. The final option, which Hamas eventually chose, was to hand over responsibility for governing Gaza to appointees of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, despite having defeated it in the 2006 elections.
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph, I noticed the sentence quoted. "All israelis are legitimate targets". After reviewing the source, it seems more appropriate if it's read "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance". The legimate targets appears misleading because it suggests they are targetted without a common / national cause. "...for the resistance" is an important qualification intentionallly made in the original statement. Mezaanx ( talk) 16:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Nishidani: I have moved some of your edit to the "Financial Impact" section and kept the part which gives number of people rendered homeless. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
IDF: 700ā900 militants killed since ground invasion Spaskiba ( talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
//As of 5th of August IDF spokesman Moti Almoz declared the number of dead militants is between 700 and 900 since the ground invasion. He said this on Israeli Channel 2 News between 20:00 and 21:00. Please note these numbers are estimated since the ground invasion of IDF.
@ WarKosign: Regarding your edit here, the second source attributes the claim of "Hamas threatening journalists" to Israeli officials. In the first source, the threats are from other people on Twitter, and not Hamas. The original phrasing of the statement "Israeli officials have stated that Hamas is threatening reporters in Gaza critical of Hamas with retaliation" was correct. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: The first source quotes the journalists directly, so while the original phrase is not wrong, it's not as exact as it can be. It's not just a claim by officials, it is what the journalists themselves say (assuming jpost is reliable, of course).
In the time line the phrase:'it is widely accepted ' is not in the source (Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghavan, here) Nothing like that is in the source which gives both versions: ('Hamas insists the incident occurred before the cease-fire took hold and that it was Israel that broke the terms of the truce.'), and the phrase has apparently been screwed in to create a 'factoid' to buttress the Israeli version of events. It should be removed immediately, just as editors should control sources and signal similar problems. Nishidani ( talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The pause appears to have eroded after about 90 minutes in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, with the attack on Israeli soldiers. The soldiers were working to destroy a tunnel built by militants to breach Israel's border when a militant emerged from it and detonated a suicide bomb, Israeli military Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN's Wolf Blitzer
It's being argued that it's undue weight, which I agree. It's irrelevant to bring this up because even if Hamas wanted to specifically target military facilities, their rockets are incapable of doing so. This isn't comparable at all. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in fighting with you. I have indeed read the source and it says exactly what I claimed. You said this in your first reply: "Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way" which is flatly refuted by the article and more importantly, the practice. When Hamas had the ability to discriminate, like the tunnels, they always targeted soldiers, never a civilian. Rest of your stuff is blowing smoke and merits no comment. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Please stop adding the numbers that hamas makes up. Presstv is not a RS. Electronicintifada is not a RS. Once you have a reliable source, please go ahead.
Militias is a neutral term. Terrorists or freedom fighters is not. Do not engage in an edit war if you don't want to be blocked again. If you have something constructive to say on the subject, please do it here. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk ā¢ contribs)
@ WarKosign: I have started a section on WP:RSN on whether PressTV is reliable. As far as I can see, they are just reporting the claim from Hamas about the number of soldiers killed. If there is some fabrication, it is from Hamas, and PressTV is simply reporting their claims. I am not sure if anyone really doubts that "Hamas claims 145 people killed". It is another question whether Hamas claims belong in the infobox or not. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: There were several discussions, including this one /info/en/?search=Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#Casualties_infobox, but there was no clear consensus. What is the proper way to proceed in your opinionĀ ? āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk ā¢ contribs)
@ WarKosign: If there is no consensus, the usual procedure is to open a Request for Comments. Kingsindian ( talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian and WarKosign: If I remember correctly, it was determined, that overall, pressTV is not a reliable source. Also, it is common knowledge that it is both owned and run by the Iranian government. Jab843 ( talk) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If at the end of this 72 hour ceasefire, the fighting has subsided, is it the beginning of the 72 hour ceasefire or the end of the 72 hour ceasefire that is considered the end date of the conflict? Knightmare72589 ( talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Today is the day they might pull out completely from the Gaza strip [1]
-- Bdwolverine87 ( talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article's title says '2014', so there is still time. Seriously, once the operation is officially over the article should be renamed. So far the only available official name is Operation Protective Edge, but there are some talks about announcing that it was a war. - WarKosign ( talk) 07:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Plot Spoiler: Regarding your edit here. Are you aware that there is a big discussion on the talk page about the background? Yet you come in and remove a huge portion with no justification at all, except for your assertion that it is tendentious and POV. This is hugely annoying, when one works on a page for hours and someone just parachutes in and removes a big portion in one fell swoop. Editing in ARBPIA, I am afraid to revert such things, because I am afraid of getting blocked. I have 3 other edits which I am afraid to revert for just this reason.
Your reasons in the edit summary are also without merit. Even in the section, there are other sources, like the Nathan Thrall article which notes that in the first three months, there was almost no rocket fire from Gaza, while there were a lot of incursions from Israel. The figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and are partly compiled from media reports, as mentioned in the article itself. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
too.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 19:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous claims by Hamas reported by sources affiliated with them, such as presstv or electronicintifada. Other media sources often report that Hamas did make these claims, but do not approve the information itself. Here are a few examples:
Some users repeatedly insert these false claims into the infobox. I believe the fact that Hamas makes false claims should be reported somewhere in the media section, but the claims themselves cannot be used as facts since they lack a reliable source. Any opinionsĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 06:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Some evidence to consider:
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section labelled "2005 withdrawal" is ill-sourced and advancing an unorthodox theory, and should be removed or altered. The guardian article used as source is from 2005 and thus cannot support the conclusion that in the Guardian's view the **current** conflict stems from alleged ill intent from Israel in the 2005 withdrawal. Furthermore, this is very much a non consensus/editorializing opinion that runs counter to the prima facie thrust of Israels withdrawal, and thus should not be figured prominently in an encyclopedia entry. 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE ( talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
We should include the events on Jerusalem, the bulldozer attack on a Bus and the shooting of a Soldier on the west bank.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/world/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Maybe more attacks could take place, dont know we should have a section of violence related to the Gaza offensive on the west bank. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No mention of the 3 attacks on israelis on the West bank is mentioned in the article, we should mention them, since are contemporary events. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign: Regarding your edit here and here. You must surely be aware that there is a whole section devoted to human shields, which contains all the claims you include here and their responses? Why are you repeating the arguments from there, and moreover, doing it in a clear POV way? Why are you only including claims of "human shield", weapons storage, and Hamas directing people to stay in their homes, and not including the contra arguments?
If you want to repeat stuff from that section, you need to provide a neutral summary. Not a one-sided culling of facts. When I created that section, I only provided the barest summary because these issues about human shields are already discussed above.
You have done many good and fine edits. But please keep in mind that this is not a place for advocacy. This is a long term pattern of your edits on this page. I will just document a few of your past edits on this page in the same vein. I do not say all the edits are wrong, but they show a clear advocacy, pushing the POV of one particular side, minimizing the effects of one side and maximizing the other:
Again, there are many other edits which are fine. You have discussed many things on the talk page, which is again, good practice. We all have biases. But, this kind of advocacy based editing will not do. Kingsindian ( talk) 07:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, many of your edits have been fine and proper. But, as I said, editing like an advocate will not do. Kingsindian ( talk) 08:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign: I have removed all details except the barest claims. And linked back to the other sections, as you suggested elsewhere. Perhaps this is not the perfect solution, we can discuss it further. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Johorean Boy: You added unsourced information in the infobox, again. The article already lists all the claims that hamas made
here, this information does not belong in the infobox. Information by emergency relieve coordinator is based, but it belongs in the "impact on residents" section, and there was a link from notes that you deleted.
Unless you can explain how your biased and unsourced edits improve the article, they will be removed. If you continue edit warring, your account will be blocked. -
WarKosign (
talk)
16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign:Please refrain from removing contents without providing a strong reason. -- Johorean Boy ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Since you refuse to provide any commentary to your edits, I can only treat them as vandalism. - WarKosign ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ TheTimesAreAChanging: Care to explain this edit? What exactly are you updating? All I see is removal of sourced content. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This source on Hamas' rockets should be used somewhere. Kingsindian ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't decided how to use this source. This was more or less just meant as a note to myself and any others who might be interested. It is of course an opinion piece, and not a news piece. The author is a well-known scholar of Hamas and PLO and has had many formal and informal contacts with both factions. It appears in Foreign Affairs, a very reputable and mainstream journal put out the Council on Foreign Relations. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the duplicate section "Militant use of mosques schools" etc. All the information there is already present in other sections, namely the "human shields" section, "using civilian structures for military purposes" section and the "united nations" section. They are discussed there in much more detail and with all sides of argument presented.
There is one sentence from this section, which I was considering to include in the "human shields" section. The report that that Al-Shifa hospital is being used as "de-facto headquarters" of Hamas. I have not included this for the following reason: The washington post is talking about ministers from Hamas. There is no suggestion there that those were bringing weapons into the hospital etc.
See this link for a discussion on this topic. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was littered with pictures tagged with no sources. Wikipedia is not a gallery of loose images WP:NOTGALLERY. If you want to make a photo gallery and cite the pictures feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion above. I am restoring the photos. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the analysis of David Norris about the conflict, as expressed in a speech at the Senate of Ireland: Video on YouTube. Maybe this could be used a a source for the reactions in other countries?
Sedarr oup gr ( talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There is almost no photos in the article of all the destruction in Gaza because of this war. I think it's fair to say that 95% of the damage where in Gaza.-- 88.91.235.110 ( talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoa!! I think the Israeli finth columns needs a Barnstar for such a important work they have done erasing all the evidence of the Gaza bombardement. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course most of the death and destruction was in Palestine. DUHĀ !!! -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The page used to have lots of photos of all kinds, but they were removed (I hope) due to a misunderstanding. I have restored the photos. See this section for details. Kingsindian ( talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be mentioned in the section on UN. Someone should do it. I might get around to it at some point. Kingsindian ( talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a report by ITIC [2] that the Hamas-controlled ministry of the interior in the Gaza Strip issued a warning not to divulge information about terrorist operatives killed in Operation Protective Edge. This is done so more of the killed military operatives would appear in the casualties list as civilians rather than militant. I think this is very notable and important, but don't see where exactly to add this information. Does it belong before/after the casualties tableĀ ? MediaĀ ? Separate sectionĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 11:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556016,00.html
Now that they're out of the Gaza Strip, the reporters are revealing what Hamas tried to prevent the world from seeing. An Indian reporter, for example, documented how Hamas militants launched rockets from a post right outside the window of the hotel where he was staying in the Gaza Strip, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. The video aired only after the reporter left Gaza. When asked about it, he replied: "There's a conspiracy of silence rooted in fear ā no one want to report in real-time".
Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati also told the truth about Hamas once he left the Strip, no longer under their threat. In a tweet, Barbati said: āOut of #Gaza far from #Hamasretaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday (yesterday) in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.ā He added: ā@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.ā
Another foreign reporter said that it is an open secret that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as its command center, but that reporters in Gaza would not report that out of fear that it would endanger them.
However, not only foreign reporters were afraid of Hamas' potential revenge. Palestinian reporters also suffered threats when they attempted to criticize the terrorist organization and give truthful reports.
Local Palestinian reporter Radjaa Abu Dagga, for example, reported that he was summoned for questioning at Al-Shifa hospital, where armed Hamas militants attempted to determine whether he writes for an Israeli newspaper. Abu Dagga said that his passport was taken from him, and he was prohibited from leaving the Gaza Strip. Later he published an article in French newspaper LibƩration, but was forced to remove it after receiving threats.
Reporters in Gaza were subject not only to threats but also to Hamas' manipulations. The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan detailed how the organization's men staged the IDF attack scenes: he said that he was taken to photograph a mosque that had been bombed, and discovered that someone had "prepared" the scene and placed a prayer mat and burnt Quran pages.
He later reported that it was obvious that someone had put them there to create empathy for the Palestinian struggle.
The CBN news website said that apart from mosques, Hamas is also using church compounds to launch attacks. In his report, journalist George Thomas said that Gaza's most prominent Christian leader, Archbishop Alexios, "took CBN News to the roof terrace outside his office to show how Islamists used the church compound to launch rockets into Israel."
The Archbishop explained that "Islam is the rule of this place and whatever Hamas says we must obey or face consequences," Thomas added.
I think the parts in this article about journalists need to be cleaned up. There are bits and pieces about journalists all over the place despite there being a section about journalists. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
you forgot to mention the tunnels in the introduction as a reason for the operation 24.246.75.72 ( talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone warn Johorean Boy. He keeps changing the info box to include unreliable information about Israeli tanks being destroyed. He is using this website as his source. It's an unreliable source, the dates are inconsistent since the article is dated July 12th, yet the ground invasion did not start until the 17th. The pictures he's using are also supposedly dated from before this conflict found here. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 05:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello can someone please provide video/photograph in regards to protests against hamas in Gaza?. these two sources are referenced to such claims [7] and [8], both of them cite undisclosed sources and provide no evidence (other than font of text of accusation). Can anyone provide any actual evidence and if not can the subject of protests agaisnt hamas in gaza be placed for review?. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.29 ( talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently the section is not organized clearly, with sub-section arranged without any apparent order and containing duplicate information. I suggest to have each sub-section deal with a single alleged violation by a single side, linking to other violations that are potentially causing or are caused by it. For example these could be some of the section names with these causality links:
=> means 'claimed to cause', <= means 'claimed to be caused by'
OpinionsĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As for being a sleeper account - I don't owe anyone an explanation. I rarely edited in the last few years, and then didn't bother to log in until this page got semi-protected. You are welcome to look at the previous version of my talk page, there was nothing except some threats by a terrorist supporter. Who are you sockpuppeting forĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 16:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edits edit1 and edit2 and edit3
Kingsindian, I tried very hard to work on this right now but there are A LOT of problems with paragraph as it currently stands. whoever wrote it clearly had an agenda and they introduced a lot of bias into it. Frankly the whole thing should probably be deleted and re-written but I was able to added a little bit of citation and I'll keep working on it later. When you're 24 hours are up feel free to go back and actually check between what is written in that report and what is currently written in that paragraph, you will see very quickly that they are hardly the same thing. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: I have of course assumed good faith. I have only responded to your points so far. Your response above does not address any of the points raised
n 17 July UNRWA strongly condemned "the group or groups responsible" for placing the weapons in one of its schools[43] and on 22 July the European Union condemned all "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."
@ Kingsindian: I reverted your revert of my edits. Like I mentioned in my edit summary the OCHA quote was moved to the section in the article on Palestinian Casualties and Loses. It is still in the article and doesn't add anything but a very clear anecdotal POV to the introduction. Considering that we already have nearly half of all content in the introduction from OCHA, I think we have their perspective well covered. And your edit also reverted the UNRWA and EU quotes which DONT even MENTION HAMAS. You have not provided any reason why that is biased against Hamas and frankly, a statement of facts by the UN or EU is impossible to claim as biased. To me your edit could easily be seen as vandalism. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian ( talk) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Starting to think Hamas executions deserves it's own section if this keeps happening. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a separate Operation Pillar of Defenseā article? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Although no source claim that Egypt provides any military or financial aid to israel, so this listing is absurd. More so, a fuss note was left bellow asking not to remove specifically Egypt "until the discussion on talk page is ongoing" There was no discussion on this issue, as even the source does not claim anything related. The question of political support is debatable, yet we do not list there the political views of all 200 states. Please, someone to remove this absurd and unsourced claim regarding Egypt.-- Tritomex ( talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well and i think we should delete both US and Egypt as allies or supporters. barjimoa ( talk) ā Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
They SEND billions of dollars and they have SERVED as their guardian angel. . In this 2014 conflict they are playing a mediation role, arent they? barjimoa ( talk) ā Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read the actual reference for the "OCHA" civilian fatalities claim that is in the introduction. It appears in the original report with an footnote stating "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications." None of this was mentioned in the article until now. Also it looks like the source "Protection and Shelter clusters" is not the actual name of any organization but perhaps a misspelling of Protection Cluster [9] or Global Protection Cluster [10]. Ether way I don't think this information is meets the Wikipedia standards of reliable information especially since neither of these groups has a Wiki page currently, since OCHA misspelled their name to begin with and since we have no idea how they actually collected this information. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The Thai farm worker mentioned under 'Casualties and losses' was killed 23 June, which was before the conflict according to the articles date (8 July 2014 ā present). Please see this link for clarification: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/victims%20of%20palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20sinc.aspx āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Knightmare72589: I have removed two things which you added to 2012-13 section and modified a third. Please note that there were many many violations of the ceasefire. The aim of the section is to provide a summary, not to list every violation you may have discovered. You cannot arbitrarily pick points which you like (like tunnels and supposed Iranian rockets going to Gaza) and list them in this section. See this list for an overview of more than hundred violations of the ceasefire, all of them from media reports. To pick a couple of points arbitrarily is to give undue weight. If you want to list ceasefire violations, do it in an NPOV manner, giving due weight to the number of violations and the severity (there were many people killed on the Palestinian side, surely this deserves some weight compared to an Israeli claim of a spy satellite that some ship was going to Gaza)?
Why is it not mentioned in the lead that Hamas has not fired back since 2012? Hamas operatives launched rockets for the first time on June 30 in responce to Israeli airstricks and the arrests in the West Bank. I think it's highly important since the lead makes it seem like they never stoped, hence misleading. AcidSnow ( talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArchiveĀ 1 | ArchiveĀ 2 | ArchiveĀ 3 | ArchiveĀ 4 | ArchiveĀ 5 | ArchiveĀ 6 | ā | ArchiveĀ 10 |
Wikinews:Israel attacks Hamas leadership targets in the Gaza Strip
The page was started 30 July 2014.
199.119.232.209 (
talk)
17:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
"138 schools and 26 health facilities have been damaged, the homes of 900 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged and the homes of 5,295 families have been damaged but are still inhabitable."
Someone might want to deal with this redundancy too.
199.119.232.212 (
talk)
20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Obama calls for release of Hadar Goldin, captured Israeli soldier
Soldier believed captured by Hamas was killed in action, says Israeli army
199.7.156.143 (
talk)
05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
All the images that are not coming from WP:RS are not verifiable we have no way to know where they where taken and if the captions are true.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 06:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Mhhossein: I am not sure what you mean by WP:SYNTH in the two cases mentioned below:
As it became clear that unrest in Egypt wouldnāt lead to Sisi being ousted or to the return of the Brotherhood, Hamas saw only four possible exits. The first was rapprochement with Iran at the unacceptable price of betraying the Brotherhood in Syria and weakening support for Hamas among Palestinians and the majority of Sunni Muslims everywhere. The second was to levy new taxes in Gaza, but these couldnāt make up for the loss in revenue from the tunnels, and would risk stirring up opposition to Hamas rule. The third was to launch rockets at Israel in the hope of obtaining a new ceasefire that would bring an improvement in conditions in Gaza. This prospect worried US officials: it would undermine the quiescent Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and disrupt the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that John Kerry had launched in the same month as Sisiās coup. But Hamas felt too vulnerable, especially because of Sisiās potential role in any new conflict between Gaza and Israel, to take this route. It was sure that the peace talks would fail on their own. The final option, which Hamas eventually chose, was to hand over responsibility for governing Gaza to appointees of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, despite having defeated it in the 2006 elections.
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph, I noticed the sentence quoted. "All israelis are legitimate targets". After reviewing the source, it seems more appropriate if it's read "All Israelis have now become legitimate targets for the resistance". The legimate targets appears misleading because it suggests they are targetted without a common / national cause. "...for the resistance" is an important qualification intentionallly made in the original statement. Mezaanx ( talk) 16:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Nishidani: I have moved some of your edit to the "Financial Impact" section and kept the part which gives number of people rendered homeless. Kingsindian ( talk) 14:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
IDF: 700ā900 militants killed since ground invasion Spaskiba ( talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
//As of 5th of August IDF spokesman Moti Almoz declared the number of dead militants is between 700 and 900 since the ground invasion. He said this on Israeli Channel 2 News between 20:00 and 21:00. Please note these numbers are estimated since the ground invasion of IDF.
@ WarKosign: Regarding your edit here, the second source attributes the claim of "Hamas threatening journalists" to Israeli officials. In the first source, the threats are from other people on Twitter, and not Hamas. The original phrasing of the statement "Israeli officials have stated that Hamas is threatening reporters in Gaza critical of Hamas with retaliation" was correct. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: The first source quotes the journalists directly, so while the original phrase is not wrong, it's not as exact as it can be. It's not just a claim by officials, it is what the journalists themselves say (assuming jpost is reliable, of course).
In the time line the phrase:'it is widely accepted ' is not in the source (Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghavan, here) Nothing like that is in the source which gives both versions: ('Hamas insists the incident occurred before the cease-fire took hold and that it was Israel that broke the terms of the truce.'), and the phrase has apparently been screwed in to create a 'factoid' to buttress the Israeli version of events. It should be removed immediately, just as editors should control sources and signal similar problems. Nishidani ( talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The pause appears to have eroded after about 90 minutes in Rafah, a city in southern Gaza, with the attack on Israeli soldiers. The soldiers were working to destroy a tunnel built by militants to breach Israel's border when a militant emerged from it and detonated a suicide bomb, Israeli military Lt. Col. Peter Lerner told CNN's Wolf Blitzer
It's being argued that it's undue weight, which I agree. It's irrelevant to bring this up because even if Hamas wanted to specifically target military facilities, their rockets are incapable of doing so. This isn't comparable at all. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in fighting with you. I have indeed read the source and it says exactly what I claimed. You said this in your first reply: "Except even if Hamas had the ability to do it, they would target the civilians either way" which is flatly refuted by the article and more importantly, the practice. When Hamas had the ability to discriminate, like the tunnels, they always targeted soldiers, never a civilian. Rest of your stuff is blowing smoke and merits no comment. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Please stop adding the numbers that hamas makes up. Presstv is not a RS. Electronicintifada is not a RS. Once you have a reliable source, please go ahead.
Militias is a neutral term. Terrorists or freedom fighters is not. Do not engage in an edit war if you don't want to be blocked again. If you have something constructive to say on the subject, please do it here. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk ā¢ contribs)
@ WarKosign: I have started a section on WP:RSN on whether PressTV is reliable. As far as I can see, they are just reporting the claim from Hamas about the number of soldiers killed. If there is some fabrication, it is from Hamas, and PressTV is simply reporting their claims. I am not sure if anyone really doubts that "Hamas claims 145 people killed". It is another question whether Hamas claims belong in the infobox or not. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian: There were several discussions, including this one /info/en/?search=Talk:2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#Casualties_infobox, but there was no clear consensus. What is the proper way to proceed in your opinionĀ ? āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign ( talk ā¢ contribs)
@ WarKosign: If there is no consensus, the usual procedure is to open a Request for Comments. Kingsindian ( talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Kingsindian and WarKosign: If I remember correctly, it was determined, that overall, pressTV is not a reliable source. Also, it is common knowledge that it is both owned and run by the Iranian government. Jab843 ( talk) 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If at the end of this 72 hour ceasefire, the fighting has subsided, is it the beginning of the 72 hour ceasefire or the end of the 72 hour ceasefire that is considered the end date of the conflict? Knightmare72589 ( talk) 04:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Today is the day they might pull out completely from the Gaza strip [1]
-- Bdwolverine87 ( talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article's title says '2014', so there is still time. Seriously, once the operation is officially over the article should be renamed. So far the only available official name is Operation Protective Edge, but there are some talks about announcing that it was a war. - WarKosign ( talk) 07:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Plot Spoiler: Regarding your edit here. Are you aware that there is a big discussion on the talk page about the background? Yet you come in and remove a huge portion with no justification at all, except for your assertion that it is tendentious and POV. This is hugely annoying, when one works on a page for hours and someone just parachutes in and removes a big portion in one fell swoop. Editing in ARBPIA, I am afraid to revert such things, because I am afraid of getting blocked. I have 3 other edits which I am afraid to revert for just this reason.
Your reasons in the edit summary are also without merit. Even in the section, there are other sources, like the Nathan Thrall article which notes that in the first three months, there was almost no rocket fire from Gaza, while there were a lot of incursions from Israel. The figures in the Ben White article come from OCHA and are partly compiled from media reports, as mentioned in the article itself. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
too.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 19:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous claims by Hamas reported by sources affiliated with them, such as presstv or electronicintifada. Other media sources often report that Hamas did make these claims, but do not approve the information itself. Here are a few examples:
Some users repeatedly insert these false claims into the infobox. I believe the fact that Hamas makes false claims should be reported somewhere in the media section, but the claims themselves cannot be used as facts since they lack a reliable source. Any opinionsĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 06:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Some evidence to consider:
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section labelled "2005 withdrawal" is ill-sourced and advancing an unorthodox theory, and should be removed or altered. The guardian article used as source is from 2005 and thus cannot support the conclusion that in the Guardian's view the **current** conflict stems from alleged ill intent from Israel in the 2005 withdrawal. Furthermore, this is very much a non consensus/editorializing opinion that runs counter to the prima facie thrust of Israels withdrawal, and thus should not be figured prominently in an encyclopedia entry. 2601:6:7F00:3C1:3589:43C5:9E8D:CCEE ( talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
We should include the events on Jerusalem, the bulldozer attack on a Bus and the shooting of a Soldier on the west bank.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/04/world/mideast-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Maybe more attacks could take place, dont know we should have a section of violence related to the Gaza offensive on the west bank. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 17:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No mention of the 3 attacks on israelis on the West bank is mentioned in the article, we should mention them, since are contemporary events. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 16:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign: Regarding your edit here and here. You must surely be aware that there is a whole section devoted to human shields, which contains all the claims you include here and their responses? Why are you repeating the arguments from there, and moreover, doing it in a clear POV way? Why are you only including claims of "human shield", weapons storage, and Hamas directing people to stay in their homes, and not including the contra arguments?
If you want to repeat stuff from that section, you need to provide a neutral summary. Not a one-sided culling of facts. When I created that section, I only provided the barest summary because these issues about human shields are already discussed above.
You have done many good and fine edits. But please keep in mind that this is not a place for advocacy. This is a long term pattern of your edits on this page. I will just document a few of your past edits on this page in the same vein. I do not say all the edits are wrong, but they show a clear advocacy, pushing the POV of one particular side, minimizing the effects of one side and maximizing the other:
Again, there are many other edits which are fine. You have discussed many things on the talk page, which is again, good practice. We all have biases. But, this kind of advocacy based editing will not do. Kingsindian ( talk) 07:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, many of your edits have been fine and proper. But, as I said, editing like an advocate will not do. Kingsindian ( talk) 08:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign: I have removed all details except the barest claims. And linked back to the other sections, as you suggested elsewhere. Perhaps this is not the perfect solution, we can discuss it further. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Johorean Boy: You added unsourced information in the infobox, again. The article already lists all the claims that hamas made
here, this information does not belong in the infobox. Information by emergency relieve coordinator is based, but it belongs in the "impact on residents" section, and there was a link from notes that you deleted.
Unless you can explain how your biased and unsourced edits improve the article, they will be removed. If you continue edit warring, your account will be blocked. -
WarKosign (
talk)
16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WarKosign:Please refrain from removing contents without providing a strong reason. -- Johorean Boy ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Johorean Boy: Since you refuse to provide any commentary to your edits, I can only treat them as vandalism. - WarKosign ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ TheTimesAreAChanging: Care to explain this edit? What exactly are you updating? All I see is removal of sourced content. Kingsindian ( talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This source on Hamas' rockets should be used somewhere. Kingsindian ( talk) 03:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't decided how to use this source. This was more or less just meant as a note to myself and any others who might be interested. It is of course an opinion piece, and not a news piece. The author is a well-known scholar of Hamas and PLO and has had many formal and informal contacts with both factions. It appears in Foreign Affairs, a very reputable and mainstream journal put out the Council on Foreign Relations. Kingsindian ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the duplicate section "Militant use of mosques schools" etc. All the information there is already present in other sections, namely the "human shields" section, "using civilian structures for military purposes" section and the "united nations" section. They are discussed there in much more detail and with all sides of argument presented.
There is one sentence from this section, which I was considering to include in the "human shields" section. The report that that Al-Shifa hospital is being used as "de-facto headquarters" of Hamas. I have not included this for the following reason: The washington post is talking about ministers from Hamas. There is no suggestion there that those were bringing weapons into the hospital etc.
See this link for a discussion on this topic. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that the article was littered with pictures tagged with no sources. Wikipedia is not a gallery of loose images WP:NOTGALLERY. If you want to make a photo gallery and cite the pictures feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion above. I am restoring the photos. Kingsindian ( talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the analysis of David Norris about the conflict, as expressed in a speech at the Senate of Ireland: Video on YouTube. Maybe this could be used a a source for the reactions in other countries?
Sedarr oup gr ( talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There is almost no photos in the article of all the destruction in Gaza because of this war. I think it's fair to say that 95% of the damage where in Gaza.-- 88.91.235.110 ( talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoa!! I think the Israeli finth columns needs a Barnstar for such a important work they have done erasing all the evidence of the Gaza bombardement. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course most of the death and destruction was in Palestine. DUHĀ !!! -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The page used to have lots of photos of all kinds, but they were removed (I hope) due to a misunderstanding. I have restored the photos. See this section for details. Kingsindian ( talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be mentioned in the section on UN. Someone should do it. I might get around to it at some point. Kingsindian ( talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a report by ITIC [2] that the Hamas-controlled ministry of the interior in the Gaza Strip issued a warning not to divulge information about terrorist operatives killed in Operation Protective Edge. This is done so more of the killed military operatives would appear in the casualties list as civilians rather than militant. I think this is very notable and important, but don't see where exactly to add this information. Does it belong before/after the casualties tableĀ ? MediaĀ ? Separate sectionĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 11:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4556016,00.html
Now that they're out of the Gaza Strip, the reporters are revealing what Hamas tried to prevent the world from seeing. An Indian reporter, for example, documented how Hamas militants launched rockets from a post right outside the window of the hotel where he was staying in the Gaza Strip, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. The video aired only after the reporter left Gaza. When asked about it, he replied: "There's a conspiracy of silence rooted in fear ā no one want to report in real-time".
Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati also told the truth about Hamas once he left the Strip, no longer under their threat. In a tweet, Barbati said: āOut of #Gaza far from #Hamasretaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday (yesterday) in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.ā He added: ā@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.ā
Another foreign reporter said that it is an open secret that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as its command center, but that reporters in Gaza would not report that out of fear that it would endanger them.
However, not only foreign reporters were afraid of Hamas' potential revenge. Palestinian reporters also suffered threats when they attempted to criticize the terrorist organization and give truthful reports.
Local Palestinian reporter Radjaa Abu Dagga, for example, reported that he was summoned for questioning at Al-Shifa hospital, where armed Hamas militants attempted to determine whether he writes for an Israeli newspaper. Abu Dagga said that his passport was taken from him, and he was prohibited from leaving the Gaza Strip. Later he published an article in French newspaper LibƩration, but was forced to remove it after receiving threats.
Reporters in Gaza were subject not only to threats but also to Hamas' manipulations. The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan detailed how the organization's men staged the IDF attack scenes: he said that he was taken to photograph a mosque that had been bombed, and discovered that someone had "prepared" the scene and placed a prayer mat and burnt Quran pages.
He later reported that it was obvious that someone had put them there to create empathy for the Palestinian struggle.
The CBN news website said that apart from mosques, Hamas is also using church compounds to launch attacks. In his report, journalist George Thomas said that Gaza's most prominent Christian leader, Archbishop Alexios, "took CBN News to the roof terrace outside his office to show how Islamists used the church compound to launch rockets into Israel."
The Archbishop explained that "Islam is the rule of this place and whatever Hamas says we must obey or face consequences," Thomas added.
I think the parts in this article about journalists need to be cleaned up. There are bits and pieces about journalists all over the place despite there being a section about journalists. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2014 IsraelāGaza conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
you forgot to mention the tunnels in the introduction as a reason for the operation 24.246.75.72 ( talk) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone warn Johorean Boy. He keeps changing the info box to include unreliable information about Israeli tanks being destroyed. He is using this website as his source. It's an unreliable source, the dates are inconsistent since the article is dated July 12th, yet the ground invasion did not start until the 17th. The pictures he's using are also supposedly dated from before this conflict found here. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 05:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello can someone please provide video/photograph in regards to protests against hamas in Gaza?. these two sources are referenced to such claims [7] and [8], both of them cite undisclosed sources and provide no evidence (other than font of text of accusation). Can anyone provide any actual evidence and if not can the subject of protests agaisnt hamas in gaza be placed for review?. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.169.29 ( talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently the section is not organized clearly, with sub-section arranged without any apparent order and containing duplicate information. I suggest to have each sub-section deal with a single alleged violation by a single side, linking to other violations that are potentially causing or are caused by it. For example these could be some of the section names with these causality links:
=> means 'claimed to cause', <= means 'claimed to be caused by'
OpinionsĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 09:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As for being a sleeper account - I don't owe anyone an explanation. I rarely edited in the last few years, and then didn't bother to log in until this page got semi-protected. You are welcome to look at the previous version of my talk page, there was nothing except some threats by a terrorist supporter. Who are you sockpuppeting forĀ ? - WarKosign ( talk) 16:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edits edit1 and edit2 and edit3
Kingsindian, I tried very hard to work on this right now but there are A LOT of problems with paragraph as it currently stands. whoever wrote it clearly had an agenda and they introduced a lot of bias into it. Frankly the whole thing should probably be deleted and re-written but I was able to added a little bit of citation and I'll keep working on it later. When you're 24 hours are up feel free to go back and actually check between what is written in that report and what is currently written in that paragraph, you will see very quickly that they are hardly the same thing. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 21:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Monopoly31121993: I have of course assumed good faith. I have only responded to your points so far. Your response above does not address any of the points raised
n 17 July UNRWA strongly condemned "the group or groups responsible" for placing the weapons in one of its schools[43] and on 22 July the European Union condemned all "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."
@ Kingsindian: I reverted your revert of my edits. Like I mentioned in my edit summary the OCHA quote was moved to the section in the article on Palestinian Casualties and Loses. It is still in the article and doesn't add anything but a very clear anecdotal POV to the introduction. Considering that we already have nearly half of all content in the introduction from OCHA, I think we have their perspective well covered. And your edit also reverted the UNRWA and EU quotes which DONT even MENTION HAMAS. You have not provided any reason why that is biased against Hamas and frankly, a statement of facts by the UN or EU is impossible to claim as biased. To me your edit could easily be seen as vandalism. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian ( talk) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Starting to think Hamas executions deserves it's own section if this keeps happening. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a separate Operation Pillar of Defenseā article? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Although no source claim that Egypt provides any military or financial aid to israel, so this listing is absurd. More so, a fuss note was left bellow asking not to remove specifically Egypt "until the discussion on talk page is ongoing" There was no discussion on this issue, as even the source does not claim anything related. The question of political support is debatable, yet we do not list there the political views of all 200 states. Please, someone to remove this absurd and unsourced claim regarding Egypt.-- Tritomex ( talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well and i think we should delete both US and Egypt as allies or supporters. barjimoa ( talk) ā Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
They SEND billions of dollars and they have SERVED as their guardian angel. . In this 2014 conflict they are playing a mediation role, arent they? barjimoa ( talk) ā Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I just read the actual reference for the "OCHA" civilian fatalities claim that is in the introduction. It appears in the original report with an footnote stating "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications." None of this was mentioned in the article until now. Also it looks like the source "Protection and Shelter clusters" is not the actual name of any organization but perhaps a misspelling of Protection Cluster [9] or Global Protection Cluster [10]. Ether way I don't think this information is meets the Wikipedia standards of reliable information especially since neither of these groups has a Wiki page currently, since OCHA misspelled their name to begin with and since we have no idea how they actually collected this information. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The Thai farm worker mentioned under 'Casualties and losses' was killed 23 June, which was before the conflict according to the articles date (8 July 2014 ā present). Please see this link for clarification: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/victims%20of%20palestinian%20violence%20and%20terrorism%20sinc.aspx āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Knightmare72589: I have removed two things which you added to 2012-13 section and modified a third. Please note that there were many many violations of the ceasefire. The aim of the section is to provide a summary, not to list every violation you may have discovered. You cannot arbitrarily pick points which you like (like tunnels and supposed Iranian rockets going to Gaza) and list them in this section. See this list for an overview of more than hundred violations of the ceasefire, all of them from media reports. To pick a couple of points arbitrarily is to give undue weight. If you want to list ceasefire violations, do it in an NPOV manner, giving due weight to the number of violations and the severity (there were many people killed on the Palestinian side, surely this deserves some weight compared to an Israeli claim of a spy satellite that some ship was going to Gaza)?
Why is it not mentioned in the lead that Hamas has not fired back since 2012? Hamas operatives launched rockets for the first time on June 30 in responce to Israeli airstricks and the arrests in the West Bank. I think it's highly important since the lead makes it seem like they never stoped, hence misleading. AcidSnow ( talk) 13:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)