![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 9 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Rouzan al-Najjar to Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I uploaded a fairly bad image (current one). User:PlanespotterA320, in good faith, uploaded a better one from here. I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.
So, I'm posting here in hopes that we can find a third, best image. Also, I will post elsewhere to find out if this images is allowed. Hopefully it is.
In the meantime, I have reverted to the fuzzy image, the one where she's wearing rubber gloves. Your feedback here is most welcome.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I just posted here for an opinion. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have RS confirming her birthday? Scaleshombre ( talk) 16:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Without an RS, I find the September 11 reference a little jarring. Any objections to my removing it? Scaleshombre ( talk) 03:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Najjar's stmt saying she is a human shield and throwing a gas canister has been widely covered, e.g. NYT, and is clearly relevant to her life and circumstances of death, and should be included in the article. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It should also been included that the IDF's video is being widely lambasted as being misleadingly edited. Rafe87 ( talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. It will make no sense to blow out of proportion the relevancy of a deliberately edited video that's out of context with a misleading translation to begin with. The only revelancy of that video as reported by major news outlets that care to shed light on the issue is that it is a misleading video. If it is relevant enough it can be added to the Public diplomacy of Israel entry. Kokaemo ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This edit claims to be "match[ing] source", however the source explicitly says that the IDF has been widely criticized. It does not say it was by "critics of Israel". @ Icewhiz:, can you explain why you removed "widely" and why you attribute to "critics of Israel" what the source does not? nableezy - 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The smear campaign outraged Palestinian and Israeli observers who oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and lying.- so in short criticized by anti-occupation oobservers or activists - which the Intercept then goes in to quote (various +972 figures, etc.). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
fiercely criticised by Palestinians and rights activists as an ...- which we should do as well if we use them as a source. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Here I did a major edit on the citations of the article by adding the name of authors of each article (since we used a brief quote from one such attribution is a must) and removed ciations of duplicate republications of a popular article from the New York Times that was published on various websites (including the Middle East Eye). It's weird to have seprate citations that link to the same article of which all but one are just verbatim of the same article.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I read that she intended to attend nursing school, but hadn't done so yet. She was working as a first-responder. Paramedic might also be the correct term. But she isn't a nurse, which is a professional title — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaunaTime5000 ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The Intercept is a far-left anti-Semitic site that constantly tells lies about Israel. It's chief propagandist is Glenn Greenwald, an anti-Israel activist. The Independent is a left-wing British paper, and the British left is known for its strong anti-Semitism and support for Arab terrorism against Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.165.136 ( talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: This edit is simply dumbfounding to me. How exactly are you removing the well sourced material on the fact that the interview was misleadingly cut and presented to just "cut a short segment of a prior interview"? Why are you removing the portion of the quote that the IDF removed? nableezy - 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail. Trying to present only the doctored version here is a disgrace. Zero talk 11:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of any tendentious argument anybody would like to make as to the type of propaganda at play here, presenting the propaganda as though it were the whole story is, well, not in keeping with the requirements of NPOV. The entire quote belongs, and what reliable sources such as the Independent have said the IDF has done with that original quote also belongs. nableezy - 18:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
My "zeal" is for facts, and you're just dead wrong—Icewhiz included the portion of the quote not used in the edited video. The line after his edit read: The video that was released cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she had said "I’m here on the line being a protective human shield saving the injured".
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
16:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone who can write in Arabic send out OTRS requests for a photo for Commons? This article is translated into several language encyclopedias that do not allow fair-use images at all, such as Spanish. The photo in the infobox right now isn't very good for visual identification since its so grainy. Thank you.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 23:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
this. Since when has a direct interview with the deceased's mother, as reported in Middle East Eye, become unreliable? This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting. Nishidani ( talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
UNDUE does not mean you can remove material because it appears on one source. Please read WP:UNDUE. Nothing in it restricts the amount of coverage a topic is given, it restricts how much coverage disputed views are given in proportion to each other. I am restoring the material from Middle East Eye. Its an interview with the victims mother. If youd like to challenge whether or not the site accurately and faithfully reproduced her words feel free. You dont however get to make a blanket rule that you can remove whatever you dislike from the article. nableezy - 18:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've reversed the lead back to its previous state. I particularly dislike the recent insertion that, "The IDF interpreted the video footage as showing her admitting to participating in the protests as a human shield, supposedly at the request of Hamas", which seems to imply that the IDF's tampering with the video is a result of honest differences of interpretation of meaning. We can't enter inside their heads to know what the IDF editors were thinking and if they were honestly engaged in an exercise in interpretation (which is unlikely). We do know they purposely omitted important things said by Razan from their release. And that's what the entry should say, without embellishment. Rafe87 ( talk) 21:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the lead to make it a bit tighter. I dont think I actually removed anything from the article, but I did move some details into the body. If anybody requests Ill gladly self-rv but I personally think this is an improvement and not a change in "POV" in any direction. But like I said, anybody asks Ill gladly self-rv. nableezy - 04:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In this lengthy article by The New York Times, you can see her death certificate in the opening video (at 1:52) and you can see her first name is actually spelled روزان and not رزان. Not only should that be changed in the intro of the article, it should probably also be taken into consideration for proper transcription (Rouzan -- as in the NYT article linked -- vs. Razan). -- Johnny Durianseed ( talk) 11:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, will request the article be amended CaptJayRuffins ( talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Cmon, an op-ed from Algeminer? nableezy - 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That isnt how DUE works, and I think you know that. A random op-ed in a source not taken seriously by actual reliable sources does not grant weight to it because it is an opposing viewpoint. What "pro-Palestinian view" are we "reflecting widely"? Am I missing any other opinion included in this article? nableezy - 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"Ira Stoll, who runs a website that critiques The Times, says the article is one-sided in its description of the Israeli-Gazan conflict, using “language to exculpate Palestinian Arab terrorism” — for example, by describing rockets from Gaza in the passive voice without noting that they are aimed at Israeli civilians by Hamas operatives. He asks why the paper devoted so many resources to the death of the Palestinian medic but has so far ignored the murder of Ari Fuld, an Israeli American who was killed in September by a Palestinian terrorist in a stabbing attack near his hometown of Efrat. “The New York Times’ investigation,’ for all its dignified trappings, is just the same old Israel-bashing you can get for free on any extreme right or extreme left Internet site or social media feed,” Stoll writes in The Algemeiner.". Icewhiz ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see Ira Stoll's opinion as valid here, no matter who he writes for, or in. It's an apologist's attempt to deflect from the Israeli's policy that put's medics at risk in a conflict zone. Shooting directly at a clearly identified medic, regardless that it was a shot that skipped like a stone on a lake, it still struck home, which is where the shooter intended and where it landed. No amount of deflection can hide that, as such, it is a war crime. Charges should be brought, and consequences to be had. No deflection can allay that, this was one of many targeted shootings that day. #MedicsareNOTatarget ! CaptJayRuffins ( talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This revert re-introduced content from a source that doesn't mention our subject. The connection to our subject is WP:OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say just cite the report. And no, that is not a primary source, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not an involved party to this. nableezy - 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)The Commission finds that Razan did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the ISF when she was shot.
Just an interesting fact here. Still showing on the web at this minute, it is clearly seen that whoever edited the full interview with the "Lebanese TV" was NOT ISRAEL, see here. Just saying פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The more I watch the more I'm troubled by what is currently listed in the WP article. Here's an Arab version from the Al Mayadeen channel posted on June 3 2018 without the grenade throwing. The interview shows she clearly supports the rock hurling and fire-balloon sending. Also, it clearly shows her with the brown head cover. The section about the grenade was clearly edited out on this take and instead, there is a still image of her recovering from tear gas, still wearing the same brown head garb.
The version shown by the New York Times is even more troubling. Their movie begins with the images of the medics holding their hands up. BUT THEN THEY CLEARLY EXPLAIN that this incident ended in the medics pulling away from the fence, and only LATER ON IN THE DAY when things seemed to calm down, was the fatal shot heard. So a long and important header, with the caption of "Nurse Killed by Israelis" showing her holding her hands up, is simply misleading. Almost all the violent sections have been moved out, except when it comes to the other three killed during the incidents, who are accepted or at least shown to be viewed as falling into the categories that the Israelis put forward, in which cases they said they would shoot. The case of Rouzan is meant to show that Israel is failing even their own claims, and is supposedly deliberately killing Gazan's who are supposedly seen by Israel and Israelis as subhuman.
Shooting a bullet to the ground is supposed to be a warning after shooting in the air, and is common military practice as ordered by the Geneva convention. The NYT video clearly shows that the bullet hit the ground and then killed Rouzan. From the current wording in the WP article and the sources which are showing the anti-Israeli narrative, it is clear that there is an initiative to show Israeli soldiers as directly and deliberately targeting Rouzan, clearly NOT the case.
Here's my take on the whole thing. Israel WANTS to tell the people of Gaza that Israel will shoot to kill, in hopes that it would deter citizens and even fighters from crossing the border. But on the other hand, Israel is saying that they only shoot if the fence is being breached or if weapons are detected, as they wish to remain a "moral army". They are clearly acting so, otherwise, there would be no use for the tear gas and other rally dispersing equipment. Israel WOULD LIKE to say that they will shoot anyone who gets close to the border but refrains from saying so. Meanwhile, Hamas has two narratives as well. On the one hand, they would rather the ISRAELIS DO NOT SHOOT and would like their protesters to know that if they behave according to certain rules, most of them are in no real life-threatening danger. It is clear from the orchestration, the hand waving, the planned paths and movements, and the filmography, that this is so. Then on the other hand, just like the Israelis, they are interested in INFLATING THE NUMBER of REPORTED casualties. This is for the purpose of showing how Israel is inhuman. The inflated-number policy is clearly seen from the publications, which get repeated by the media, usually without question, mixing militants and civilians and never disclosing or exposing any of the problems with the information and how it is well orchestrated.
So we, the people who simply would like to know the actual facts, have to work through the given numbers and released images, through the missing and mostly skewed narratives from the media on both sides, and reconstruct what is actually happening. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 16:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 03:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Rouzan al-Najjar → Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar – This article covers an event, al-Najjar's killing, not the person, and as such it should have a title about the event. Per WP:DEATHS and the exceedingly low likelihood the IDF will ever prosecute somebody for what the UN considers a possible war-crime, Killing is the preferred form for a homicide that does not result in a criminal conviction. nableezy - 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 9 December 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Rouzan al-Najjar to Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I uploaded a fairly bad image (current one). User:PlanespotterA320, in good faith, uploaded a better one from here. I am just a bit worried that it is not permitted. The thing is, it is from a an article with "...Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment..." above it. I am not sure the website owns the copyright, and I think I saw the image elsewhere. Also, if they are using the image, and we do not know who owns it, then it might be AP or some news agency that provides images, in which case, not permitted.
So, I'm posting here in hopes that we can find a third, best image. Also, I will post elsewhere to find out if this images is allowed. Hopefully it is.
In the meantime, I have reverted to the fuzzy image, the one where she's wearing rubber gloves. Your feedback here is most welcome.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I just posted here for an opinion. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have RS confirming her birthday? Scaleshombre ( talk) 16:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Without an RS, I find the September 11 reference a little jarring. Any objections to my removing it? Scaleshombre ( talk) 03:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Najjar's stmt saying she is a human shield and throwing a gas canister has been widely covered, e.g. NYT, and is clearly relevant to her life and circumstances of death, and should be included in the article. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It should also been included that the IDF's video is being widely lambasted as being misleadingly edited. Rafe87 ( talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. It will make no sense to blow out of proportion the relevancy of a deliberately edited video that's out of context with a misleading translation to begin with. The only revelancy of that video as reported by major news outlets that care to shed light on the issue is that it is a misleading video. If it is relevant enough it can be added to the Public diplomacy of Israel entry. Kokaemo ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This edit claims to be "match[ing] source", however the source explicitly says that the IDF has been widely criticized. It does not say it was by "critics of Israel". @ Icewhiz:, can you explain why you removed "widely" and why you attribute to "critics of Israel" what the source does not? nableezy - 16:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The smear campaign outraged Palestinian and Israeli observers who oppose Israel’s ongoing occupation and lying.- so in short criticized by anti-occupation oobservers or activists - which the Intercept then goes in to quote (various +972 figures, etc.). Icewhiz ( talk) 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
fiercely criticised by Palestinians and rights activists as an ...- which we should do as well if we use them as a source. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Here I did a major edit on the citations of the article by adding the name of authors of each article (since we used a brief quote from one such attribution is a must) and removed ciations of duplicate republications of a popular article from the New York Times that was published on various websites (including the Middle East Eye). It's weird to have seprate citations that link to the same article of which all but one are just verbatim of the same article.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I read that she intended to attend nursing school, but hadn't done so yet. She was working as a first-responder. Paramedic might also be the correct term. But she isn't a nurse, which is a professional title — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaunaTime5000 ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The Intercept is a far-left anti-Semitic site that constantly tells lies about Israel. It's chief propagandist is Glenn Greenwald, an anti-Israel activist. The Independent is a left-wing British paper, and the British left is known for its strong anti-Semitism and support for Arab terrorism against Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.165.136 ( talk) 01:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: This edit is simply dumbfounding to me. How exactly are you removing the well sourced material on the fact that the interview was misleadingly cut and presented to just "cut a short segment of a prior interview"? Why are you removing the portion of the quote that the IDF removed? nableezy - 20:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail. Trying to present only the doctored version here is a disgrace. Zero talk 11:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of any tendentious argument anybody would like to make as to the type of propaganda at play here, presenting the propaganda as though it were the whole story is, well, not in keeping with the requirements of NPOV. The entire quote belongs, and what reliable sources such as the Independent have said the IDF has done with that original quote also belongs. nableezy - 18:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
My "zeal" is for facts, and you're just dead wrong—Icewhiz included the portion of the quote not used in the edited video. The line after his edit read: The video that was released cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she had said "I’m here on the line being a protective human shield saving the injured".
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
16:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone who can write in Arabic send out OTRS requests for a photo for Commons? This article is translated into several language encyclopedias that do not allow fair-use images at all, such as Spanish. The photo in the infobox right now isn't very good for visual identification since its so grainy. Thank you.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 23:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
this. Since when has a direct interview with the deceased's mother, as reported in Middle East Eye, become unreliable? This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting. Nishidani ( talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
UNDUE does not mean you can remove material because it appears on one source. Please read WP:UNDUE. Nothing in it restricts the amount of coverage a topic is given, it restricts how much coverage disputed views are given in proportion to each other. I am restoring the material from Middle East Eye. Its an interview with the victims mother. If youd like to challenge whether or not the site accurately and faithfully reproduced her words feel free. You dont however get to make a blanket rule that you can remove whatever you dislike from the article. nableezy - 18:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've reversed the lead back to its previous state. I particularly dislike the recent insertion that, "The IDF interpreted the video footage as showing her admitting to participating in the protests as a human shield, supposedly at the request of Hamas", which seems to imply that the IDF's tampering with the video is a result of honest differences of interpretation of meaning. We can't enter inside their heads to know what the IDF editors were thinking and if they were honestly engaged in an exercise in interpretation (which is unlikely). We do know they purposely omitted important things said by Razan from their release. And that's what the entry should say, without embellishment. Rafe87 ( talk) 21:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the lead to make it a bit tighter. I dont think I actually removed anything from the article, but I did move some details into the body. If anybody requests Ill gladly self-rv but I personally think this is an improvement and not a change in "POV" in any direction. But like I said, anybody asks Ill gladly self-rv. nableezy - 04:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In this lengthy article by The New York Times, you can see her death certificate in the opening video (at 1:52) and you can see her first name is actually spelled روزان and not رزان. Not only should that be changed in the intro of the article, it should probably also be taken into consideration for proper transcription (Rouzan -- as in the NYT article linked -- vs. Razan). -- Johnny Durianseed ( talk) 11:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, will request the article be amended CaptJayRuffins ( talk) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Cmon, an op-ed from Algeminer? nableezy - 02:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That isnt how DUE works, and I think you know that. A random op-ed in a source not taken seriously by actual reliable sources does not grant weight to it because it is an opposing viewpoint. What "pro-Palestinian view" are we "reflecting widely"? Am I missing any other opinion included in this article? nableezy - 16:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
"Ira Stoll, who runs a website that critiques The Times, says the article is one-sided in its description of the Israeli-Gazan conflict, using “language to exculpate Palestinian Arab terrorism” — for example, by describing rockets from Gaza in the passive voice without noting that they are aimed at Israeli civilians by Hamas operatives. He asks why the paper devoted so many resources to the death of the Palestinian medic but has so far ignored the murder of Ari Fuld, an Israeli American who was killed in September by a Palestinian terrorist in a stabbing attack near his hometown of Efrat. “The New York Times’ investigation,’ for all its dignified trappings, is just the same old Israel-bashing you can get for free on any extreme right or extreme left Internet site or social media feed,” Stoll writes in The Algemeiner.". Icewhiz ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see Ira Stoll's opinion as valid here, no matter who he writes for, or in. It's an apologist's attempt to deflect from the Israeli's policy that put's medics at risk in a conflict zone. Shooting directly at a clearly identified medic, regardless that it was a shot that skipped like a stone on a lake, it still struck home, which is where the shooter intended and where it landed. No amount of deflection can hide that, as such, it is a war crime. Charges should be brought, and consequences to be had. No deflection can allay that, this was one of many targeted shootings that day. #MedicsareNOTatarget ! CaptJayRuffins ( talk) 03:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This revert re-introduced content from a source that doesn't mention our subject. The connection to our subject is WP:OR. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say just cite the report. And no, that is not a primary source, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not an involved party to this. nableezy - 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)The Commission finds that Razan did not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury to the ISF when she was shot.
Just an interesting fact here. Still showing on the web at this minute, it is clearly seen that whoever edited the full interview with the "Lebanese TV" was NOT ISRAEL, see here. Just saying פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The more I watch the more I'm troubled by what is currently listed in the WP article. Here's an Arab version from the Al Mayadeen channel posted on June 3 2018 without the grenade throwing. The interview shows she clearly supports the rock hurling and fire-balloon sending. Also, it clearly shows her with the brown head cover. The section about the grenade was clearly edited out on this take and instead, there is a still image of her recovering from tear gas, still wearing the same brown head garb.
The version shown by the New York Times is even more troubling. Their movie begins with the images of the medics holding their hands up. BUT THEN THEY CLEARLY EXPLAIN that this incident ended in the medics pulling away from the fence, and only LATER ON IN THE DAY when things seemed to calm down, was the fatal shot heard. So a long and important header, with the caption of "Nurse Killed by Israelis" showing her holding her hands up, is simply misleading. Almost all the violent sections have been moved out, except when it comes to the other three killed during the incidents, who are accepted or at least shown to be viewed as falling into the categories that the Israelis put forward, in which cases they said they would shoot. The case of Rouzan is meant to show that Israel is failing even their own claims, and is supposedly deliberately killing Gazan's who are supposedly seen by Israel and Israelis as subhuman.
Shooting a bullet to the ground is supposed to be a warning after shooting in the air, and is common military practice as ordered by the Geneva convention. The NYT video clearly shows that the bullet hit the ground and then killed Rouzan. From the current wording in the WP article and the sources which are showing the anti-Israeli narrative, it is clear that there is an initiative to show Israeli soldiers as directly and deliberately targeting Rouzan, clearly NOT the case.
Here's my take on the whole thing. Israel WANTS to tell the people of Gaza that Israel will shoot to kill, in hopes that it would deter citizens and even fighters from crossing the border. But on the other hand, Israel is saying that they only shoot if the fence is being breached or if weapons are detected, as they wish to remain a "moral army". They are clearly acting so, otherwise, there would be no use for the tear gas and other rally dispersing equipment. Israel WOULD LIKE to say that they will shoot anyone who gets close to the border but refrains from saying so. Meanwhile, Hamas has two narratives as well. On the one hand, they would rather the ISRAELIS DO NOT SHOOT and would like their protesters to know that if they behave according to certain rules, most of them are in no real life-threatening danger. It is clear from the orchestration, the hand waving, the planned paths and movements, and the filmography, that this is so. Then on the other hand, just like the Israelis, they are interested in INFLATING THE NUMBER of REPORTED casualties. This is for the purpose of showing how Israel is inhuman. The inflated-number policy is clearly seen from the publications, which get repeated by the media, usually without question, mixing militants and civilians and never disclosing or exposing any of the problems with the information and how it is well orchestrated.
So we, the people who simply would like to know the actual facts, have to work through the given numbers and released images, through the missing and mostly skewed narratives from the media on both sides, and reconstruct what is actually happening. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 16:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 03:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Rouzan al-Najjar → Killing of Rouzan al-Najjar – This article covers an event, al-Najjar's killing, not the person, and as such it should have a title about the event. Per WP:DEATHS and the exceedingly low likelihood the IDF will ever prosecute somebody for what the UN considers a possible war-crime, Killing is the preferred form for a homicide that does not result in a criminal conviction. nableezy - 23:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)