Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Use of civilian structures for military purposes -> In Israel

Can someone explain to me he purpose of this section:

Israeli and Jewish critics of the war, including Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy and Richard Silverstein, wrote that in their own war of independence (and earlier), Jews hid weapons in synagogues, kindergartens and schools as well.[414][415][416] Other critics have noted that the headquarters of the IDF and Shin Bet, as well as an Israeli military training facility, are also located near civilian centers.[399][417] Commentators brought up the current high population density of Gaza in conjunction with Palestinian military activities and installations being in or near civilian structures.[399][418]
  1. Being part of "alleged violations of international humanitarian law" it appears to be a 'two wrongs make it right' fallacy...
  2. Furthermore its strawmen argument based on a superficial resemblance. At the time of the British mandate the arabs did exactly the same during their acts of disobedience and revolts. Meanwhile in our case, Hamas in Gaza is a separate entity, its set in modern urban environment, and hamas made a conscious decision to use civilian infrastructure to counter Israel surveillance and precision weaponry. They try to have it both ways by enjoying the benefit of "human shields" in the field and "civilian victims" in the court of public opinion.
  3. Also concerning 'modern urban environments', iirc the relevant geneva convention protocols has been ratified several decades after the demagogic example above.

--Elysans (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this section is undue here. It is not related to the rest of the article (2014 conflict) nor to the specific section (Hamas's use of civilian structures).“WarKosign” 09:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The first part has been discusssed before but few were involved then. Regarding the two other parts, they are about the 2014 war and while the second sentence is under a section about Hamas, that is not a reason why it could not be under the next section about Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It does not belong under Israel either, since these are not violations that Israel committed in this conflict. If Elysans is correct regarding #3, they were not violations at all. “WarKosign” 09:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The writers made a comparison or put it into perspective and did it during that war. So it is related and I would now say it is more fitting to keep it in that section but not have it as a sub-section. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas as a source

I brought up this back in October 2014. Can someone explain why Mahmoud Abbas is used as a source when it comes to reporting on executions by Hamas etc. but not when he talks about war crimes etc. he thinks Israel committed? --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's for the same reason B'tselem is often quoted for alleged violations by Israel - "even their own people think what they did is wrong".“WarKosign” 10:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
B'Tselem is often quoted because it is one of the most prominent human rights groups when it comes to Palestine and Israel. They also gets quoted when it comes rocket attacks by Hamas etc. The case with Abbas is just bias, where what he thinks about a certain side of the conflict (which he by the way is also a political opponent of) is the only thing that gets included. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
B'Tselem was founded by several politicians that are opponents of the Likud governments. Of course Abbas expressed opinions against Israel, there is no reason we can't report it, I just do not think it is very noteworthy. “WarKosign” 11:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
So what? B'Tselem is a much respected source except by mostly some right-wingers.
Why include any of it? It is just there to make the point you said: "even their own people think what they did is wrong". --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do we report protests against the operation in Tel Aviv ? Because it is not something obvious one would expect, so it's noteworthy. “WarKosign” 11:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
What exactly is the edit where Mahmoud Abbas is used? I agree, in general, that Abbas should not be used as a source for Hamas executions, since he is a rival of Hamas. There are various independent sources of Hamas executions, like Amnesty International. They should be used. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not using the protesters' slogan etc. as some source here for what Israel did or may have done, that's the difference, WarKosign.
Kingsindian, here: "According to Israel and Palestinian president Abbas,..." in the infobox. Then under the section "Palestinian" under "Casualties and losses" and then in "Killing of suspected collaborators" and "Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes". --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, there should not be a "result" section at all in the infobox. It is largely meaningless. Of course both sides claim victory. It is also a magnet for vandals and POV pushers who try to change it to "Israeli victory", "Hamas victory" etc. I agree that Abbas should not be present there. This is not a conventional war anyway. It is largely meaningless to talk of a result, because Israel had a large superiority on the battlefield. Whether or not Hamas achieved its demands is a political matter. To quote Israel or Abbas on this matter is silly. Either use a scholarly assessment of the political matter, or leave it out entirely. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Other articles about military conflicts, even ones with asymmetrical warfare, still have the result box.
Do you have specific scholars in mind ? Opinions that I found so far ranged between a draw and Israel winning by a small margin.“WarKosign” 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

undue

The Palestine Subcommittee of the National Lawyers Guild is reported in the lead saying that "Israel was the first, on 13 June, to break the ceasefire agreement with Hamas that had been in place since November 2012". I believe it is WP:UNDUE for the lead. It should be either moved to somewhere in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Immediate events or removed entirely.“WarKosign” 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It happens to be one of the few attempts yet available to analyse via all sources the real facts in the blurred, self-contradictory official statements and newspaper glosses at the time on the unfolding chronology of events. 'Palestinian subcommittee' sounds as if it came out of Ramallah: it didn't. Rather than 'undue', it is one of the as yet few documents that treat events with critical overview and hindsight, in a lawyerly, i.e. pertinacious, fashion. I see nothing problematical in using it in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I see quite a few problems with quoting this organization. “WarKosign” 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Those sources are partisan. JDiala (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@JDiala: <sarcasm>Compared to The Palestine Subcommittee, which is completely unbiased. </sarcasm>“WarKosign” 03:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Having an agenda (just as these partisan sources undoubtedly have) does not automatically make everything the subcommittee claimed wrong, but it does mean that it is undue to use it as the sole source for the claim that Israel violated the ceasefire. “WarKosign” 04:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It also contradicts sourced claims by both sides in ceasefire violations section that the ceasefire was violated numerous times before this conflict, unless there is a distinction between a violation and breaking of a ceasefire. This (partisan) source in fact makes this distinction (regarding the previous conflict).“WarKosign” 05:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of the National Lawyer's Guild seems a bit strange to me as well. It might be ok to quote it in somewhere else, but not in the lead. It is just an organization, and I don't see its conclusion as particularly authoritative, notable or widely accepted. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree this should be removed from the lead. Obvious UNDUE is obvious. Not to mention the (also quite obvious) NPOV problem when they're the only ones stating who broke the ceasefire. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I just had a look at this and all I have to say is - come on. Why not just write that Hamas thinks it wasn't the first to break the ceasefire and be done with it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

quoting opinions

@JDiala, Averysoda, Elaz85, and Elysans:

Asa Kasher is a renowned philosopher, author of Israel Defense Forces's Code of Conduct. He is an expert on the subject he is quoted about. JDiala, were you trying to make a WP:POINT ?

"Harriet Sherwood is the Guardian's head of news planning. She was previously Jerusalem correspondent, foreign editor and home editor". She is not an expert on international humanitarian law, so her opinion bears little weight on this subject.“WarKosign” 07:40, 11 June 2015

Hello. Please read WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG. While experts are preferred, there is nothing explicitly barring non-expert opinion pieces from being included so long as they come from a reliable, published source. Some examples of non-experts which are often included in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are Caroline Glick and Noam Chomsky. Thus, there is no reason Sherwood should be dismissed; the Guardian, as a source, is highly reliable. Additionally, whether or not Asa Kasher is a "renowned" (see WP:WTW) philosopher is a matter of opinion; I never claimed he was a poor philosopher, nor that his opinion on ethics was invalid. There is no evidence, however, that he is an authority on the subjects for which he was quoted. I do not believe he has a degree in fields related to military combat or politics. The precise things for which he was quoted is discussed in the edit summary. Notwithstanding this, I believe Kasher should still absolutely be included. My edit was incorrect. Regarding your last point, yes, I was trying to prove a WP:POINT. I understand my edit was wrong. I did it because I do not like losing. If I let that misguided edit slide, the other editor would have "won"(for a day), so I, in my own misinterpretation of WP:1RR, decided to remove Kasher's statement, essentially and immaturely as a form of revenge. I sincerely apologize for my mistake, and I have since reverted my edit. It will not happen again. I let my emotions get the better of me. However, I am adamant about including Sherwood's piece. JDiala (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

UN Estimates

The article references UN damage estimates of 96,000 homes (7,000 + 89,000); the reference used is a Ma'an news article quoting UNWRA in Dec. 2014.

3 months before that, in September of 2014, the UN itself published a detailed study based on satellite imagery and analysis and came up with 15,264 "structures" damaged (which presumably includes homes as well).

The UNRWA estimate was doubled, from the previous 48,000 (already 3x too high) and is now 6x too high. Interestingly, the Ma'an article also discussed that UNRWA needs more money.

This article seems biased an opportunistic and a better figure and reference should be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilh2 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The official Israeli statistics are out so the data and tables needed updating

[Now that we have The 2014 Gaza Conflict: factual and Legal Aspects, (May) 14 June 2015, the official Israeli government version, all of the tables from private defense groups etc., can be now removed, and replaced with their statistics. In the infobox, for example, Israel 44% militants, 36% "uninvolved civilians" and 20% unidentified. Anyone? WarKoSign, this is your department.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have 3 sets of numbers: Independent numbers by UN (not the current ones that are based on Hamas's numbers), official Palestinian numbers and official Israeli numbers. I agree that we can replace IDF and ITIC numbers with the ones in this report, but we should also remove numbers by the pro-Hamas NGOs.
From the brief glimpse of this report that I had so far, it doesn't seem to contain new and unexpected statements, only repetition and elaboration of statements already in this article. I think we can gradually switch to it as the main source for Israeli POV regarding this conflict. “WarKosign” 06:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Three sources are enough (as you say, UN, Israel gov.Palestinian official statement). As to new and unexpected statements, the breakdown of 44% ascertained Hamas killed, 36 ascertained "noninvolved civilians" and 20% whose identity Israel has not yet established to its own satisfaction, that is what I mean by an official report, which naturally renders the private guesstimate by the ITC irrelevant, while representing an updated determination by the IDF, backed by the government. The alteration is minimal -give the official result, tertiary sources summarize the key statistic,- The only big adjustment is removing columns with varied sources for Palestinian versions (leaving one) and Israeli versions, replacing it with this report.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
OCHA gives the UN numbers, Gaza Health Ministry gives the Palestinian numbers and this report gives the Israeli numbers. If there is no objection in the next 24 hours, I'll remove current IDF, ITIC, Al Mezan and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights numbers and add the numbers from this report, to both the casualties section and the infobox.“WarKosign” 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to change the infobox? It`s stil contains the former information Guy1286 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. I was busy, and want to make the change slowly and carefully. Also, there are rumours that the UN report will be published soon. If someone else wants to make the edit, go ahead. “WarKosign” 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I updated the casualties table with the values from both Israel and the HRC report. Please check if you see any mistakes. I think we can rotate the table back, listing the agencies vertically and the categories (total, civilians, percents, etc) horizontally. If everything seems correct, I'll copy the values into the infobox. “WarKosign” 13:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I rotated the table. Again, please check that I didn't mess up.“WarKosign” 12:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Section on tunnel warfare

The section is a mess. There is already a separate article on the topic Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip. A year ago, it was decided that the lead from that article would be used for the summary here (since lead is meant to be a summary), and readers would be pointed to that article for details.

For this, I had transcluded (see WP:TRANSCLUSION) the lead from there into this article. Unfortunately, someone broke the tranclusion there at some point in the last year, so only half the lead was trancluded.

Now, there has been all sorts of content arbitrarily added after this summary. Most of it is unreadable. And whatever can be read, simply repeats the points made already. Claims and counterclaims fly thick and fast, incoherently.

I have therefore removed all the extraneous information. The lead for the other article summarizes the positions of all sides fairly.

There is only one sentence which does not appear in the other article, namely the role of tunnels in Jewish past wars. I have removed this, and will open an RfC on the other page. I will link to that in a bit. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Murder" vs "killing"

@Garageland66: As far as I can see, there is no consensus to change "murder" to "killing". Please do not simply reinstate your edit if it is reverted, but discuss on the talk page and find consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the edit was not simply resinstated. The request to change the linked article was responded to positively in order to facilitate the edit. Secondly the issue with these terms is not so much consensus but consistency. Throughout this article the term murder is only used for the three Israelis. In all other circumstances the terms deaths, killings and casualties are used. Either the term murder is used for all or deaths used for all or killings used for all.
@Garageland66: I see that you did that, my mistake. As to your other point, while consistency is good, it is often hard to achieve on WP. See the essay WP:OSE. Also, in the "real world", often victims of a war are indeed called casualties, instead of murder, even though war is mass murder. So this is not just idiosyncratic usage. We have to see what the sources say, and reflect that. Personally, I have no preference either way, but you need to convince others about it. And I don't see any agreement there. Since your edit on the other article was reverted as well. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Garageland66: You have a valid point regarding consistency, I fixed the link to Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir so it would also say "murder" as well. Regarding the rest of the casualties, killing during military operations is not usually called murder. Killings of Abu Khdeir and the three Israeli teenagers were called murder by the media and by the legal system. I do not agree with Kingsindian that war is necessarily mass murder, I'd call it justifiable homicide of enemy militants which sometimes results in manslaughter of innocents. Intentional targeting of civilians is murder. “WarKosign” 10:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Israel/Palestine is a highly emotive subject. For that reason it's almost impossible to achieve objectivity or consensus. This is highlighted by the above term 'justifiable homicide'. To even claim 'justifiable' is to apply a particularly subjective interpretation to the taking of human life. These are value judgments and surely the only complete consensus is that human life is valued. We can't then start using different terms dependent on whether it is Palestinian human life or Israeli human life. I would therefore return to my contention that consistency must surely be maintained throughout an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garageland66 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention any side. It is well defined what a Legitimate military target is and it makes killing an enemy militant justifiable. If you see different terms used for Palestinian and Israeli casualties in similar situations, please point to these so they can be fixed.“WarKosign” 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A few edits to the Infrastructure section

  • Removed inquisitr.com as a source. Changed "many by Hamas rocket fire" to "some by Hamas rocket fire". The source Jewish Press only gives one incident. The Guardian source says "some".
  • Removed attribution to the Guardian for Israeli strike on the power plant. Added a few other sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Israel Strength

In the infobox, all of the IDF strngth (personnel) is mentioned. This is misleading: not all of Israel reservists were summoned by the military; not all of the active personnel took part in the conflict (some were non-combat, and some didn't participated due to other reasons); I think we should mention: How many soldiers (or brigades/battalions/units) were involved in the ground invasion How many tanks were involved in the ground invasion And also mentioned the strength of the IAF (aircrafts, Iron dome, and personnel), Israel Navy (vessels and personnel), Israel Artillery Corps (artillery). Guy1286 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for participation numbers?
Also, the same is probably correct regarding Gazan militants - it's likely that not all their forces participated in the fighting. “WarKosign” 11:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
There is lots of information about the units that were inside Gaza, but mostly in Hebrew.
There is article in English that lists IDF casualties, and the cause of death. In this article it is possible to see which units were involved in the operation. the article
Nahal Brigade, Paratroopers Brigade, Golani Brigade, Givati Brigade, 7th Armored Brigade, Combat Engineering Corps. source
artillery source.
IAF (446 combat aircraft, 52 transport aircraft, 154 helicopters INSS) IAF Website.
Israeli Navy source.
401st Armored Brigade, 188th Armored Brigade, 460 Armored Brigade. Sources in Hebrew: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5. Guy1286 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NGO monitor response to B'Tselem's report

I have removed the random NGO monitor response, sourced to itself, in the initial paragraph of the section. This section is about various groups statements on violation of IHL by both sides, and not "response to the responses". We can go infinitely in this spiral, "reponse to response to response" and so on. One does not randomly add "but X criticized this" to everthing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Bomb tonnage in Gaza

I have made the following changes to the bomb tonnage in Gaza:

  • added another, official link for Palestinian govt. estimate of bomb tonnage.
  • Removed "unreliable source" tag which was present for about a year. The text clearly states who they are quoting.
  • Removed the sentence about Channel 4 news because they are quoting the same authorities. Kept the reference. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What we do needed is bomb tonnage estimates for Gaza rocketry fired towards Israel. The only estimate I have seen so far is 20-40 tons, in an offthecuff unusable remark by Norman Finkelstein.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of civilian casualties on Israeli side

Regarding these edits:

  • Ocha report says "71 Israelis killed, including 66 soldiers, a security coordinator and four civilians. One foreign national civilian was also killed in Israel". Since a security coordinator is a civilian, the number is 5 Israeli + 1 Thai civilians.
  • BBC reports the number as "six Israeli civilians and a Thai national were killed"
  • Ynet's report could explain the reason for the difference: "Israel's death toll stood at 64 soldiers and six civilians – one was a 4-year-old boy and another died Tuesday after the ceasefire came into effect, succumbing to wounds caused by a mortar attack which took place hours before the deal was struck." - 5+1 civilians died during the conflict and one after it ended, but still as a result of the hostilities.

I believe the number in the article should be corrected to 6 + 1 civilian casualties. “WarKosign” 08:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for some comic relief, which tells you nothing about the subject, unless the subject is BHL

“I was in Gaza during the last war and I saw how careful the Israeli army was with the civilian population, how gentle they were with Palestinians, how cautious they were before entering a house.” Bernard-Henri Lévy quoted Jacques Hyzagi, Why Does Everyone Hate Bernard-Henri Lévy? Observer 1 May 2015

Useful if one ever creates a Notable comments on the Gaza war 2014.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What to include in Template:Infobox military operation to be added.

Suggested fields to be filled:

  • name
  • scope e.g. (Strategic offensive)
  • planned
  • planned_by
  • commanded_by
  • objective
  • target
  • executed_by
  • outcome

Gizmocorot (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Attorneys at War

What do you think about reliability of this source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarKosign (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

How about we treat both sides the same and define the civilian numbers on the Palestinian side like the Israeli side. Why is the Palestinian side of civilian casualties and losses is written as percentages and as notes in small font below the numbers so as to be unseen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of Rocket Attacks

The opening paragraph/sentence of the article says:

The 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Protective Edge was a military operation launched by Israel on 8 July 2014 in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Thereafter, following the IDF Operation Brother's Keeper, Hamas started rocket attacks, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructure, resulting in seven weeks of Israeli operations.

But the reason for the launching of Operation Protective Edge was to stop the rocket attacks. Wikipedia outlines the rocket attacks on Israel leading up to Operation Protective Edge here.

The first sentence of the article about this war implies that the rocket attacks started after the Israeli operation on July 8, 2014. Is there someone with moderator status who can fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SearchRescue (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There were rockets attacks before, but for a period before this conflict Hamas did not (officially) fire, and appeared to act against other fractions that tried (and sometimes succeeded) firing rockets. “WarKosign” 20:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead, Brother's Keeper

Unbelievable, the hasbara warrior but WarKosign managed to revert my edit within 4 minutes, even before I could make my second edit. Prove that such types only make those stupid reverts for the sake of reverting without thinking about it. He reverted

The seven weeks lasting operation followed the IDF's Operation Brother's Keeper. Hamas answered with rocket attacks, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructres.

back to the wrong chronology:

Thereafter, following the IDF Operation Brother's Keeper, Hamas started rocket attacks, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructure, resulting in seven weeks of Israeli operations.

And no one of the viewers took the trouble to check it? --Qualitatis (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Qualitatis: I suggest you strike out uncivil parts of your comment regarding me. If you have evidence that my reasons for editing are different from building an encyclopedia or that I'm representing some organization, feel free to report me at WP:COIN, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any other appropriate page. Otherwise, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, which include accusing people without evidence and calling their edits "stupid".
Regarding the revert - your edit introduced a claim that Hamas' rocket attack was a response to operation protective edge, while in fact it was the exact opposite. “WarKosign” 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's keep this focused on the content. The text currently is ungrammatical, and unclear - "Thereafter" makes no sense there. What Qualitatis is saying is that the rockets followed OBK, not OPE. WarKosign simply misread the sentence. Unnecessary drama. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Reverting within 4 minutes without regarding the summary is all but civil. This has nothing to do with rockets. The lead clearly states The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. Apart from that, military actions in the West Bank usually also provoke rocket attacks. I am stopping now, but insist on restoring. --Qualitatis (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: What do you have in mind ? We could replace "Thereafter, following" with "After" or "Following", and remove a few commas. “WarKosign” 18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would just drop the "thereafter", perhaps that would be enough. As to Qualitatis's other changes, I have reverted them for now. Keep in mind MOS:LEAD. The lead should serve as a stand alone summary of the article. The casualties, for instance are a major part of the story, and deserve to be in the lead. Some of the details could perhaps be moved down, but it needs to be done carefully. Keep in mind that the lead was hammered out over many fractious weeks. Be careful about making large changes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

'Armament support'

The lead section for the conflict is not the appropriate place to cover US military aid to Israel. As the US military support for Israel is overt and continuous; this would be covered on the IDF page.

The section about Iran arming Hamas and Sons is also questionable, but slightly less clear, since Hamas is a paramilitary terror group, not the military of a state whose sovereignty is well recognized. The page for Hamas is not formatted as that of a military group, and has no section for foreign suppliers. As far as I am aware Iran does not officially support Hamas, and may have been covertly arming them for a relatively short period of time, which would make the comment in protective edge appropriate.

For comparison you would list the United States as a supplier of the Soviet Union on the page for the Soviet involvement in world war 2, but not as a supplier on the page for the Soviet military. 99.246.103.31 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Israel-Gaza and not Gaza-Israel?

What is reasoning for using Israel-Gaza and not Gaza-Israel (alphabetical order), like Gaza-Israel conflict? One of the two pages needs to be renamed for consistency. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 external links on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some should be replaced by "The Council for the National Interest, an anti-Israel organization."

In the second paragraph, the following sentence exists: Some claim Israel was the first, on 13 June, to break the ceasefire agreement with Hamas that had been in place since November 2012.[33]

The term "Some" is deliberately misleading. The citation, # 33, specifically identifies the claim as being from "The Council for the National Interest", a well known anti-Israeli propaganda organization. Since "Some" is an attempt to make the origin of this claim ambiguous and therefore possibly more neutral, the word some should be replaced with the specific name of the organization and preferably, adding the unambiguous clarified characteristic of the organizations one-sided "perspective." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falls (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Name change

Anyone else think this should be "Second Gaza War" and the Gaza War article should be "First Gaza War", or something like that? Calling it a "conflict" is an understatement, this was an even bloodier war than the one in 2009.--RM (Be my friend) 00:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Note 1 misleading - UNHRC figure for Palestinian deaths

Hello -- Note 1 is misleading.

It states, with reference to the UNHRC figure of 2,251 Palestinians killed: "Based on figures of the Palestinian Ministry of Health P;149".

Page 149 of the UNHRC Report[1] does not support this statement (it contains no reference to Palestinian casualties or the Palestinian Ministry of Health).

The relevant passage from the UNHRC Report is pp. 153-54n1052. The passage also does not support Note 1; it reads: "Information from the Ministry of Health in Gaza is one, but not an exclusive, source of information." (My emphasis.) The passage in full:

United Nations Protection Cluster figures of 31 May 2015. The Protection Cluster is the mechanism for coordinating humanitarian action by humanitarian organizations (UN and non-UN) working in the protection sector. It is one of several such sectoral clusters. OHCHR leads the Protection Cluster in the OPT. OHCHR compiled figures on fatalities in its capacity as leader of the Protection Cluster. The methodology used involves the compilation of initial reports of fatalities from the media and other sources which are then crosschecked and verified in collaboration with a number of international, Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations. Where available, each individual’s name, age, sex and place of death is determined, as well as their status as a civilian or combatant where possible. Multiple sources are cross-referenced, not only from media and various human rights organizations, but also information released by the IDF and by the Palestinian armed groups regarding the identity of combatants. Information from the Ministry of Health in Gaza is one, but not an exclusive, source of information. Verification of the information collected is continuing. Figures are published on the website of OCHA on behalf of the Protection Cluster.

My suggestion would be to reword Note 1 as follows: The UNHRC took its figures for Palestinians killed from the United Nations Protection Cluster (31 May 2015), which itself derived them from a number of sources, including media reports, the belligerent parties, and Ministry of Health in Gaza, information from which was then "crosschecked and verified in collaboration with a number of international, Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations." (pp. 153-54n1052)

all best,

Jamiesw89 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the current information is somewhat misleading. It seemed to have been added here by an editor who should not have been editing the article in the first place. I have partially reverted the edit and reworded it to your suggestion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Jamiesw89 (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ UNHRC, Report of the detailed findings of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict A/HRC/29/CRP.4, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoIGaza/A_HRC_CRP_4.docx.

misrepresented source

From the introduction:

"On 7 July, after seven Hamas militants died in a tunnel explosion in Khan Yunis which was caused by an Israeli airstrike (per Hamas, Nathan Thrall, BBC and a senior IDF official[38]) or an accidental explosion of their own munitions (per the IDF)"

The sole linked source in the first parentheses (a Ynetnews article claiming an anonymous senior IDF official source) does not at all quote the said official as saying that it was an airstrike; on the contrary, he claims it was a stationary explosive. The article quotes the source as saying "the Hamas members touched the explosives ... and it caused the tunnel's explosion." (The source appears to hint that explosives were ones placed in the Hamas tunnel by the IDF, but in any case did not claim an airstrike.) The article later separately mentions an official IDF spokesperson speaking about Israeli airstrikes on missile launchpads, not on the tunnel. Lastly, the article reports that Hamas claimed six of its men died in an IDF airstrike on a Rafah tunnel, which would place this further south if it's referring to the same tunnel.

In addition to this needing correcting, actual reflinks should be provided for the other claimed sources (in the first parentheses, Nathan Thrall, BBC, and in the second parentheses, the IDF) or they should be dropped altogether. (In the articles I've found regrding that event, I can find only articles citing Israel and Hamas as sources about this explosion, none claiming independent news access.)

-- Undomelin (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Update casualty numbers

One of the Israeli soldiers wounded during the operation succumbed to his wounds. Can someone please update the article to state that 68 soldiers were killed?

Source: "הלך לעולמו רב-סרן חגי בן ארי שנפצע אנושות ב"צוק איתן"". ynet (in Hebrew). 4 January 2017. Retrieved 4 January 2017.

Thank you. Inkbug (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Number of destroyed homes

I looked at the source for the figure of 17,000 homes destroyed that appeared in the article until now. The source was JPost, although this was unclear at first, which I have changed. However, I then noticed that there was also a figure of 30,000 homes partially destroyed, which apparently comes from here: http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=718079

However, the source actually says:

"Minister Mufeed al-Hasayneh, a resident of Gaza, told Ma'an that the amount of money is likely to increase as the assault continues. Some 10,000 homes have been completely destroyed, and 30,000 homes partially destroyed, al-Hasayneh said."

In other words, this isn't even an official estimate, but a comment by a random resident of Gaza. I have therefore removed the figure. If anyone finds a reliable source, please re-add the content.

—Ynhockey (Talk) 21:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Chazan - Noteworthy?

"In Israel, according to Naomi Chazan, the Gaza war sparked "an equally momentous conflagration at the heart of Israeli society": attempts to question government policy were met with severe verbal and physical harassment, incidents of Arab-bashing occurred daily, and 90% of internet posts on the war were found to be racist or to constitute incitement." This woman writes a blog post and it becomes a significant chunk of the media coverage section. Is that normal? Also this quote "90% of internet posts on the war were found to be racist or to constitute incitement." Seems to need a stronger source to claim that. And how does someone measure '90% of internet posts'. Sounds extremely hyperbolic to me. | MK17b | (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

MK17b: Did she explain how she found that "90% of internet posts ..."? --Mhhossein talk 16:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
She claims the numbers come from some NGO, but regardless, this section is about media coverage and yet a third of the section is just quotes from someones blog post. Secondly, the allegations about internet posts, if relevant, should be sourced to reliable source and not just quoting a claim she made in a blog post. | MK17b | (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed name change to 2014 Gaza War

It makes little sense to give this war a name that doesn't mention it, and that lumps it in with low-level conflicts like the Shebaa farms conflict. Plus, we already have a page referring it was that, the 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents.--RM (Be my friend) 06:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are there many sources using this name ? “WarKosign” 06:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

http://www.jta.org/2017/04/19/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/parents-of-soldiers-killed-in-2014-gaza-war-rip-netanyahu-at-hearing

http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/482789

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.784692

http://www.timesofisrael.com/officer-critically-injured-in-2014-gaza-war-laid-to-rest/

http://m.jpost.com/#/app/article/470326

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-provides-icc-with-information-on-2014-gaza-war/


https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/138869-170228-state-comptroller-publishes-damning-report-on-2014-gaza-war

The overwhelming majority of sources say "war".--RM (Be my friend) 13:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I got these numbers of results in a google search without quotation marks/with quotation marks/with "gaza-israel" instead of just gaza/with "Israel-gaza" instead of gaza:
  • 2014 gaza war - 3,450,000/85,200/11,300/4,220
  • 2014 gaza conflict - 7,000,000/27,700/22,200/4,790
  • 2014 gaza hostilities - 2,530,000/1,920/4/314
  • 2014 gaza violence - 6,060,000/9/1/1
Seems like the words "conflict" and "violence" are used far more often than "war" to describe the subject. The exact phrase "2014 Gaza War" is indeed more popular than other exact phrases, but I think that for balance the title of the article should mention Israel too. “WarKosign” 11:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. For example, the article on the Gaza War from 2008-2009 only says Gaza War, as do the articles for the 1982 and 2006 Lebanon Wars. Regardless, this was clearly a war, not just a conflict, like you would title some minor skirmishes, so "conflict" absolutely should be replaced with war.--RM (Be my friend) 13:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else want to chime in before we change it?--RM (Be my friend) 09:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it's better to ping people who were involved in each of previous rename discussions, to get more opinions; otherwise whatever you do it will be reverted very quickly. “WarKosign” 10:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates (UAE) Red Crescent Secretary General Mohammed Al Falahi: Hamas used human shield practices, firing rockets from UAE build field hospital during visit of UAE Red Crescent emissaries in 2014

United Arab Emirates (UAE) Red Crescent Secretary General Mohammed Al Falahi in June 2017 accuses Hamas for human shield activities firing rockets from field hospital: "While we were in the field hospital that the UAE built, we were surprised by [...] someone from Hamas instigating Israeli forces by launching locally made rockets from the field hospital" (UAE: 'The National' [newspaper]).

..as of June 13 2017: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230953 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4975170,00.html https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6h0ry4/red_crescent_hamas_tried_to_stop_humanitarian_aid/ http://www.ifcj.org/news/stand-for-israel/Hamas-Tried-to-Stop-Humanitarian-Aid.html

Please integrate this international critique of Hamas from UAE Red Crescent Secretary General Mohammed Al Falahi, thank you --79.210.107.36 (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, copyedits are welcome. “WarKosign” 11:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced "Armament support"

1. Is there conclusive evidence that Iran actually supplied fighters in Gaza with armaments **during** the 2014 conflict? If not, it's incorrect to list it in the belligerents column.

2. The USA and Israel have a multi-year military supply program that spanned the conflict period. If armaments were supplied during the conflict, from the USA or any other country, then that should be listed under the belligerents column with a "Armament support" heading.

Since the current references lack the requested evidence, the armament heading should be removed.

Simpatico qa (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

1. See the referenced sources: "longtime Iranian assistance is what ultimately helped the Palestinian group build the thousands of rockets it fired at Israeli targets from Gaza starting in July." "We Have Supplied Gaza Resistance With Drones And Fajr 5 Missiles"
2. Do you have sources showing that Israel used military equipment provided by the US in the conflict? We have a source saying that Israel used US-manufactured Paladin M109, it is a reasonable assumption that it was funded by US military aid, but we need a source saying so explicitly. “WarKosign” 13:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

-- "Longtime [Iranian] assistance is what ultimately helped" doesn't make the "longtime assistant" a belligerent in this time-bound conflict. Otherwise one should also list all of Israel's armament suppliers and "development assistants". Even then, it would be misleading to list them as belligerents.

Started by Hamas?

Currently, intro reads: "Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers *by Hamas members*, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest militant leaders, Hamas fired rockets into Israel and a seven-week conflict broke out."

Should be: "Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest *Hamas* leaders in Gaza, Hamas fired rockets into Israel and a seven-week conflict broke out."

This is because Hamas' involvement in the cited kidnapping was denied and is still unconfirmed, and there is a hyperlink to a dedicated Wikipedia page. Also, "Hamas leaders in Gaza" is more accurate than "militant leaders". Simpatico qa (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Approved. The IDF assassinated the purported perpetrators before any confirmation could be obtained that they were acting as 'rogues' - or not, making any claims unconfirmed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Max Blumenthal wrote a book specifically about the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict called 'The 51 Day War - Ruin and Resistance in Gaza'. It is quite illuminating that this dedicated source is not cited even once in this Wiki article. I intend to use it in my review of "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". I would like to point out that in Wiki - Noticeboard/Archive 198 there is a November 2015 'closing' per request at WP:ANRFC which reads:

"The basis for doubting the reliability of the source [i.e. Blumenthal] in question to support the quotation appears to be based on a critique of the author who is described by another as "deliberately deceptive". Upon closer examination, however, this claim was based on grammatical preferences by the critic, and no other deception that conflicts with reliable source guidelines have surfaced about Blumenthal as it relates to this referenced claim. The source is therefore reliable for the claim as stated.

This 'closing', confirming the reliability of one of Blumenthal's books, means that specific WP:RS justified reasons should be given before deleting any text using Blumenthal's books are the source. In particular any stand-alone "Blumenthal is not WP:RS" 'justification' is invalid by definition. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A book by Max Blumenthal is a good source for Blumenthal's opinions. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL this book alone cannot be a source for any non-obvious fact that is not collaborated by other sources. “WarKosign” 17:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
WarKosign, many thanks for pointing me to that Wiki policy. You seem to conclude that Blumenthat WILL be exceptional and that therefore entries sourced to him must be phrased as 'opinion'. I have multiple problems with that, probably due to my inexperience. 1) Blumenthal, interviewing in a war zone, might well be the only English source regarding the reactions of the affected Palestinian people. Is this 'exceptional'? 2) What in fact are the shared criteria of 'exceptional'. 3) Example: Why can Oren be used without 'opinion' attribution, but Blumenthal not? They are both biased. 4) What if Blumenthal sees the chain-of-events differently, but still based on the SAME facts - the June 2 Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, the Beitunia killing of the Palestinian teens, the subsequent killing of the settler teens, Brother's Keeper - re-arrests - Palestinian deaths, rocket fire and ultimately Operation Protective Edge (here we converge with the pending issue of bias as above in "Timeline of beginning of war is wrong"); 5) How do we address 'systematic bias'? No responses necessary, because I am sure that these points will be addressed as we continue with the "Timeline of beginning of war is wrong" review. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll not respond to the points, but it seems that you misunderstood WP:EXCEPTIONAL - it merely says that exceptional claims need exceptional sources. If Blumenthal reports something that seems routine, his book is reliable enough to report this attributing to him (assuming it is WP:DUE. If he makes some factual claim about Hamas or Israel's actions or intentions that seem unusual or unexpected - these claims need to also be supported by other, more reliable sources, which renders Blumethal as a source useless. “WarKosign” 18:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
We're discussing in vacuum unless we know what parts of the book are going to be used. --Mhhossein talk 07:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of beginning of war is wrong

The way things are worded makes it seem like Hamas fired rockets at Israel before the opposite was true, which isn't the case.

"Following the IDF Operation Brother's Keeper, Hamas started rocket attacks, targeting Israeli cities and infrastructure, resulting in seven weeks of Israeli operations"

According to the Israeli newspaper Times of Israel and unnamed Israeli officials http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-fired-rockets-for-first-time-since-2012-israeli-officials-say/ Hamas fired for the first time in retaliation for rocket strikes from Israel.

And before the strike there were rocket attacks from Gaza (by groups other than Hamas) and three teenagers were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas members in the West Bank. It's impossible to provide all the events, in the lead only a few major events are mentioned, 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Immediate events section is much more detailed - and yet it's simply impossible to tell exactly where it all began; you would have to go back to Kingdom of Israel or perhaps earlier to be sure. “WarKosign” 18:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not necessary to go back to ancient times. The kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers IS mentioned - 23 times to be exact (twice in the prologue/lead). Yet the murder of two Palestinian teenagers a few weeks earlier, does not get a single mention anywhere. The rocket fire by Palestinians on Israel is indeed mentioned - 236 times (10 times just in the prologue/lead). But the previous editor comment is rejected, that rocket fire by Hamas AS RETALIATION for Israeli aggression gets no mention in the prologue. I am sure that Wiki readers of the prologue to this war would be disappointed to know that debate regarding which party initiated the Gaza war in August 2014 is not mentioned. I suggest that cherry picking is being practice... see WP:CHERRYPICKING so I agree with the previous post, this article is skewed and non-Wiki compliant. As responsible editors we should work together to achieve this, and not introduce bias or subjective judgements in our discussions. So let's get on with achieving that. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Erictheenquirer: Providing a comprehensive but neutral article on such a challenging subject would be hard and so nice! --Mhhossein talk 15:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
We should go according to WP:RS mention does those events that you describe mentioned by most of the source that discuss the conflict per WP:DUE? -- Shrike (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Shrike - WP:DUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources ...", so we have established that the alternative viewpoint needs to be represented. It states further "... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". However, here I run into a problem in the current example. I do not read Arabic, so I do not know how much of a minority view it is with a set of key players (the Palestinians (and Arabs)) as to the balance between the two teenager events as shared triggers to the war. This question of needing to be careful with bias when judging if something is a 'mainstream minority' should not be confused with the use of English in the English Wiki. We therefore have three WP:DUE issues - a) the prominence given to the pro-Israeli version of who struck first; b) the exclusive weight given to the murders of the Settlement teenagers versus that of the Palestinian youths, and c) the issue of how we judge minority/majority WP:RS preponderance without data from Palestinian/Arab sources. But I am pleased that you brought up WP:DUE indicating that the murder of the Palestinian teenagers deserve to be mentioned (I know for a fact that they were in a previous version of this article, but some or other destructive editor removed it, after considerable discussion on Talk). I have created a list of questions related to the above editing comments on Wiki protocol by Shrike that I will submit in WP:ARBPIA in the near future, such as random drive-by (knee-jerk?) accusations on non-WP:RS which are usually a time waste. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Shrike - can we assume that your lack of response indicates your recognition that all significant viewpoints are required to be represented (obviously by WP:RS) and that they should be given weight in proportion of each viewpoint in such published sources. That such weight is not limited to sources in Western media and/or in English. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As a related issue I am drafting a proposal to ARBPIA to address the paucity of Palestinian/Arab views in English, so that "proportion" should be judged carefully unless we can get Arab-speaking editors to identify themselves and participate. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And to anticipate any comment that no Palestinian views are available on this topic, I point to the 2015 work of Refaat Alareer and Lai1a El-Haddad, who are distinguished Palestinian writers and analysts from Gaza, whose comprehensive summary is not mentioned anywhere in this article. I can just imagine what would happen were it to be presented as a source for some new text that did not reflect favourably on Israel ... within hours there would be a drive-by revert based on nothing more than "Not RS". Wanna bet? Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
According to Alareer and El-Haddad themselves, "if we are to believe the popular discourse in the mainstream Western media, Gaza “had it coming,” and by some perverse and morally vacuous logic, its residents “were to blame” for their own suffering". They may disagree with this view, but according to WP:DUE each POV is given weight according to its prevalence in the sources. The article already represents both POVs on most topics, if you see a specific point that is not balanced - please point it out clearly and what is the change you propose. “WarKosign” 10:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
WarKosign - I believe that I have already pointed out such imbalances, but I will detail just those in the prelude here:
1. - Just in the prelude the murder of the three Israeli teenagers is given 2 mentions; the Beitunia murder of the two Palestinian teenagers gets zero coverage there. (In the main text the numbers are Israeli settler teenagers - 6, Palestinian youths - 0). In other words the murder of the young Palestinians is reflected as being 100% "insignificant", as Alareer and El-Haddad prominently pointed out, a characterisation that they (as Palestinians) vehemently reject.
Are there (non WP:FRINGE) sources connecting Beitunia killings with the 2014 conflict ?
Nine sources are provided substantiating the text in Beitunia killings, all attributed, ranging from Illan Pappé (widely cited in I/P articles), an NBC eyewitness journalist in Palestine during OPE; an Iranian-Jewish ME reporter for Al Jazeera; a Fulbright Scholar Sociologist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, specialising in providing the 'Palestinian voice', and two Palestinian authors.
2. - In the prelude the aims of Hamas are counterposed by an "however, Israel argues that ...". There is no such balancing quid pro quo to the Israeli objectives.
"However, Israel argues that" counterpoints the claim that Israel was the first to break the ceasefire. There is no counterpoint to Hamas's goal, we could mention Hamas Covenant and mention that Hamas' declared goal is obliteration or dissolution of Israel.
We could also mention Netanyahu's May 2015 electioneering in which he disavowed any creation of a Palestinian state. That would explain why he was so furious at the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation on 2 June 2014.
3. - Palestinians are referred to as "militants", no such judgemental adjectives are used to refer to the occupiers.
The word only means "a person engaged in warfare or combat". It is a compromise between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". See WP:TERRORIST. IDF members are called soldiers because they are a part of an organized army, technically they are militants too but "soldiers" is more accurate.
Thank you - accepted. That similarly then means that violent settlers are militants. It will take a long time to implement that editing.
4. - Regarding precursor events, the lead paragraph mentions Hamas' rocket fire (no Israeli deaths), but nothing about Israels actual killing of Palestinians during 'Brother's Keeper' - a blatant preferential bias.
I suppose we can mention 5 people killed during the operation. Do you have sources detailing who they were ?
About as many as the Israeli civilians that were killed in the entire OPE war ... yes, I have their names. Do we really need them?
5. - Related to this the prelude mentions Hamas rocket fire 10 times, but never mentions Israel ordnance applications nor even hints as to how many instances were retaliations for Israeli aggression. [This combination is perhaps the most objectionable part of the entire introduction]
Israeli attacks are mentioned in paragraphs 1,3,4, same as the rockets. Are there hints to how many Israel ordinance applications were retaliations for rocket attacks ?
Excellent idea. We could list the numbers of projectiles launched by each side, their cumulative damage power (I have good sources) and the chain-of-events / cause-and-effect. The results could be surprising. I agree with you fully; excellent suggestion.
6. - Israeli representatives 'state' (the usual verb), 'argue' while pro-Palestinian players 'claim'
I don't see 'claim' used often, but when it is this is a violation of WP:CLAIM, should be fixed.
In fact it is used 14 times, but with further attention I realise that it is applied about 50:50 to both sides, so I retract that one.
7. - The prelude has a drop-in 'non sequitur' that is also a misquoted 'spin' on the source- "Hamas assumed responsibility for rockets fired into Israel and launched 40 rockets towards Israel".
Which part is misquoted ? As far as I can tell the sources support this statement fully.
The text is a drop-in. It makes no mention of the sequence of events only that "after seven Hamas militants died ... Hamas assumed responsibility for rocket attacks". Which rockets? Over all of 2014? Only during June? Only after 7 June? Did you also spot the cherry-pick when checking, because you do not mention it; the full text reads "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility for firing rockets for the first time in 20 months". Confirmation of my claim of bias, I would say.
8. - In a similar one-sided bias, Hamas weapons deployment into Israel is detailed without a counterpoint of Israel rockets and heavy artillery launchings into Gaza.
Where ? There is a section dedicated to rockets and tunnels used by Hamas, and a section naming and numbering Israel use of military equipment.
Correct, my bad. Sincere apologies. WOW - Israel fired 34,000 unguided shells into Gaza more than half of which were the very powerful 155mm projectiles. And that is compared to 4,564 projectiles fired from Gaza, the great majority of which were fertilizer-fuelled stovepipes. See where this is going? So much for the "rockets raining down on Israel" comparative threat.
9. - The main body of the article is so replete with similar imbalanced POVS that it would be impossible to detail them all here
I can only respond to specific points. If you are vaguely unhappy with the article not taking your side I can't help with this.
I trust you will assist in the eradication of these imbalances Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I responded inline to each of the items, otherwise I think the discussion would be too difficult to follow. I hope you don't mind, if you do I'll restore your text to exactly like it was and I'll move my replies to a separate section. I will do my best to fix any specific point that I can agree with, and to not let you break the balance on points that I consider already properly balanced. 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe that most of your comments will need to be retracted when you take note of my caveat right at the start that "I will detail just those in the prelude here". The remainder can be discussed as we embark on the clean-up, probably after the main text has been balanced. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I similarly responded inline to each of the items, agreeing with your methodology. Could you perhaps point me to where the crippling blockade/embargo is addressed? Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Corrected timeline:

Timeline

21 Feb 2014: "Israel says 43 missiles have been fired from Gaza so far this year". However a spokesperson from Gaza's Government, Hamas, said in response to the rocket fire: "Israel follows a policy of collective punishment but we are concerned to keep the situation calm and under control. We are not interested in any kind of confrontation. But if we were not in control there would be many more missiles". Islamic Jihad, a smaller faction backed by Iran, also respected the ceasefire at that time: "We are committed to a ceasefire as long as the occupation is" said their spokesperson Abu Saad - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/gaza-ceasefire-threatened-border-clashes-hamas-weak-palestinian - And Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank had well and truly committed to peace long before then.

28 Feb 2014: "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is Islam’s third holiest site after sites in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia... the Israeli regime forces banned thousands of Palestinians, including men under the age of 50, from entering or praying in the holy site during Friday prayers... Earlier in February, Israeli forces stormed the holy site during Friday prayers. Israeli soldiers fired rubber bullets and stun grenades at the people who were praying at the mosque. At least 20 people, including children, were wounded in the violence." - http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/05/07/361622/israel-limits-access-to-alaqsa-mosque/

4 Mar 2014: Israel responds to the scorched pavement and pot-holes caused by the ineffective Palestinian rockets by killing 2 Palestinians who it claims were near the launch zone. - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/israel-air-strike-kills-two-gaza

11 Mar 2014: "Israeli troops shoot dead a Palestinian-Jordanian judge at border crossing" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/israeli-troops-shoot-palestinian-jordanian-judge-border-crossing

14 Mar 2014: Zero Israelis and 3 Palestinians were injured in an exchange of rocket fire for air-strikes that ended in a restoration of Islamic Jihad's cease-fire. - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/13/gaza-islamic-jihad-truce-israel-confrontation

4 Apr 2014: "Israel scrapped the scheduled release of a group of Palestinian prisoners and called for the entire US-sponsored negotiations to be "reviewed", in what could be a fatal blow to the current round of Middle East peace talks. Officials blamed the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his decision to restart his push for membership of 15 UN bodies for the move, which was itself a Palestinian response to delays and wrangling over the prisoners' release." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/israel-palestine-prisoners-talks-reviewed

9 Apr 2014: "An Israeli government official says the prime minister, Binjamin Netanyahu, has told his ministers to stop holding meetings with their Palestinian counterparts. The official said the move was in response to what Israel has called a "provocative" Palestinian bid to join United Nations agencies."

12 Apr 2014: "Israel has seized three EU-funded humanitarian aid projects on the edge of a settlement construction zone... All three shelters were prefabricated caravans, built for families made homeless in severe storms that hit the region in December... the chief Palestinian negotiator, told EurActiv that seizure was "more than a provocation, it is a crime""

14 Apr 2014: "In a narrow alley in Shuafat refugee camp, in East Jerusalem... For almost a month, many of the Palestinian residents have been largely without any running water, having to buy drinking water in bottles or from private tanking firms... While the neighbourhood is part of Jerusalem, and its residents Jerusalemites, the building of Israel's separation wall has cut Shuafat off from the rest of the city which must be accessed through a military checkpoint. Israeli services, including rubbish collection, are few and far between." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/welcome-shuafat-jerusalem-camp-water-palestinians-israel

14 Apr 2014: "Israeli man killed and family members hurt as car fired on in West Bank Man's wife and children injured in gun attack on family who were travelling to Hebron for Passover meal... It also comes hard on the heels of... the authorisation by Israel's defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon, of the first new settlement in Hebron since the 1980s." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/israeli-man-killed-gun-attack-hebron

16 Apr 2014: "Dozens of Palestinians were wounded in clashes with Israeli police that erupted when the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem was opened to Jewish visitors." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/16/palestinians-israeli-police-al-aqsa-jerusalem-temple-mount

18 Apr 2014: " Israeli forces pepper-sprayed nine elderly Palestinians attempting to enter the [Al-Aqsa Mosque]" - http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/05/07/361622/israel-limits-access-to-alaqsa-mosque/

20 Apr 2014: " Clashes erupted earlier Sunday between Israeli policemen and Palestinian worshippers at the gates of the holy site after Israeli forces assaulted Palestinian worshippers and religious students lining up to enter the holy site, eyewitnesses said. At least seven Palestinians suffered temporary asphyxiation and bruises in the ensuing clashes as the Israeli police fired teargas in a bid to break up the crowd, they added... In recent months, groups of extremist Jewish settlers, often accompanied by Israeli security forces, have repeatedly forced their way into the Al-Aqsa complex. The frequent violations anger Palestinian Muslims and occasionally lead to violent confrontations." - http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/24-palestinians-arrested-al-aqsa-clashes-israel-police-2144361985

21 Apr 2014: "Seven rockets fired from the Gaza Strip landed in southern Israel on Monday morning, prompting Israeli airstrikes... The exchange with Gaza followed days of clashes outside Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem that led to the arrests of 24 Palestinian men." - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/world/middleeast/rockets-from-gaza-draw-israeli-airstrikes.html

4 May 2014: Just 2 days after the anniversary Nakba, "the massacre that marred the birth of Israel", confirming John Kerry was wrong to apologise for his 29 Apr 2014 comment that "Israel risked becoming an Apartheid state", "Netanyahu pushes to define Israel as nation state of Jewish people only" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/04/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-jewish-state

14 May 2014: "Attackers have slashed the tires of Arab-owned cars in the Israeli towns of Yokneam, Acre and Fureidis. Graffiti reading "Death to Arabs" was sprayed in Yokneam and eastern Jerusalem. On Friday, Jerusalem's St. George Romanian Orthodox Church was defaced with the words "Price tag, King David is for the Jews, Jesus is garbage"." - http://www.timesofisrael.com/price-tag-attacks-draw-calls-for-stronger-response/#ixzz38VKtzQBT

15 May 2014: "New video evidence showing the fatal shooting of two Palestinian teenagers last week strongly indicates that neither of the boys posed a threat to Israeli forces at the time they were targeted, supporting claims they were "unlawfully killed"." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/video-indicates-killed-palestinian-youths-no-threat-israeli-forces 2 Jun 2014: "Israeli warplanes staged two bombing raids on targets in central and southern Gaza following rocket fire on southern Israel... Since the start of the year, about 150 rockets have struck Israeli territory" 5 Jun 2014: "Israel's housing ministry... announced new plans for almost 1,500 new settlement housing units in the West Bank and east Jerusalem" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/israel-build-more-homes-settlements

9 Jun 2014: "The Israeli cabinet is being pushed to fast-track a new law that would compel doctors to force-feed up to 120 Palestinian prisoners being held without charge in "administrative detention", some of whom have been on hunger strike for more than 40 days... Ziva Mira, a spokesman for [the Israeli Medical Association], said last week: "Force-feeding is torture, and we can't have doctors participating in torture."" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/09/israel-force-feeding-law-palestinian-hunger-strikers

12 Jun 2014: Three Israeli teenagers are missing, presumed kidnapped or dead. Israel launches a massive retaliatory operation, detaining over 100 innocent people and raiding and trashing thousands of homes of Palestinians - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660176/Well-turn-membership-Hamas-ticket-Hell-Israel-arrests-40-Palestinians-hunt-missing-teenagers.html - under the pretext of searching for the boys, even after they knew they were dead. - http://972mag.com/how-the-public-was-manipulated-into-believing-the-teens-were-alive/92865/

18 Jun 2014: " More than 50 Palestinians released in 2011 as part a high-profile deal to free Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit are back in custody after they were arrested during Israeli military operations to locate three missing teenagers." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/18/palestinians-freed-2001-gilad-shalit-custody

20 Jun 2014: "Hospital officials said three Palestinians suffered bullet wounds in the overnight clashes in Jenin, a militant stronghold and the scene of deadly fighting during a Palestinian uprising a decade ago. There were no reported Israeli casualties." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/gun-battle-west-bank-jenin-israel-students - Israeli troops killed a Palestinian teenager in the occupied West Bank on Friday and arrested 25 people" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/20/palestinian-teenager-killed-israeli-arrest-raids-west-bank

22 Jun 2014: "At least one person was killed in clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians in Ramallah on Sunday as troops continued a crackdown on Islamist group Hamas." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jun/22/israeli-forces-clash-palestinians-ramallah-west-bank-video

30 Jun 2014: "Militant groups in the Gaza Strip have struck southern Israel with a barrage of rockets in a significant escalation of tensions in recent days that has also included multiple Israeli air strikes. By mid-morning on Monday 14 rockets were reported to have been fired, all except one landing in open areas. One rocket struck a building but no injuries were caused. Although groups in Gaza other than Hamas have been largely blamed for launching the rockets. A Palestinian health official, Ashraf al-Kidra, said a man killed by Israeli fire in Gaza on Sunday was a member of Hamas' armed wing. Three Palestinians have been killed in air strikes since Friday... Almost 400 Palestinians have been arrested on the West Bank, most of them Hamas members, while five have been killed." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/gaza-rockets-strike-southern-israel - But in an Orwellian piece of propaganda, on Monday a senior Israeli source said: "We are not interested in an escalation"!

1 Jul 2014: The three missing teen's bodies are found. Despite denials from Hamas of responsibility, and without any evidence that Hamas was responsible, and despite Israeli terrorists' history of targeting their own to incite violence - for example, 17 Jews were among the 91 killed in the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel by Israeli terrorists - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing - and 267 Jewish refugees were killed by Israeli terrorists in 1940 when they used a bomb to sink the SS Patria in Haifa Harbour rather than have the ship be deported without the refugees disembarking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster - Despite this, despite it being far from clear that Hamas was responsible, the Israeli Prime Minister vowed: "Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/30/bodies-missing-israeli-teenagers-found-west-bank - "Israeli jets and helicopters launched dozens of air strikes across the Gaza Strip overnight on Monday, just hours after the bodies of three abducted Israeli teenagers were found" - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/israeli-jets-gaza-netanyahu-hamas-teenagers-deaths

2 Jul 2014: An autopsy of a Palestinian boy killed in an apparent revenge attack "found soot in his lungs, suggesting that Abu Khdair was still alive and breathing when he was set on fire, Owaiwi said." - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/autopsy-shows-palestinian-teen-burned-alive-20147512213466184.html - Israeli police attended the funeral and naturally it ended in them firing tear gas and rubber bullets when they wouldn't leave despite it being made clear they weren't welcome.

5 Jul 2014: "A 15-year-old American high school student, whose Palestinian cousin was abducted and murdered last week, has said that he was brutally beaten by Israeli police in an unprovoked attack amid riots in East Jerusalem." - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/06/israel-police-beat-us-teen-palestinian-boy. The video footage of the beating is available here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/06/us-demands-investigation-into-alleged-beating-of-teenager-by-israeli-police

7 Jul 2014: After showing unbelievable restraint, the final straw which prompted the entry of Hamas aka the government of Gaza into the conflict was the killing of 7 of their members in an unprovoked air-strike - "Hamas has vowed revenge on Israel after seven of its members were killed in an air strike in the deadliest exchange of fire since the latest round of attacks began weeks ago." On that same day, 2 other Palestinians, who according to Israel belonged to another militant organisation, and were responsible for firing rockets into Southern Israel were also killed, as Israel suffered their first injury positively attributable to Palestinians in this whole conflict - an Israeli soldier - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/hamas-vows-revenge-israel-seven-members-killed

8 Jul 2014: Israel launches Operation Protective edge in response to Hamas rockets - As of 25 Jul 2014 the Palestinian death toll was 832. "Rights groups say around 80 percent of the casualties so far have been civilians, and the UN agency for children UNICEF said Friday that 192 children had been killed during the conflict." - http://news.yahoo.com/baby-among-nine-dead-israeli-shell-hits-un-135337786.html - Israel has targeted schools, hospitals, mosques, residential areas, beaches; no-where is off-limits to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewMunro (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good list, how about making it a bit less biased ? For starters to make it sound like it is not propaganda written by Hamas? “WarKosign” 06:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is a good presentation and is bound to improve Wiki on this critical and contentious topic. I also agree that the wording needs to be more neutral. But it gives rise to a few qualms that I have on the general 2014 conflict as reflected above. I still find a clear and strong bias towards the pro-Israeli version. I would like to see how we can solve this imbalance in a collaborative way. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Issue 1: Because I am unable to enter the original Wiki Talk section of Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, I am unable to find the logic for beginning that timeline with the kidnapping of the three settler teenagers – other than, once again, it is the pro-Israeli preferred starting point – this bias is becoming a bit tiresome, isn’t it? Again, I ask, why there and not with the Palestinian teenagers, or before. We WILL mutually remedy that in line with WP:BALANCE and WP:CHERRYPICKING.
Issue 2: I particularly object to the slanted deflection of the earlier chain of events from the timeline to 2014_Israel-Gaza_conflict#Background, which itself is so full of cherry-picking and other holes as to be well-nigh useless as an encyclopaedic source.
Issue 3: A further demonstration of gross bias is the sole focus of illustrations (in that Background section) on Palestinian rocket fire and nothing to the imbalance between Palestinian and Israeli deaths during the period. Yet more bias in Background exists in the parachuting in of Shalit’s capture with no word about the Gaza beach family massacre (do 6 Palestinians killed from a single family weigh less than 1 Israeli combatant captured … apparently?). The same applies to the extra-legal Israeli assassinations of Hamas officials. If by now anyone doubts the astonishing slant only in this article’s sub-section, there is still more to be come. These distortions in balance WILL be fixed in further Wiki- edit collaboration.
In line with past experience I intend to be pay particular attention to incorrect impositions of Wiki protocols, such as demanding that articles be unbiased; treating consensus-achievement as a voting process rather than a logic-based discussion; tendentious deletions based on drive-by claims of "Not RS" which I am in the process of presenting to ARBPIA as vandalism and not in the spirit and letter of WP:BOLD, and warranting immediate reverting without being affected by 1RR. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Issue 1 - the logic is WP:RS. Most of the sources specify kidnapping of the 3 teenagers as the beginning of the conflict.
Issue 2 - you need to point out a specific problem or to propose a specific change if you want a response.
Issue 3 - Shalit's kidnapping was undeniably an action performed by Hamas, the causes for Gaza beach explosion (2006) are still unclear. If you have good sources connecting targeted assassinations with the conflict - sure, let's add a mention.
Regarding protocols, let me point you to WP:CIV and WP:AGF. If you have a a specific complaint - go ahead a make it at the appropriate venue, otherwise please stop making vague threats and comments. “WarKosign” 10:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
WarKosign - What threats and lack of civility, and to whom?. I hold up a mirror. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: "...I will submit in WP:ARBPIA in the near future, such as random drive-by (knee-jerk?) accusations...", " within hours there would be a drive-by revert based on nothing more than "Not RS". Wanna bet?" First quote is a threat, second one is assuming (in advance!) bad faith. If you believe an editor acted in violation of some rule, go ahead and report it, don't declare your intention to do so as a part of an argument. If you believe some editor will act in violation, wait for it to happen and then report. People hold very different opinions from yours, and yet some (most?) of them genuinely want to improve the wikipedia. Similarly, some people view your editing efforts as supporting the "bad guys", don't take it personally. “WarKosign” 14:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Mhhossein - I believe that you might be interested in Beitunia_killings - see the "Aftermath" sub-section. I recently provided some sources that I had not seen before, but I do not know why they don't appear in the Wiki2 version, only in the original style. I like your enthusiasm. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Erictheenquirer: I took your comment here for the sake of keeping the chronological order of the comments. How can I help regarding the Beitunia_killings. --Mhhossein talk 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Title ... again

As can be seen in Archive 16 of 'Talk', between March and May 2015 there was extensive discussion regarding whether Operation Cast Lead was a 'Conflict' or a 'War'. There was near-unanimous agreement that it was a 'War' and that the article's title deserved to be changed accordingly. This has not happened yet. I suspect that the reason had something to do with a rule that, for a lengthy time after an article had been moved, it could not have its name changed. I presume that period has now passed and that the editorial agreement can be implemented. Comments please. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I was involved in one of those discussions, but I can't remember if there was any agreements on 'war' although I was in favor of it. However, it would be beneficial if you could show us how you found that "near-unanimous agreement", because once something is agreed upon by editors, it can be implemented. --Mhhossein talk 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: - I have since gone back further into the past to Talk Archive 14 and to Talk Archive 15, and I see that you were correct to query my claim - there has indeed not always been consensus on the matter, so I reverted premature responses to you. Reading all three discussions since WarKosign's original proposal on 28 October 2014, I conclude that some contributors (myself included) changed opinions as discussions progressed, so that simply adding the 'Not Supported' tags gives a false impression. Besides, Wiki is not a poll. In the most recent discussion (Talk Archive 16) it did end with near-unanimous conclusion that the name should be changed since discussions on support for it staying as 'conflict' did not prevail. But I now see that there is one outstanding issue that was not discussed in detail, and that is Sohebbasharat's suggestion in Talk Archive 16 that the name should be changed, not to 'War' but to '2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza'. Since the very first line of the article reads "The 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict also known as Operation Protective Edge ...", and since Operation Protective Edge is indeed Israel's 2014 invasion of Gaza, his proposal has respectful logic to support it. He further justified it with an example of 'invasion' being consistent with Wiki precedents - "To give you another example, the article 2013 invasion of Iraq is not titled 2013 Iraq-US conflict, although there is a background, that US thought that Iraq was preparing WMDs and hence was a threat to its national security". In my view, WarKosign's rebuttal to Sohebbasharat's suggestion, namely that in the Iraqi case that country had not attacked the U.S. "... in any form before the invasion nor during it", while factually correct, does not negate the latter's reasoning, nor the well-established facts that it was firstly an invasion which later (for reasons explained by Mhhossein in Talk Archive 14) became a war and not a simply a short-term 'incident'. The same Wiki precedent is provided by Invasion of Poland which is not called Poland War, and perhaps suggests that a second option might be a rename to '2014 Invasion of Gaza', although previous discussions favoured the naming of Israel. Thirdly, as Nishidani explained, OPE was not simply a low-level chronic 'conflict'. In fact in Wiki's List of invasions we find '2014 Invasion of Gaza' being sourced in the current article. Yet a further reason that makes me favour a name change is that anyone looking to this article to find out more about the '2014 conflict' generated by the June 2 reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas (provoking Netanyahu's intense annoyance) is currently going to be sadly disappointed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive explanation Erictheenquirer. I'm inclined toward having 'Invasion' in the title, too, and would like to see the reasons of the opposers. My suggestion is that you don't mix the discussion because there might be some users in favor of 'War' but opposing 'invasion', and vice versa. --Mhhossein talk 13:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Conflict vs. War is questionable - I believe conflict is a bit more suited as this was a bit smaller scale than full-out war - but it could be termed a war - it's a big conflict or a small war - a "tweener". Regarding invasion - that's POV pushing. Specifically, hostilities were commenced by Hamas from Gaza - with intense rocket fire. The first cross border intrusions (ignoring the cross-border tunneling operations which are a casus belli in and of themselves) - were done by Hamas - Specifically a commando raid against Zikim beach (to the north of the Gaza strip) on the 8th of July, and a squad level attack via tunnel into Israel around the Sufa kibbutz (to the east of strip). So if at all we have an invasion of Israel by Gazans - to which Israel responded. So no - this is not an invasion of Gaza - even though that occurred to a pretty limited extent (in terms of depth) in the second half of the conflict. Furthermore, it has been the claim of many (not Israel) that Gaza is still occupied despite the 2005 withdrawal, making the arguement for invasion weaker for thos that hold this POV (an invasion of an occupied territory? Can't have it both ways).Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz - The evidence that you provide in support of your claim of POV pushing is that it was not an invasion because:
1) "hostilities were commenced by Hamas from Gaza - with intense rocket fire" is based on unreliable sources because, as I show here, multiple sources both direct observers and locally-based journalists provide facts that show your sources to be incorrect. [Any one of the sources that I provide here as justification can be have its information duplicated an numerous unrelated sites, such as HRW, PCHR and mainstream media, all of which, if challenged, have been vetted as WP:RS on Wiki's Reliable Sources Archive] The first signs of incursions occurred during the week leading up to 2 June when Israeli military vehicles made three incursions into Gaza territory plus two occasions of firing at fishermen in Gaza waters. Since you use the tactic of analogy, let us apply it - would Israel have viewed it as an invasion if Hamas military forces had entered Israel 3 times and Gazan boats had fired on 2 occasions at Israeli fishermen operating within their legal territorial waters? This was followed by two rocket attacks on 2 June (note - perpetrators unknown; neither did an Israeli letter to the U.N. concerning the rockets claim that they were fired by Hamas) and Israeli staged bombing raids on two Hamas training bases "just hours before the swearing in of a new Palestinian government ... a reconciliation which was fiercely opposed by Israel.” Then on 5 June Israel announced approval for the building of 1500 new houses in Palestinian territory (The Guardian 5 June 2014), not an invasion, but certainly a major act of war. During June hundreds of Hamas supporters, many of them politicians, were arrested by Israel - still no rocket fire by Hamas. On 11 June 2014 "the first extrajudicial execution operation in the occupied Gaza Strip since early March occurred when "The Israeli Air Force targeted an alleged member of an armed group riding on a motorcycle together with a ten-year old child, in the Beit Lahiya area. The man died instantly and the child, who sustained serious injuries, died three days later. ... Following this incident and through the rest of the week, Palestinian armed groups launched a number of rockets at southern Israel (no attribution to Hamas)." Continuing with this chain-of-events that started with Israel's extrajudicial execution on 11 June, Israel in turn responded with "a series of air strikes targeting alleged military installations, but wrecking greenhouses, a UNRWA clinic and a school. This tit-for-tat chain continues until on 27 and 29 June, the Israeli Air Force conducted additional extrajudicial executions when it "targeted and killed two members of an armed group while they were travelling in the Beach refugee camp, and targeted and killed another member in the Al Qarara area, injuring two others. Since the beginning of 2014, Israeli forces have killed at least 5 members of armed groups in similar operations". Imagine if the IDF had been on the receiving end. On 30 June 2014, in retaliation for the execution the day before, Hamas finally entered the fray and launched a barrage of rockets at Israel, according to Israeli sources, the first to be launched by Hamas since the ceasefire of November 2012. I would suggest that that Times of Israel article is enough to show that any sources (unmentioned by you) for your claim that "hostilities were commenced by Hamas from Gaza - with intense rocket fire" have been proven to be unreliable by a multiplicity of respected sources, including Israeli. You rejection of invasion is therefore without foundation. Next time please substantiate your claims with sources so that we can enter them in Wiki's Reliable Source/Archive as not WP:RS. Many thanks.
2) Your next justification is that the first cross-border incursion was perpetrated by Hamas on 8th July on the Zikim beach is also proved incorrect by the above - see 2 June - and is additionally without substance given that 5 extra-judicial assassinations had taken place in Gaza territory. I doubt that there will be much support for a position claiming that these assassinations, all well before 8 July, were not invasive.
3) Your last justification - based in 'occupation' - is a logical fallacy since it should give the same results when applied to either party, but doesn't - namely 'Israel claims not to be occupying Gaza, and since the bellicose events were triggered by Israeli actions, that country's first-strike cross-border incursions or attacks do constitute an invasion'.
If Israel is still occupying Gaza (as an "occupying power"), then how can Israel Invade? I won't go deep into your wall of text here, but you are tying between events in the West Bank and Gaza, which are two separate theaters. Israel's operations against Gaza - also before the "official" start date of the operation - were prompted by rocket fire from Gaza deep into Israel - on the 2nd of June there were no incursions - but airstrikes following rocket fire into Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The theatres may, arguably, be separate, but the players who take the actions, are the same, so naturally one cannot separate what happens to them in different districts. Besides which there was not much about the West Bank, so ignore those if it suits you. Regarding the evidence for incursions in early June - my bad; 2 errors - it was in 1 June 2014 (not the 2nd) and I omitted to provide the source - here it is - Israeli military vehicles carried out two separate cross-border military incursions into the southern Gaza Strip. So the chain went: Two Israeli land incursions - rocket fire from Gaza - Israeli air strikes.
The players aren't exactly the same. Maan news is not a great source, and one must note that even if bulldozers crossed the border fence that doesn't mean they crossed the border line itself - as the border line is a bit away from the fence. In any event - unlike the Iraq invasion (which was a decision to invade and stay) or decisions to invade various islands in WWII - in this case a decision to send forces into Gaza was taken only some 10+ days after the commencement of hostilities by Gaza, and was extremely limited in length (withdrawal at the end) and depth (a few kms). If we were to limit this article to this so-called invasion, then most of the article contents would have to go - as rocket strikes and air-strikes in response against Gaza were outside this rather small zone that was "invaded".Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Regrettably, once again, no substantiation, and I have so far been requesting it politely. Now I have to insist: a) "Players aren't exactly the same"? Please provide WP:RS. b) The source says 'cross-border raid', not cross fence; please provide WP:RS for rejecting that. c) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 139 discussed Ma'an in great detail. When detractors of this news agency were pressed for WP:RS justifications, they all failed. Please provide yours. // Please provide WP:RS for cross-border incursions, high explosive ordnance and extra-judicial assassinations are not invasive.

Unsubstantiated Reverts

1) Icewhiz - your recent revert edit based on "Detailed 2005 timeline not needed - what is important is the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza" is problematic for more than one reason. Firstly in reverting you did not first broach your dissatisfaction on the article's current Talk page - WP:BRD - "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD". Secondly, let us look at the in-line wording of your 'justification' - " Detailed timeline not needed" = your POV - not only that, but this 'need' was agreed to by multiple editors over two years ago when the article's scope and title changes were being discussed. Next, your "... what is important is the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza" = more POV. The fact is that I was following the recommendations resulting from detailed Talk discussions, including by veteran editors, that the best place to start a background 'chain-of-events' description on Israel-Palestine bellicose events is to go back to a point where a ceasefire commitment was made by all of the major players, and with 4 such players participating then, that point was in February 2005 when Israel, the PA, Hamas and IJ all committed .... and you have just reverted what I call a 'blank-slate-moment' into oblivion based on your two POVs. I respectfully reiterate that, should you wish to continue with that contrarian viewpoint, you should discuss your opposing position on Talk first. I would like to invite you to confirm with Kingsindian that the claims as to discussions that I made here are valid, should you doubt me. If there is a 'no' to both of these suggestions on how to amicably solve our differences, since I don't like 1RR dangling over me, could you please reverse your edit. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Your first edit on additional background information on the 2005 withdrawal was simply not needed in the 2014 Gaza conflict article - you masked the rather important thing of note that happened in 2005 - the Israeli withdrawal.
2. Your second edit was filled with unsubstantiated and POV assertions - that Israel was acting illegally regarding various restrictions imposed on Gaza following Gazan bellicosity. If you care to expand that someone or some body found these actions illegal - that perhaps could be done in an appropriate context - it is not appropriate to state illegal multiple times in a paragraph on various actions, while not for instance placing illegal next to rocket fire or other Gazan actions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
1) So, on the first point you ignore the 2014 discussions and simply repeat your POV about 'not needed' - absolutely no substantiation. A clear case of POV-pushing.
2) The Diakonia report that I cited concluded - "As such, the enforcement of the “buffer zone” under the current circumstances and scope is unlawful", so I cannot see your point about 'unsubstantiated' and 'POV assertions'. But you are correct that it does not accuse Israel's unilateral restriction on Gaza's territorial water as illegal. I will add the following citations which do exactly that, one from Al-Haq - "... Israel's continued illegal closure of Palestine's maritime waters", one from Electronic Intifada - "... support and profit from Israel’s continued illegal closure of Palestinian maritime waters", and one from The Guardian - "... part of Israel's illegal collective punishment and closure of Gaza, and one from UNRWA which covers all of them - "... the illegal blockade on land, air and sea"
3) I did not intend to delete the remainder of that paragraph - that was an unintentional error, so I will make the above additions, taking care not to delete the 'withdrawal' part. With that I believe that I have addressed all your concerns in 2).
1. Regarding the lead - the previous text was better in that it was more concise and didn't drown out the actual withdrawal with unneeded and not really connected information (the earlier Feb 2005 ceasefire with Abbas - who has become irrelevant in the strip).
2. Any assertions of illegality must be attributed - according to X/Y/Z (e.g. "with is a violation of international humanitarian law according to group X"). Note that if this is a pro-Palestinian HR org, such an allegation is routine and really should be given all that much weight in an intro here.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Please supply WP:RS for these on-going POVs.

Stating second Intifada end-date in lead

@Mhhossein: - the end-date of 8 Feb 2005 for the Second Intifada is actually un-sourced currently (though one could find a source for this assertion). It is also not entirely correct in a number of respects:

  1. The actual end-date of Intifada-2 is disputed (as you may see in that article) - this is not a POV dispute as far as I can tell - more a question of pinning an exact date - with opinions ranging from the death of Arafat in the end of 2004, to the Israeli disengagement in Aug 2005.
  2. Hamas and Islamic Jihad did not exactly commit to a ceasefire in Feb 2005 - as you may see here - Sharm El Sheikh Summit of 2005 and Second Intifada#End of the Intifada - they made a one-sided and limited declaration.
  3. The current text seems to imply that the disengagement plan is a result of the ceasefire with the PA. However the Israeli disengagement from Gaza was proposed in 2003, adopted by Israeli government decision in June 2004, formally accepted by the Knesset in Feb 2005, and implemented in Aug 2005 - so no - this did not quite flow from the Sharm El Sheikh Summit.

However, all the above being said (which could be rectified by expanding the whole thing into a paragraph with proper sourcing and differing opinions, proving a chronology for the disengagement plan, stating Hamas & Islamic Jihad limited one-sided ceasefire, etc.), it is not really needed in an article on the 2014 Gaza conflict - the key event here is the Israeli disengagement (and following blockade etc.) from Gaza - not technicalities around the end-date of Intifada2. Instead of correcting the sentence - I propose we remove it as it simply isn't too relevant for the 2014 conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The fifth time this POV has been repeated, still with no WP:RS support being provided Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I stated that the end-date of Intifada2 is NOT a POV dispute - to the best of my knowledge. It is in dispute as it didn't "end neatly" - there was a downturn in violence from the end of 2004 (Arafat's demise and Abbas's takeover of power) - and a more or less complete stop by 2006. Feb 2005 has been noted by many as a possible end-date. Others, from various camps, place other dates or don't specify a definite date (beyond a range). In this particular case - as we already have a well-developed article on Intifada2 - I referred to the text there and the sources contained therein - I am happy to copy-paste them here, if this is the problem.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Strawman. The POV I referred to was the endlessly repeated "not needed" Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
With your insertion of the Ruth Tenne source, you have given your approval to the International Socialist as WP:RS. That it might have been used previously does not alter that. Interesting. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
And with the added text from the Tenne piece, can I also presume that you are not longer against 'dilution' of the withdrawal portion of the sub-section, something that you previously vehemently opposed? Just seeking clarity, since I might want to add more, e.g. Israeli violations of the ceasefire. Please decide ... Tenne goes, or we add more for balance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarity, the International Socialism site promotes worker's power and 'revolution not reform.
1. I merely copied the sources from Second Intifada#End of the Intifada -- the end-date is a matter of opinion not fact, and opinions may be sourced from non-RS - so no I did not assert any recognition of International Socialist as an RS beyond the author's opinion. We could source additional opinions - but I didn't think this article should be greater in scope/detail than the Intifada2 article.
2. I still think this should go - not because WP:RS don't exist for possible end-dates - but since this goes into a level of detail that is simply not relevant, for editorial reasons, for the 2014 conflict. "not needed" is not a POV assertion here - but an editorial one. Since there was support by you and Mhhossein to keep the Feb 2005 as an end-date - I corrected/expanded this so that sources are properly reflected. However - I still think this should go - just as I think we should not go back to 1918, 1929, 1948, 1967, 1987, etc. in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I can sympathise with 'merely copying' but when in a detailed discussion, it is wise to check-check-check. I just checked. Tenne's article does not remotely support your added text about continued suicide bombings after Feb 2005, nor does the Plocker article with which you accompanied Tenne as a purported supporting citation. I feel a WP:BOLD approaching. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I linked to the list of suicide bombings in 2005. I can of course supply a whole list of refs for each one - however this is really a level of detail that is out of scope here. Your assertion of bringing to an end the suicide bombing - was simply factually wrong.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Actually Schachter supports this - and is misrepresented by the text currently. Correcting.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So you intend to leave the two misleading citations in place??!! But in addition, with your "Your assertion of bringing to an end the suicide bombing - was simply factually wrong" and, yes, Schechter DOES take the continuing suicide bombings into account, but he concludes that: "In the years since 2005, the number of attempted attacks has fluctuated, but has not returned to 2004 levels. At the same time, the number of successful attacks has continued to drop, to six in 2006, one in both 2007 and 2008, and zero in 2009. One can argue whether the second intifada ended in 2005, but the widespread suicide bombings associated with it clearly did." So I must conclude that it is not me who is wrong. You have still not addressed why I should not add balancing text of Israeli violations post-Feb 2005. My suggestion, once again, remove the 'bloat' of post-Feb attacks by Islamic Jihad and the Tenne/Plocker non-citations. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Which citations? The other two opinions? I don't see a problem leaving them. Don't see a problem cutting them out - as Shachtar actually lays out the different views in his Intro. Shachtar supports a 2005 end-date (indeterminate - based on reduction of numbers in 2005 and further reduction in 2006) - he does not support a Feb 2005 end-date (which is the opinion of others, which he recognizes - as well as other opinions ranging from the end of 2004 through not ending as of 2010 (the paper being written)). My opinion is that the entire paragraph should go - the opinions regarding the exact end of Intifada2 is not relevant to this article - the relevant background is the withdrawal and following Hamas takeover - not a conflict that ended (according to most) approx. 9 years (per different opinions) prior.Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2017

I would like to ask if somebody could expand the blue link in this section, following patterns of other internal links, so it won't be a single word. At the end of the third paragraph: "Hamas preempted the coup and took complete power by force." Currently only the word "took" is marked, which in my opinion is aesthetically ugly.--186.153.64.200 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Done.Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Military outcome

I reckoned enough time has passed to give room for sources that examine the outcome with the benefit of hindsight. As of right now, the outcome section is merely a list of opinions by different people. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You could be right, yet this is a very sensitive change that must not be done as WP:BOLD, let's gain consensus for whatever change here. Please present your sources. “WarKosign” 21:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There aren't too many academic sources on the military assessment (yet), but we have the benefit of hindsight. Israel intended to weaken Hamas but let it remain in power, in accordance with its strategy for the past 10 years. The source I presented was written by a professor at political studies at the Bar-Ilan University. Sources claiming otherwise are of course welcome, though many analyses that were written shortly after the war simply state that time will show whether Israel succeeded in weakening Hamas. Now time has passed, and it's clear that Israel achieved its objectives. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
While you may be correct, we need sufficient sources stating this, otherwise it is WP:OR.Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I provided one source, and I'll do additional research. Can I feel free to change the infobox once I have a few solid sources? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It is best to gain consensus here rather than needlessly make edits that would be reverted on the article. “WarKosign” 13:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This paper by a professor at Bucharest University claims the operation was obviously successful in a military sense, while the overall outcome was less clear. I think that stating "Israeli military victory" is not contentious the way simply stating "Israeli victory" would be. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The link gives me "access denied" error. “WarKosign” 09:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It was working earlier and I took a look (doesn't work now) - not enough in my eyes. We need more sources, and in particular written by people with gravitas, to make a real change here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll continue to research this when I have time. Note that I'm mostly interested in the military assessment, not the overall political outcome. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.", and politics is the continuation of war. Separating the two is not easy, particularly when you don't have an overwhelming victory (total defeat) of one of the sides on the ground. I do suggest that if you wish to act in this direction (and this might be a good time to do so, as there should be some retrospectives) - that you assemble an ensemble of opinions/assessments - preferably high quality ones. This will probably be contentious no matter what - be prepared to run a RfC.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm setting up a list of sources on the bottom here, in chronological order. I'll keep adding to it, and I invite others to do so too. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Inbar, Efraim, Did Israel Weaken Hamas? The 2014 Gaza War, Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2015. Argues that Israel successfully deterred Hamas, while Hamas had none of its demands met.
  • This paper (dead link) by a professor at Bucharest University claims the operation was obviously successful in a military sense, while the overall outcome was less clear. I think that stating "Israeli military victory" is not contentious the way simply stating "Israeli victory" would be.
  • The Road to Operation Protective Edge: Gaps in Strategic Perception by Harel Chorev of the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, argues that Israel's victory would be determined by whether the war established a lasting calm (which, in hindsight, it has - at least when comparing to the years before the war), while Hamas' victory depended on ending the Israeli blockade of Gaza (which was instead tightened, with Egyptian support). The article concludes that time will show, and now time has shown.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

Request: Fix the grammar in the first paragraph of the lead, as well as improve transitions and descriptiveness.

Specific description: Replace

Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest militant leaders. Hamas fired rockets into Israel and a seven-week conflict broke out. The Israeli strikes, the Palestinian rocket attacks, and the ground fighting resulted in the death of thousands of people, the vast majority of them Gazans.[1][2]

with

Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, the IDF conducted Operation Brother's Keeper to arrest Hamas militant leaders. Subsequently, Hamas ramped up firing of rockets into Israel, starting a seven-week conflict. The Israeli strikes, the Palestinian rocket attacks, and the ground fighting resulted in the death of thousands of people, the vast majority of them Gazans,[1][2] a significant proportion of which could have been prevented had Hamas distributed relief supplies to its people more efficiently.[3][4]

. By the way, this article seems biased in favor of the Palestinians. For example, the "according to" part of

According to the BBC, in response to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, Israel launched air raids on Gaza.

makes Israel's non-initiation of the conflict seem like an opinion, not a fact, and implies that Israel might have started the conflict unprovoked. 98.197.198.46 (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency" (PDF). 4 September 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 September 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b "Ministry of Health: "2145 Palestinians, Including 578, Killed In Israel's Aggression"". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
  3. ^ "Fatah blasts Hamas for stealing humanitarian aid during Gaza operation". Retrieved 30 September 2014.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference hamas-fatah-tensions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Gaza_War/Archive_17&oldid=1026300342"