Talk:2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun

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

List of Victims[edit]

What do people think about including a lst of victims' names in this article?
There are some prior examples of this, e.g.Kent State Shootings, Bloody Sunday (1972), the Jerusalem bus 2 massacre or the Columbine High School massacre. Another even more relevant example may be the Gaza beach blast.
QmunkE pointed out the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL when I initially added the names, and referred to the discussion on the Omagh bombing, in which it was eventually decided not to include the list of victims. I am not connected in any way with the victims of this blast, which appears to be what the above policy is targeted at, and I do believe that the list of victims should be included. It was the death of these people that made this a noteworthy incident, doesn't that make them noteworthy?
The list of victims can be found at http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=1 It's a bit of a wade through to find, but they are clearly listed. B'Tselem's reports have been criticised by the IDF but not on their numbers, only on definitions of combatants vs non-combantants, which is hardly an issues in this case. Puddleman 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I like the idea.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-up of a massacre[edit]

When Hezbollah kills civilians with inadequate munitions in this fashion, it will be called a massacre - why are Palestinians not given the same decency?

It's not as if even Israelis weren't horrified - see what they read on this subject - "No one is guilty in Israel" - "Nineteen inhabitants of Beit Hanun were killed with malice aforethought. There is no other way of describing the circumstances of their killing. Someone who throws burning matches into a forest can't claim he didn't mean to set it on fire, and anyone who bombards residential neighborhoods with artillery can't claim he didn't mean to kill innocent inhabitants. Therefore it takes considerable gall and cynicism to dare to claim that the Israel Defense Forces did not intend to kill inhabitants of Beit Hanun. Even if there was a glitch in the balancing of the aiming mechanism or in a component of the radar, a mistake in the input of the data or a human error, the overwhelming, crucial, shocking fact is that the IDF bombards helpless civilians. Even shells that are supposedly aimed 200 meters from houses, into "open areas," are intended to kill, and they do kill. In this respect, nothing new happened on Wednesday morning in Gaza: The IDF has been behaving like this for months now." PRtalk 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Anything to add, Jay?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i worked through logs. it seems like there were quite a few move wars and attempts on the article, and a status quo was reached with 'incident'. it survived for almost two years until you brought it back up again. no new material surfaced to substantiate the claim that it was intentional, and a newspaper polemicist article is definitely not proof. i think that further trying to push this point of view will result in nothing more than a moveprotect. 80.179.69.194 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Incident" leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, considering the consequences, although I see the problem with "massacre" when intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the redirects is Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun, which I reckon strikes a good balance. What do you think?
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no logical objection, I'll move the article there.
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is dispute about the move, it is best not to move it yourself. I recommend filing a request at WP:RM. --Elonka 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same month that you moved the article to "massacre", User:Imad marie moved over a dozen articles about massacres of Israelis to the titles which removed the word.[1] I'm fine with the title "2006 Beit Hanoun shelling". Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OK, sounds good. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move wars[edit]

The yanking back and forth of this article must stop. See WP:RM. If a move is controversial, then build consensus for a move on the talkpage, otherwise leave the page at its original title. --Elonka 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, this article is under the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. As an uninvolved administrator, I have wide latitude in restrictions that I can place on the article, as well as discretionary sanctions on the involved editors. So please, stop with the edit-warring, and discuss differences at the talkpage. --Elonka 16:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Foreign Minister[edit]

Why is the statement of Italy's Foreign Minister being moved to the lead - as opposed, say, to the statement of Russia's Foreign Minister?[2] For that matter, why would the statement of any foreign minister belong in the lead? It almost looks as if the statement was placed there because it was the statement most prejudicial to Israel from any Western politician - but that couldn't possibly be the reason, so there must be some other explanation. Is Italy's foreign minister a known expert on Middle East affairs, or unusually famous in some way? Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician (which makes it unusual in itself), but you were close. Russia's, on the other hand, is just one more run-of-the-mill bland plea to "both sides". I'm not privy to the minister's sources.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this correctly, and you are saying that, almost exactly as Jayjg surmised but incredulously rejected, that this statement was chosen because 'It is the statement most accusatory about the IDF's intentions from any Western politician'? If so, you should review Wp:NPOV carefully, before further editing any Wikipedia article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to have missed the thrust of my argument, Monkey.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM appears to have summed your argument up precisely, from my reading. But I'm interested to hear you rephrase why you've cherry-picked the Italian minister's statement, if CM hasn't in fact gotten the gist of it. IronDuke 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Let me put it another way; the foreign minister of a leading NATO country accuses one of NATO's beneficiaries of deliberately using artillery on civilians. This statement doesn't require cherry-picking, it stands out like a sore thumb.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the opinion of the US ambassador, not just 'a leading NATO country' , but "THE" leading NATO country. If the NATO relationship is the reason for including that quote, why wouldn't we include the US Ambassador's opinion, insetad of the Italian minister's? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You fail to grasp its significance. The US ambassador is not accusing a NATO beneficiary of war crimes.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So did you pick it becuase it was the most accusatory, or not? Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Like I wrote above, it pretty much selected itself. Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, it didn't "select itself", an editor had to select it for inclusion, over other reactions. You did not select it because it was from a noted authority on the topic, norbecause it was from a leading NATO member (if that was the criteria, the US reaction would have been a better choice), so why did you? It is increasingly looking like you chose it because it was the most prejudicial. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking that way because he admitted as much. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Imagine, if you will, a major ally of Iran accusing Hezbollah of deliberately murdering civilians. Does this help?"

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't excuse choosing a quotation simply because it was the most prejudicial to Israel. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations in quotations[edit]

It's best not to place any disambiguation links in quotations, particularly contentious ones, because quotes should be exactly what an individual said, not what we think he meant.[3] And, of course, disambigutations in general shouldn't lead to re-directs. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Are you referring to my linking of Abbas' mention of the "occupation" to Israeli occupation? What other occupation do you think he may have been alluding to? I take your point about leading to a redirect, I'm surprised [Israeli occupation] doesn't have its own article yet. That may change, of course.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately representing sources[edit]

Israel's U.N. representative specifically referred to the "incident in Beit Hanoun". Why is Lapsed Pacifist changing it to say "ninetennpeople killed at Beit Hanoun"?[4] Aside from the punctuation error, it misrepresents what he said. Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he prefers this to a direct quote of the source? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm delighted by your willingness to emulate the terminolgy of UN representatives, this bodes well. I apologise for the clumsy punctuation. I have no strong preference, to answer your last question.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then we'll just quote what he said, rather than putting words in his mouth. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cool.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, then do you continue to insert words into his mouth, and revert my quoting of him? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"appeared to defend the massacre"[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist is inserting the claim that "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre".[5] This claim appears to be unsourced original research which places a pejorative interpretation on the PMO's statement. Could Lapsed Pacifist please provide the source for this claim he is inserting? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


That's not a defence of IDF tactics? How do you make that out? It seems pretty plain to me, but perhaps I'm missing some nuance.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A defense "of IDF tactics" is not the same as a defense of the "massacre". Surely you see the difference between those statements? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fair comment.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protest against government policies?[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist has inserted the claim that Israeli protests were "against government policies", rather than against the killings.[6] Given the fact that the link itself is dead, can Lapsed Pacifist please explain the source for his claim? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The policies led to the killings, no? I'm sure these groups didn't just decide IDF tactics maybe weren't all they were cracked up to be just because of Beit Hanoun.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that matter, not our opinions about what did or did not happen. IronDuke 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you show us the opinion you are referring to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- yours. IronDuke 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Where is it?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, when you said the protest was "against government policies". Please don't insert your personal opinions into articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. vote[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist has changed[7] the wording

voted against by the United States, which holds veto power, on grounds that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".

to

voted against solely by the United States, which holds a veto under rules drawn up in the 1940s. The US claimed that the resolution was "biased against Israel and politically motivated".

What does the fact that the U.N. voting rules were drawn up in the 1940s have to do with this article? When China or the U.S.S.R. veto resolutions, must the articles discussing them always mention that the rules were drawn up in the 1940s? Also, regarding the changing of the wording to "claimed", please see Wikipedia:WTA#Claim. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's illustrative that these rules have been with us since the end of World War II, and perhaps not that well known. I'd be happy to accept similar educative additions to articles about Chinese and Soviet vetos. I take your point on the use of "claim".

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to bu "illustrative" in such a fashion. Simply link veto to UN Security Council Veto Power, and anyone interested can read the details on that article.


Fair enough.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel" vs. "the Israeli state"[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the word "Israel" to "the Israeli state".[8] Could he please explain why he is using the lengthy pleonasm for the name of the country? Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree that this constitutes a pleonasm. For example, if a right-wing Israeli assasinated the prime minister of Israel, that could be interpreted as an attack on the Israeli state. That's not the same as saying the man "attacked Israel".

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The usage is redundant, and adds no meaning, and is also redundant. IronDuke 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Redundant twice over, I'm blown away. Your argument doesn't even approach redundancy.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual point to make? If so, I'm all ears. IronDuke 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, please, can we adopt a more civil tone here? For best results, please keep comments focused on the actual article, thanks. --Elonka 23:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LP, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. What information does the phrase "the Israeli state" impart to this specific article, in this specific instance, that is not covered by the conventional term "Israel"? Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Point taken.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"huge" vs. "wide" margin[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist has changed the wording "wide margin" to "huge margin".[9] Given the fact that the term "huge" is more emotive, can LP explain his reasoning for the change? Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Huge", given the amount of states in the UN, is hardly emotive.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no article where the word "huge" would be appropriate, unless it's in a quote. This is an encyclopedia, and the tone should reflect that. IronDuke 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


When one vote is in treble figures, and the other fails even to leave single figures, I can't see how anyone could argue with a straight face that's not a huge margin. But let me suggest we display the voting figures, and let the readers make up their own minds.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wide margin" is encyclopedic. "Huge margin" is unprofessional. Please don't introduce unprofessional, emotive terminology again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come up with that?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic English. Please don't do it again, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Wide" is encyclopedic, "huge" is unprofessional? That doesn't sound like anything that would be taught to students of English. In fact, it sounds pretty subjective to me.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"wide margin": 33,000 Google scholar hits.
"huge margin": 1,080 Google scholar hits.
All done here, I think. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I hope so, but it's a faint hope. Are the thousand scholars on my side also guilty of being, in your opinion, "unprofessional"?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that "wide margin" is 33 times as scholarly as "huge margin". Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It turns out those voting against Israel, the US, and whatever US vassals' aid budgets are up for review, are often more than 33 times the number. You're speaking in the general, Jay, I in the specific. It would be more accurate to say that wide margins are 33 times more likely to occur. No?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Israel's MFA statement[edit]

Lapsed Pacifist has replaced the statement by Israel's MFA with his own summary, which doesn't appear to capture the MFA's point, which was about distorted U.N. processes, not blaming Palestinian militants.[10] Could he explain why he is doing this? Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Distorted UN processes"? There's no need to have such a large piece of apologist propaganda in the text, especially when it's already linked.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote itself is more informative and useful than what briefly replaced it. IronDuke 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More informative, certainly, but that's not enough for inclusion. Not alone is it propaganda, its size gives it undue weight.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no case is it propaganda, for our purposes. It is possible the quote could be cut down, but your deletion of the quote in its entirety, and your unhelpful synopsis of that quote, aren't making the article better. IronDuke 23:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Its dishonest railing against the democratic mechanisms of the UN is blatant propaganda. Would you like to offer us your synopsis?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you recognize that the statement was actually about UN processes; why, then, did your summary address some entirely different point? Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to offer a synopsis or paraphrase, especially when you paraphrase has been challenged as inaccurate. We have the original quote, and we can use it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We can do a lot of things. That doesn't mean we should.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One of the things we shouldn't be doing is inserting our biased paraphrases of statements, in a way that doesn't appear to capture the original meaning. Please discuss any proposed paraphrase here before inserting it, to make sure it has consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the entire article from the MFA is almost certainly a breach of copyright. The MFA says "When quoting from the protected material etc" (ie a portion may be used, subject to their amazingly tight restrictions), but they also say "Subject to the law of copyright, User may not copy, redistribute, retransmit or publish protected material, without the prior written consent of the office." - which would appear to have been written to bar use of the whole thing. PRtalk 12:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've summarized it. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cool.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

I changed the Introduction to give it a NPOV and to give the full perspective of the incident. The previous Intro takes Israel's statement as fact. As there was no sufficient investigation by independent organizations, and as the United Nations investigation suggests that the incident may have constituted a war crime due to the withholding of facts by the IDF, Israels version of the events may not necessarily be true. This has to addressed in the Introduction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)

Source?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/eaeae82c6c256519852574c5005427ce!OpenDocument Thats the source for the UN mission. Read points 72-80 in the Conclusion Section. Since this is the only independent investigation, and as you read the conclusions I hope you understand my taking issue with taking Israels statement as fact. No doubt the statement should be given credence, as the introduction does, but taking it as fact suggests an Israeli POV. I also referenced Palestinian rocket attacks, as the UN report immediately referenced those as well, right after its war crime conclusion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)

Oh, please. We can't take seriously the idea that the Israeli highcommand were sitting around one random day and one guy piped up "Hey, let's drop a bomb on a bunch of Arabs and then say it was a mistake". Tutu is a known anti-Israel propagandist and his statements should not be taken seriously, especially when he's smarting over the fact that Israel told him to "go somewhere". Moreover, even if we were to accept his statement's seriously, there's nothing substantive being said. "It's possible that they're were war crimes". Everything is possible. No indpendant investigation would say that it's impossible that no war crimes were committed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I believe that. If you want my opinion, I don't think this was a deliberate act of murder. However, that was the only independent investigation into the event. Now whatever Desmond Tutu's personal bias is, or whether or not it was included into the report, we cannot independently verify. Therefore, we have to assume that this was an independent and unbiased report, as it was authorized by the Director General of the UN General Assembly. The point is Israel did not provide the fact finding mission with the proof needed to absolve it of any crime, and therefore we can't say that Israel is completely free of guilt. And also, a war crime isn't the same thing as a massacre, which is the deliberate killing of civilians. By firing into the general direction of the opposing force, while disregarding that there might be civilians nearby, and add a potential guidance system failure; this can also constitute a war crime. This is why I linked to the Wikipedia article of War crime.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.178.201 (talk • contribs)
At the end of the day, it doesn't make sense to quote their "conclusion" when they didn't investigate the whole thing. Everything is possible, it's always possible that every time people die it was a war crime. There's no reason to announce that it's possible that it was a war crime when there's no valid basis for this possibility, besides for the lack of investigation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that they didn't investigate the whole thing, it is that Israel didn't allow them to investigate. Isn't Wikipedia about verification of information? Their isn't a clear, and independently verified consensus about whether the incident was deliberate or incidental, and the intro should reflect that. How you wish to present that is your choice. I'm not going to change the introduction anymore, as you are more experienced and understand Wikipedia rules better than me, therefore, I will leave it to you; but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and take your actions accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.125.5 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing external links[edit]

I was reading the article when I wondered which 32 countries voted for the UN report, so I clicked on the link(num. 19) citing this and saw a very disturbing picture of three dead bodies related to this subject. I know they're not hosted here on wikipedia, but I expect the external links to have the same decency as Wikipedia has. Can you please remove them or add a warning to the link?--77.127.144.149 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is generally not censored, I agree in this case that it warrants removal. The source is questionable and we can't be sure that the pics actually relate to the alleged incident.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6127250.stm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_shelling_of_Beit_Hanoun&oldid=1196491516"