Talk:Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Orphaned references in Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC_IslUnivGaza_bombed":

From Islamic University of Gaza: "Israel bombs university in Gaza". BBC. 2008-12-28. Archived from the original on 2008-12-28. Retrieved 2008-12-29.
From 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict: Israel strikes key Hamas offices

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting point?

Wouldn't it be relevant to include the events leading up to the Israeli airstrikes? At least Hamas ending of the cease-fire and subsequent rocket attacks, perhaps also with the rationale behind these decisions. kzm (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are covered in the background section of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. Is it really necessary to duplicate them here? Blackeagle (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a timeline, the question is when the 2008-2009 I-G conflict started. (And it shouldn't be duplicated of course, but moved and/or summarized in the other article) 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Please write according to the sources.. When source states that one side "said" something, it's not a fact. You either put "allegedly" before the statement or something along that line. PluniAlmoni (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You do not put "allegedly". You can attribute it to the source by simply writing "X said ...". Tiamut^talk 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Bias

There is clear image bias in this article. Two photos of rockets from Palestinian side, and no photos of any bombardment from the Israeli side. Please balance. Fig (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is finding pictures from the Palestinian side licensed under a free content license. If you have any of these please add them to the article. Blackeagle (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So THIS is why there's been a sudden flurry of image 'clean ups'?? lulz. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it's interesting that some editors are being astonishingly quick on shifting through images of the conflict to remove any images of Gaza with the faintest whiff of not having adequate license. I suppose this hard work should be "applauded" despite the ultimately POV effect that it has on descendant article (which is, I have no doubt, the intent). This, combined with the Israeli journalist ban in the area has been very effective at preventing many images at all getting into Wikipedia.

I suggest therefore that to improve the current NPOV situation, the two images of Hamas rockets are removed until suitable images of Israeli attacks can be found to give a balanced article that reflects the relative magnitudes of attacks, both the text and the actual event. This is important, because otherwise it means that media bans such as Israel has implemented in Gaza can be very effective in portraying global POV outcomes, and it will thus encourage more such media bans. Fig (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

January 10th's last paragraph.

Almost the entire last paragraph is based on anonymous sources, and needs to be edited out. OR needs a more 'mainstream source' (and 'unbiased') for it to be acceptable. Specifically (Only) the parts about the Hamas soldiers suffering from exhaustion, and the 'narrative' of a young Hamas soldiers disobeying orders and others becoming AWOL.70.32.43.178 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't refuse sources because someone doesn't like them, we quote the source and hope that the reader can decide for himself. thank you.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun incident - needs subheading

The Zeitoun incident has been added as a subheading in the main page due to its high importance. It should be added here also. Fig (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the Zeitoun incident incident to 4 January even though there seems to be issues with it as far as did it really happen and by who. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo News, Google News and other non-stable news sites

Links to Yahoo News, Google News and other non-stable news sites should be archived at webcitation.org. Thanks. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

why it's not listed in details that Israel is using illegal weapons ??

Israel's use of 'white phosphorus' scars Gazans

Human rights groups say Israel is indiscriminately using white phosphorus in Gaza's densely populated areas. When ignited, the chemical can burn the flesh off of a person, down to the bone. Israel says the use of white phosphorus is permitted under international law, although it hasn't openly admitted using the chemical. Ayman Mohyeldin visits the burns ward of a Gaza hospital and finds many Palestinians badly scarred.^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.141.135 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it isn't true? ^[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is NOT an illegal weapon as much as certain parties desire it to be. Especially if used for producing smoke screens etc.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is an initialism for White Phosphorus for those who don't know.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

White phosphorus (WP) is a flare- and smoke-producing incendiary device[1] or smoke-screening agent that is made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus. White phosphorus bombs and shells are incendiary weapons, but can also be used as offensive anti-personnel flame compounds capable of causing serious burns or death. The agent is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact. White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The slang term "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter", dating from World War I and common at least through the Vietnam War, is still occasionally heard.^[3] which it seems that Israel is using it against civilians in Gaza. and it is on new.^[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.166.240 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Missiles containing white phosphorus were deployed. Dr Ahmed Almi from the al-Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis describes serious injuries and chemical burns, with victims covered in a white powder that continues to burn long after initial exposure. ^[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.199.163 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has hired a military advisor to give technical details on the use and misuse of armaments, for just this sort of occurrence. The advisor's statement was quoted on GlobalSecurity.org, which gives detailed reports on US military actions; they are one of the main sources of information for the US invasion of Panama page, for example. The use of white phosphorus by the IDF has been reported on in a LA Times story, CNN video story, and Time story.

No weapon is allowed to be used in a way that endangers civilians. Nor is WP a weapon whose use in Gaza is not subject to scrutiny under that rule; quite the contrary, the news reports above are quite full of quotes from those who believe Gaza, as one of the most densely populated areas in the world, is an unsuitably target-rich environment in which to be using WP. Nor is WP a weapon that the IDF has admitted using, despite the preponderance of evidence, and having finessed their stance on its use. The issue is notable and verifiable.

HELLLOOOOO????!!!! All weapons endanger civilians, did you ever hear of bullets? Who do you think WMD's were meant to target? Military forces in the field? Not. Once they were used, the victim militaries developed counters to them. How many Japanese military died in Hirosima. British military in the London Blitz? Iraqi and Iranian military in the War Against the Cities? The fact that a Scud killed Americans in the 1st Gulf War was a fluke, it had been shot down. Of course its debris hit the warehouse. Civilians always suffer at the hands of their leaders, elected or not.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2 farmers killed

Reports indicate there were more, total of 3 fatalities! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.26 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Who determines that these people are "farmers" and not "terrorists"? Tundrabuggy (talk)

Cite fixes

Here is the format for citing sources, with nowiki turned on so you can see it: <ref>{{cite news|url= web address |title= title of the news report}}</ref> That's the bare bones; that is all that is required. Preferably it would also have |publisher= Haaretz, Time, CNN, whoever released it, and |author= if there is one named, and perhaps |date= and |accessdate= for when the editor last saw the website article. I say this because there is a -boatload- of cites with the format;<ref> (web address) </ref> I will get around to fixing them all eventually, but I could use some help on it.

Changed a sentence on the 6th of Jan entry on mainspace. It implied (unknowingly, most likely) that the IDF had searched the UN school and found militant bodies. A Time article I have cited, statements by Christopher Gunness of the UNRWA found in the former and latter links, and a report of the IDF's own statements all either give counterargument against this, with reasoning, or refute it, with evidence. The IDF of course is an irrefutable witness on this issue. there were no terrorists in the school, let alone firing from inside, let alone killed inside.

Removed a sentence regarding 'drone' footage from 2007; a year has gone by since the footage was allegedly filmed, and it is a spurious, if not ludicrous argument in any case to base a failure of intelligence like firing on GPS coordinates the UN has put on a list of places to not fire at, on year old intelligence. Among other things. I almost put it back in, thinking well, it at least shows that there was suspicion about that school, even if that doesn't excuse shooting at civilians, and then I noticed it wasn't even the same school. This is just too far removed from the topic. Anarchangel (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GROSS imbalances in sources

I count roughly 100 Israel-based references, and 5 Palestinian. This is beyond absurd. 5 references to reports by journalists WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN GAZA??

This infuriates me. I've spent a lot of hours developing Wikipedia. If it's to be little more than a vehicle for IDF propaganda, why should anyone take this site seriously? Trachys (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged WP:NPOV Trachys (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you actually point out the IDF propaganda? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you actually point out any statement made either by the government or the IDF that ISN'T propaganda?? You're incredible. Trachys (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Trachys, Could you actually point out any statement made either by the Arabs, especially HAMAS, that ISN'T propaganda?? You're too are incredible. --98.111.139.133 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trachys, who are you? Since it has been brought up on these talk pages many times, have you ever heard the term Pallywood. There are those who completely write off anything that the Arab press says due to a credibility crisis, much like the Washington Post, NYT, and the National Inquirer. I did not make up term but you must realise that many in the West believe this to be the case.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civil. --Tomtom (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, It's not your call to judge entire regions media with such highly generic and blanket terms. By doing so, you're favoring the pro-Israeli far right stance, which does not match WP neutrality. WP cite both sources, whether you or I like it or not. I remember you've added this silly term several times to the main page "External links" section and you have been slammed on the talk pages by several editors about it, Enough. You're just throwing this blanket term in each discussion, ohh pollywood!, pollywood!!!. By the way, the human rights organizations has even more severe and breaking reports than the Arab media. Go and check, instead of citing this term everywhere like it's the only thing you know in the world. --Darwish07 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of whom do you speak, verifiability and reliability are important if they are to be used as a reference here on wikipedia. Do we agree that even the National inquirer occasionally gets things right but generally that are not considered a reliable news source. Would you cite articles of Soviet era Tass as reliable? --Tomtom (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And as for Pallywood, why do you think that term was coined, just as you or Trachys may distrust/disbelieve anything that Israeli sources say so you must understand that there are those who distrust/disbelieve anything that Arab sources say. I am not saying that is right but that is the way of things. This is the world that we all live in.--Tomtom (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Israel–Gaza conflict

Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict does not provide background info from before the war.

2008 Israel–Gaza conflict is the background article to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

Without warning or consensus someone tried to delete 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict by merging it into 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. He redirected 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict to 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. This is not a good idea and has been changed back to separate articles.

2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict is too long in my opinion, and needs to have the 2008 material moved out. There are several other articles with 2008 info. The info from those articles can be summarized and added to 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict. The other articles can be kept since they provide more info.

For more info on those other articles and more please see:

Talk:2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict#2008 material for 2008 Israel–Gaza conflict

Additional input is requested.

The 2007-2008 article can be renamed to 2007 Israel–Gaza conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Police ceremony wasn't just caught up in the attack

Nope, according to Haaretz which is an RS citing classified reports the attack was timed to coincide with the end of the police course. It was the target:

Last update - 18:19 22/01/2009

How IDF legal experts legitimized strikes involving Gaza civilians By Yotam Feldman and Uri Blau

The idea to bombard the closing ceremony of the Gaza police course was internally criticized in the Israel Defense Forces months before the attack. A military source involved in the planning of the attack, in which dozens of Hamas policemen were killed, says that while military intelligence officers were sure the operation should be carried out and pressed for its approval, the IDF's international law division and the military advocate general were undecided.

After months of the operational elements pushing for the attack's approval, the international law division headed by Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch gave the go-ahead. In spite of doubts, and also under pressure, Sharvit-Baruch and the division also legitimized the attack on Hamas government buildings and the relaxing of the rules of engagement, resulting in numerous Palestinian casualties. In the division it is also believed that the killing of civilians in a house whose residents the IDF has warned might be considered legally justified, although the IDF does not actually target civilians in this way.

Many legal experts, including former international law division head Daniel Reisner, do not accept this position. "I don't think a person on a rooftop can be incriminated just because he is standing there," he said.

One reason for the international law division's permissive positions is its desire to remain relevant and influential. Sources involved in the work of the Southern Command said that its GOC, Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant, is quite suspicious of legal experts and has a reputation of not attaching much importance to their advice. The Southern Command's legal adviser was not invited to consultations before the attack, and was compartmentalized when it came to smaller forums. It was actually during the action in Gaza that consideration for his opinions grew.

The legal addendum to Operation Cast Lead's order shows the way the IDF's legal experts legitimized the army's actions: "As much as possible and under the circumstances of the matter, the civilian population in a target area is to be warned," it states, adding "unless so doing endangers the operation or the forces."

The addendum orders commanders to be extremely cautious in the use of "incendiary weapons" (for example, phosphorus bombs), but does not prohibit their use: "Before using these weapons, the the military advocate general or international law division must be consulted on the specific case."

A source who served in the division in the past says it is "more liberal than the attorney general and the High Court petitions department." "The army knows what it wants, and pressure was certainly brought to bear when legal advisers thought that something was unacceptable or problematic," an operational military source said.

According to a senior official in the international law division, "Our goal is not to tie down the army, but to give it the tools to win in a way that is legal."

SOurce: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.47.55 (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists vs. militants

The word "militant" can easily be used to describe non-violent behavior/attributes of various individuals/groups around the world. For example, peaceful demonstrators against various governments (students vs. Chinese government, usually, for example) are labeled as "militants" even though no aggressive or violent behavior is observed. On the other hand, the word "terrorist" is seldomly used to describe a peaceful demonstrator or group. The attacks of the Palestinian Terrorists (whether Hamas or not) have been directed at civilians populations (as opposed to against a particular government) deliberately, around the world. The Palestinian Terror attacks also fit all the criterions of a "terrorist" as described in Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist.

The references to "militants" in the article are incorrect, and in fact are misleading.

There are many historical references pointing to the Palestinian, PLO, Hamas, PFLP, etc as terrorists, that it baffles the mind to see how the article could have been written in such an inaccurate manner. A tiny historical sample of references available freely:
Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-na-black-september27-2009feb27,0,3800936.story
New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E6D6123DF93BA15754C0A9629C8B63
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/66309/page/2
Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie
Sydney Morning Herald : http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/dead-at-82-palestinian-marxist-who-took-terrorism-to-the-sky/2008/01/27/1201368944620.html

If anyone asks for more references I'll be delighted to offer them. As many as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanrab (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Review WP:Terrorist. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting to the unacceptable version. Further reverts will be considered vandalism. A lot of people including myself would consider the Israeli offensive to be terrorist in nature, yet we don't call the Israeli beligerents terrorists. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't what "a lot of people" or "you" consider as "terrorist" or not. It's an issue of what the words actually mean, and the context in which they are applied. The Hamas is definitely on the known official Terrorist Group watch lists. When a terrorist group is being called "a militant" group, the word's meaning is taken out of context in a deliberate attempt to fool the audience.

Since Wikipedia is concerted effort (and that's why we can all change articles' contents at will) to provide the internet users with correct information, spreading disinformation contradicts its existence. If your assertions were true, it would make Wikipedia worthless in most people's eyes; simply a source for propaganda. A disclaimer, placed at the top of this wiki page (explaining the situation) should call attention this particular issue, and thus notify the intended audience that these are your opinions and that's all -- in other words, not facts. However, the more "opinions" of this sort are placed on Wikipedia (with or without disclaimers) the lower Wikipedia's reputation will be. In time, we will all see it as a worthless source of information and not bother to turn to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilanrab (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is this "Terrorist group watch lists"? Too bad for you that Wikipedia isn't a propaganda tool for the Israeli or US government. Just follow guidelines WP:terrorist. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 19 death rate section

The section for March 19 details at length a comparison of the continuous death rate in Gaza during the offensive in comparison to arbitrary other countries (USA, Russia, etc.). This should be deleted from the article for two reasons:

1) It is irrelevant. This article is meant to a be a timeline - a retelling of historical facts in the most accurate manner possible. Numerical/statistical analysis of death rates could go under an article about Operation Cast Lead, but not a timeline. This just serves to clutter an already very-long page, and is out of place with the grand majority of the rest of the article (which details what happened and no more - none of this random "research")

2) The statistics themselves are misleading even in relation to an analysis of Operation Cast Lead - this is true on many levels. Some of the more egregious errors in the application of this statistical reasoning to a question of war crimes, etc., are as follows:

a) Gaza has a very, very young population. Any comparisons of the death rates in Gaza (during military action or no) to other countries with extremely different demographics are going to be obfuscating the reality of the situation.
b) When considering war crimes or the legality of military actions, death rate is a useless statistic. Casualties are measured in absolutes, not in rates. If the operation was directly responsible for a certain number of deaths, that is what counts - not whether more or less people per capita would have died in that same period in other countries. The ultimate effect is that a certain number of people are dead, who would not be otherwise dead. That's what the international community and governing bodies care about, not what the temporary increase in the death rate is. This is why, apparently to the author's surprise, some have still accused Israel of war crimes.
c) Even in times of all out war, death rates in nations only rise marginally - the proportion of those in battle zones to the entire population will always be small. This is especially true in the very densely populated region of Gaza. In fact a 1.3 multiplication of the death rate is a very large change.
d) Finally, the analysis/research is written with a political goal inherent (I will not judge whether this was intentional or not, just simply acknowledge that it is there). The concluding sentence of the section implies that this research suggests what Israel did was not a war crime, and the rest of the section is downplaying the deaths of hundreds of civilians or children by repackaging the data into a non-threatening "continuous death rate". Political goals have no place in statistical analysis, especially in a Wikipedia article on a controversial event. This would be fine as an argument in a "controversy" section of another article, but not for a timeline.

I have take the liberty of removing the section in question from the article. However, the last time I did so, it was reinstated (however, I am glad to see that someone took the trouble to remove typographical and writing errors from it). I hope we can have an educated discussion about whether the original analysis has a place in a factual timeline. 128.253.151.47 (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Answer to deletion of March 19 death rate section

The commented edition is political: 1) The alleged "out of place with the grand majority of the rest of the article", does not justifie selective deletion 2a) The deleted text already indicates that the population is young 2b) There is no surprise, just statement reports anyway, the word "despite" can be changed in the original text to further clarify this 2c) This is a very relevant fact if you are concluding that "the proportion of those in battle zones to the entire population will always be small" in the "very densely populated region of Gaza" you are already stracting very relevant information from the published rates 2d) Once the word "despite" is changed there is no possibility of assuming any political orientation to raw data.

It looks like a political edition to protect people from true data blameing that it would be "misleading" and "obfuscating"!. Also coments on deleting information due to "wrong spelling" are out of Wikipedia phylosophy. I have taken the liberty to reverting the edit until more people gives an oppinion. Real editors instead of just IP addreses are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.202.222 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 80.39.202.222 - since you seem to be reverting any edits I make, here's a compromise: I edited the section so it retains the increase in death rate statistic. However, I removed the comparison to "car rides in the United States". It is highly irrelevant, and has no place in a timeline about the Gaza conflict. Maybe a news article, but not here. As it stands now, the 1.3x number remains, but the section as a whole is much more concise and relevant. I do, however, still think this random analysis of the death rate increase in a population of hundreds of thousands is completely out of place in a timeline article. As I am not a "real editor", anyone who doesn't just use their IP want to chime in on this? Finally, 80.39.202.222, I rewrote the section into something vaguely resembling English - speaking of which, if you are going to be editing wikipedia articles as much as it seems that you do, I would look into learning how to use spellcheck. For all of us. 128.84.73.137 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

scope

Why is this article going up until the present day? This was spun off the main 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict which is covering the Gaza war, not everything that has happened since. See WP:NOTNEWS. I suggest cutting everything out from 1 week after the ceasefires. Nableezy (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Shouldn't we mention incidents until the ceasefire was declared and then the rest unto something like list of rockets attacks into israel 2009? Cryptonio (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

12 March--Press TV citation

I don't really think citing Press TV is a good idea. It has a history of being somewhat unreliable, e.g. holocaust denial, etc (see criticism of Press TV in its article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.172.156 (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

23rd Feb section

The [[Islamic Jihad]] said on its Web site that the attack was planned to kidnap soldiers."<ref>[http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/23/1003201/kassam-rockets-hit-israel-attack-thwarted#When:15:41:00Z "Kassam rockets hit Israel, attack thwarted."] ''[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency|JTA]]''. 23 February 2009. 23 February 2009.</ref> The link Islamic Jihad leads to 4 articles, each on a different organization. The source for this is an article that claims that the Jerusalem Post said it. So atm it's: WP says that JTA says that Jerusalem Post says that the Islamic Jihad, which one we don't know, said it. That's too much.
The stories about the tunnels being to kidnap Israeli soldiers include the notion that jihadists would ride motorcycles to scoop up Israeli soldiers, and then take them back to the tunnels. It would make a great movie, and it makes great propaganda, but it makes lousy WP reporting. Anarchangel (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

"three days after three Katyusha rockets slammed into northern Israel " etc... C'mon we can do better NPOV than that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

scope of the article

why is this article turning into a documentation of everything that happened after the war? I think this article needs to follow the main Gaza War one and cut off after the end of what is supposedly the war it is covering. Jan 18th or 20th would be fine with me, those are the dates the sources treat as the end of the "gaza war" Nableezy (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I split it into a new article as nobody responded since April above, the new article is List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War Nableezy (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On the whole I support this move, but you do realize that the inevitable consequence of it is List of attacks by Israel in Gaza in 2009, do you not? Anarchangel (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it isn't inevitable. How would you feel about renaming the new article Incidents in Israel and Gaza following the Gaza War? Anarchangel (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just want this article to be useful as a subarticle to the main Gaza War one Nableezy (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But really, I think it should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS anyway. Nableezy (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think having a List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War as redirect to this page is extremely misleading. When I clicked on it I was expecting a similar page as the 'Israeli 2008 rocket attack page', instead it wasn't a chronological list of rocket attacks, but an admixture of attacks by Israel and those by Gaza. I think the redirect should be removed and started as a new page onto itself. I like the change of the name though to Incidents in Israel and Gaza following the Gaza War.Chhe (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a redirect to this page. nableezy - 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 is a redirect to this page. Very bizarre how List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 redirects to here instead of to List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War. I'm going to get an admin. to change it. Its insane that its even protected.Chhe (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried that, go to that talk page and let your thoughts be known. nableezy - 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 following the Gaza War and List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 now redirects to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–09). 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 to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–09). 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 to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–09). 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}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the Gaza War (2008–09). 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090124171729/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2008/12/30/news/ML-Lebanon-Gaza-Boat.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/30/news/ML-Lebanon-Gaza-Boat.php

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911273819934831.html

[2] ttp://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/280740.php

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)#cite_note-refbot.471-1

[4] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=388CP9x-SE4

[5] ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/16/gaza-israel-khan-yunis-white-phosphorus

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]