Talk:Qassam rocket

This is not a forum for discussing opinions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that are unrelated to the maintenance of this article. Any such messages will be deleted.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qassam rocket article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text after existing text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Bias

The bias in the second sentence below can hardly be doubted:

"In the course of these bombardments, which in some cases lasted hours at a time, dozens of shells were launched. The IDF has ensured the fire is very accurate and never aimed at populated areas, in order to refrain from hurting uninvolved Palestinian civilians."

Are we talking about the same Gaza? It's the most densely populated strip of land on Earth. Of course the IDF kills uninvolved civilians. What kind of bubble do you have to live in to not notice that?

It's the most densely populated strip of land on Earth. Well, according to Wikipedia that's not correct. Gibraltar density: 4,290/km2 or 11,154/sq mi; Hong Kong density: 6460/km2 or 15,737.9/sq mi; Monaco density: 15,142/km2 or 39,217/sq mi; Macau density: 18,568/km2 or 48,092/sq mi; Gaza Strip density: 4,118/km2 or 10,665/sq mi. I mean it's pretty densely populated but it's not the most densely populated strip of land on earth. 93.149.186.106 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if we are looking at facts, then you should know that a large part of the strip used to be part of Israeli settlements which are uninhabited now. Plus there are LOTS of open areas. The militants fire the rockets mostly from these areas because they are closer to the borders with Israel, whiich would make the rockets go deeper into Israel. So when the navy fired, it fired at those areas. --Spoil29

6000 Kassam rockets on Gush Katif

One fact that your article fails to notice is that at the date of the so called "unilateral withdrawal in 2005 of Israeli forces and civilians from the Gaza Strip" 6000 Kassam rockets had been fired on the Gush Katif area, about one rocket for each civilian living there. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.139.222 (talk • contribs) .

The regularly quoted 6000 actually includes mostly mortar. Long range kassams were not needed by the terrorists to hit Israeli civilian towns in Gush Katif. --Shuki 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

in the west banks fears section

in the west bank fears section, it's mentioned that someone "murdered" two Israeli soldiers. I'm sure some people on here would say that's a fair statement, and so would I, if they're willing to accept Israeli soldiers "murdering" Palestinian militants, as they are called. Speaking of which, aren't all combatants technically militants? why award the legitimate status of "soldier" to fighters of one side and not to the other?

When the Palestinians adopt a military uniform and declare war against Israel then and only then should their terrorist actions against the IDF be considered an act or war rather than murder. Their terrorist acts against civillians will never be acceptable under the laws of war. When the IDF fires at terrorists in self-defense, even if pre-emptive, that is not murder. Get it? --138.162.0.43 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The post made here by 138.162.0.43:

(...)"When the IDF fires at terrorists in self-defense, even if pre-emptive, that is not murder. Get it?"

is an opinion. It's not what this site should be about. Armed forces in other countries are soldiers at war. They can by international law be called murderers by killing non-combatants. Fighting armed forces invading is not murder but whether you recognize Palestine as a state or not makes a technical difference if a bit far-fetched (the State of Israel does not). Referring to IDF soldiers being killed by palestinians in the occupied territories as being "murdered" is a biased point of view. As is referring to palestinians fighting IDF in the occupied territories as "terrorists". A neutral (if possible) point of view on this conflict will consider the occupied territories to in fact be occupied and not belonging to the state of Israel. 22:24, 16. August 2008

About the killing of civilians by IDF artillery fire: it is a well-documented phenomena, treated by such radical anti-Semitic terrorists as the International Committee of the Red Cross and many of the numerous international aid organizations operating within the occupied territories. That includes some Israeli organizations (or "self-hating Jews," for those of you who'd prefer). Google it.

What is also well documented is terrorists disguising themselves as civilians and hiding among Palestinian civilians to use them as human shields. Unlike Palestinian terrorist actions against Israelis, what is not documented at all is the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians by the IDF. Understand? --138.162.0.43 20:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

npov

this article could have a little more info about the qassam itself -- how it is made, how powerful it is, how accurate, who designed it, where it is constructed, how do these palestinians get the explosives to make them, etc. beyond that, for the uninformed, could we know us what is actually in range of these rockets? who gave these rockets the name qassam 1, 2, 3? do the palestinians have a procurmenet budget with line items with these names? i personally find it hard to believe that palestinians can manufacture effective long-range rockets.

the npov part of this whole thing is the lengthy section on notable qassam attacks with no context. some of the casualty reports make it hard to keep a straight face...such as the one where eight people went into shock, including four children. maybe we could shoot for a summary that includes the number of rockets fired (maybe a graph with # per month) and the number of people injured and killed by the rockets, and a the number of total people killed on both sides for a little context.

I agree, Other sections on military weapons do not give details of all the people killed and wounded by them. Make this an article on the rocket, start another article if you must giving details of all the attacks on civilans by rockets, bombs and missiles in Isreali-Arab conflicts.

Herne nz 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Other military weapons are not targeted nearly exclusively on a civilian population as the Qassam is. As such those they kill are an unfortunate fact of war. --138.162.5.9 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "List of notable Qassam attacks" section suggests POV - it does read like sensational headlines without real context. On the other hand, the "Casualties in proportion" section smacks of the opposite POV. A discussion of proportionate casualties seems like a good idea. However, Norman Finkelstein obviously has a strong POV - so, including this lengthy quote without any analysis or balance adds too much bias to a relatively short article.

Casualties in proportion is indeed POV as it treats the deaths of Israeli civilians as equivalent to the deaths of Palestinian terrorists. There is no attempt to break down how many among the 80 were Palestinian civialians and how many of those were deliberately targeted by the IDF as the Palestinians have directly targeted Israeli civilians. As such the treatment isn't proportional at all. --138.162.5.9 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Justforasecond is on the right track. I suggest these two sections be merged - perhaps some kind of analysis of the monthly deaths and injuries resulting from the rockets, with a comparison to the monthly deaths and injuries incurred in the larger conflict. I think this would provide encyclopedic and NPOV data while helping to define the relative significance of the rocket attacks within the larger struggle.--Qball6 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the lists to List of Qassam rocket attacks was easy. Removing the other material will require some more work. Sorry if that left it out of balance, but more material has to go anyway. The basic history of this weapon's use can belong here, but the discussion of proportion and morality belongs in a history article. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 02:09 Z

Agreed. Discussions of that sort belong somewhere in the Arab-Israeli conflict series, not on a page like this. Obviously there should be a link to the discussion and maybe a couple lines but not more. This is a page about a weapon, not about the ethics and moralities of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. nadav 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my recent edit thoroughly de-POVs the article, although the content I removed may need further de-POVing if it is to be used in an article on the history of Palestinian rocket attacks. If there are no objections, I will remove the tag a week from now. Balancer 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a wiki noob, i hope i don't accidently fuck something up here. Just wanted to say that this article definetly should include the purpose of the rocket, which is not military in nature but more of a strategic terror weapon(not unlike V1/V2). It has neither the precision nor the possibility to saturate a target which definitly means there's no military use for it.

Crap.

This article really needs to be restarted, I came here looking for technical information on the rocket itself and what do I get? Tons of arguing about the morality of these things from each side trying to push their respective agendas. EiZei 12:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur w/ EiZei. -- Szvest 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is important to describe civilian casualties caused by rockets, missiles and bombs in the Middle East conflict, but this is not the right page for it. Adding death counts to this page is biased, as it will only cover deaths caused by the Qassan, and this is not balanced by the deaths of civilians caused by other types of missiles fired at civilian areas.

I say - cut this page down to what is expected of an article on military hardware. Transfer all the good work to another page called say "War on Civilians in the Middle East", link this article to it, and cover attacks on civilians in the Middle East, regardless of race or religion.

Herne nz 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Those who want to cut this article down to a dry list of measurements and capabilities seem to want to minimize the terror and destruction that this missile is used for. This is not just a regular military armament like the frog or the fajr which were developed mainly to be used against military targets. In contrast, the kassam rocket is used primarlily and virtually only to attack civilian locations. --Shuki 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to minimize the terror and destruction that this missiles is used for but I do want to see a even-handed coverage of this topic.

If you can direct me to the page that covers the terror and destr

uction caused by missiles travelling across the border the other way, or another page on a military weapon which goes into as much detail on casualties as compared to facts about the rocket as this one does, I would be happy to leave this page as is.

Perhaps you could start your search on missiles by looking up what Wikiedia already covers on the German V1 and V2.Herne nz 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone way over the top with the detailed lists of casualties' names and incidents. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 09:01 Z

I agree. I would expect Kassam_Rocket article to be about the rocket, the technical details about the rocket (and possibly about the launchers used to launch them). A mention of it being used in the current Israel Palestine conflict is on order and then one could create a page Kassam Rocket Attacks, or some such for describing its use in the current conflict. If I come to Kassam Rocket page, I expect that I will find the technical details. This is wikipedia, and I and many others come here to check on actual facts. Like how far can they be propelled, what kind of launcher equipemnt one needs to use them, etc. These are valuable for anybody trying to understand what's happening within the conflict beyong rethoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.250.185 (talk • contribs)

It is not about minimizing or maximizing the "terror and destruction" as there's no single missile on earth that is used for the sake of peace. All missiles are for terror and destruction. We are talking here about the technicalities. If you mean that the missiles dropped over Lebanon and the Occupied territories are softer or that they never target civilians than all the above is pure crap and biased. -- Szvest 09:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the employment of ordnance dropped on military forces, and that used to destroy a country's military or civilian infrastructure, and that fired randomly into populated areas. The fact that this weapon has been mainly employed a certain way, that it was built for that purpose may be relevant to mention here.

A discussion of the morality, however, probably belongs in an article about the particular conflict or about unconventional warfare. A list of names of casualties or a "list of notable Qassam attacks" isn't encyclopedic, and probably belongs on someone's political weblog. Let's start cleaning this article up. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 01:26 Z

I've removed the list of attacks to List of Qassam rocket attacks. —Michael Z. 2006-07-25 01:35 Z

Kudos for taking the bull by the horns! Moving the list was a good start. I decided to be similarly bold. There was really only one piece of real information in the "Casualties" section - i.e. that 13 people had been killed by Qassam attacks. So, I moved this item to the history section; it doesn't make any sense to have a separate section for just one fact and a couple of barely related reaction opinions. I also removed the Norman Finkelstein quote - I never understood why it was there and no-one seemed to be defending it. In fact, it contradicted the other text in that section - the former "Casualty" section said there were 13 deaths, while the Finkelstein quote said 8. Finally, I moved the Peres reference to reaction, where it seems more appropriate. However, I would not object if there were a consensus to remove it altogether.--Qball6 03:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It still leaves this article very different from articles on other weapons and creates new problems. An article called List of Qassam rocket attacks could really be called List of rocket attacks by Palestineans on Israelis because that is who fires them and who are harmed by them. Missing are the rocket and bombing attacks on civilians by the other side in this conflict, and this means the article does not have a neutral point of view. Other weapons used in this conflict such as the Apache Helicopter or the Merkava tank do not cover the civilian death toll they have caused. Why do we apply a different standard for this weapon? And where is the article on List of Apache Helicoper rocket attacks?

I believe the place to put all these attacks is on the Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2005 page, and make this strictly a technical page. Herne nz 08:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This weapon, as well as the katyusha used in the 2006 Isr-Leb conflict, is distinguished since it is specifically used to terrorize a civilian population. It is not a regular weapon used in an exchange of military hostilities. Frankly, it is special since it is not like all other mass produced weapons either. The purpose of the Qassam is also defiitely not micro/tactical, but rather macro/strategic. --Shuki 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

People are looking for facts when they open an encyclopedia. Having something here "to show the terror" would be like having a line saying "the atom bomb is a terrible-terrible weapon" at Nuclear weapon, or that "Stalin was a doody-head" at Communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.184.43 (talk • contribs)

Please see Terrorism in wikitionary. The nuclear bomb was also a strategic weapon, but it wasn't merely fired at will a few thousand times at specific civilian targets. The facts are plain and simple here. The use of the Qassam is specifically to kill Jewish civilians. This is not a defensive weapon since it isn't aimed at Israeli military targets which are active in Gaza and few of the thousands of rocket launches were actually fired at military targets. --Shuki 23:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You clearly have an axe to grind. It's a weapon, therefore this section should describe it as such. It's not part of the conflict anymore than Israeli tanks, Molotov cocktails or even stones are. This is a red herring, and a pretty destructive at that.

Following your POV (!!!), one could have the sentence "These glorious weapons are great tools against the zionist occupation". Not that I identify with that sentiment, just that what you're preaching is that this encyclopedia should identify with one side of the conflict.

Determining the focus of an article on a weapon by the morality of its use is the definition of POV. Ashmoo 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Shuki et al Aren't all weapons instruments of terror designed to frighten citizens? Therefore the targets and casualties caused by the Qassam creates an aire of bias. One more question. In article about swords, would you put in there the use of swords against people in the Sudan and how many casualties? You might, but that discussion belongs somewhere else. There are a few other things wrong with this article, but all having to do with not staying on the topic of Qassams. Please fix this article! al 20:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeez oh man! People! I came to read about the weapon, found little out, and then come here to find out why. the reason is exactly what I thught it would be - Hazbarah at it again. What the hell does the word Qasam meen? Can we have that in the article at least. Why is there an article about a divice witha on-english name and we don't even have a translation? We all know why.

Ths is what's ruining wikipedia. People using it for their POV pushing. "The use of the Qassam is specifically to kill Jewish civilians." What? A lot of them hit Flatbush lately? And they have special guidance so they miss Thai workers, Israeli Arabs, Russian Christian, Maronite monks or any of the other types of people on the other side of the Gaza border?

The rocket is as accurate as it can be made, and it is used in the same way any innacurate rocket of it's type can be used. Point in a direction and fire. Can we please have an article about why that is, what its targeting is like, its payload, where its made and leave the whiny BS out of this article. I'd like to know what the word meens for starters. If someone tranlsates the word, then we can put in the word "antisemitism" and "holocaust" 52 times somewhere in the article to appease the usual suspects. 79.177.238.63 (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"What the hell does the word Qasam meen? Can we have that in the article at least." Its in the article;

Qassam rockets are named after the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the armed branch of Hamas, itself named after an Islamic Mojahed and fighter Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who led a Palestinian fighters group during the 1930s.

all your other questions are answered also. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all other weapons articles have an Operational History section describing specific uses and abuses of the weapon. For instance, the article on the Rim-66 Standard missile talks about the shoot down of Iran Flight 655. Denying such a section in this article is clearly biased and hypocritical. Either take out the op history section from all other weapon system articles, or stop whining about there being one here. Once one includes an honest op history section on the attacks, readers can make their own moral judgements.

You can't have it both ways. 71.226.132.219 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rocket attacks or Qassam

This article needs to decide if it is about the Qassam rocket or Palestinian use of rockets' in general. Multiple mentions are made of other rockets such as the Gladrocket and the Katyusha which seem to have no connection to the Qassam except that they are rockets and used by the Palestinians. Ashmoo 06:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This, in turn, is what is giving this article NPOV problems. An article simply titled "Qassam Rocket" should, like most other articles on bits of military hardware, concentrate on the device itself; who madeit, what its specifications are, how many are produced, when the various models came out, etc. Balancer 08:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Clipped material

In order to fix this article up, I've clipped a large amount of material that may be useful in writing an article on the general history of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Given the amount of material, it seems like this could be a notable subject. Balancer 09:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Large numbers of rockets began landing in the Western Negev in March of 2006: 49 in March, 64 in April, 46 in May, and over 83 by the end of June. This prompted protests and a demonstration in the town of Sderot, which has been a major target.

Israeli cities and towns have been the main target of Qassams. In some areas, such as Sderot and some Israeli settlements in Gaza, shelling occurred frequently. They usually land in open areas, but Qassam rockets have killed 6 to 8 Israelis, three foreign workers and some Palestinians to date. The first fatalities caused by a Qassam occurred on September 29, 2004. A rocket fell in the town of Sderot, killing Dorit Benisian, aged 2 and Yuval Abebeh, 4.

In August 2003, a Qassam traveled five miles from the Gaza Strip into Israel and landed near Ashkelon. Another rocket landed near Ashkelon on December 15, 2005, and rockets have hit near the city on several subsequent occasions. On June 29, 2006 a dud rocket landed in a neighborhood of Ashkelon for the first time. Ashkelon is the farthest city from Gaza to have been struck by the rockets. The city provides numerous attractive targets besides its civilian population. Defined as 'national infrastructure' installations, the Rottenberg Power Station and the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline have both been hit a few times causing minor damage.

Other Israeli communities in the Negev to have been hit by Qassam rockets include Or HaNer, Nirim, and Nahal Oz.

On December 26, 2005, the military wing of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed it possessed BM-21 Gradrockets with a range of twenty-five kilometers (about 15 mi), and that it could hit southern Israel communities previously immune to rocket threat. The group claimed, however, that it will not launch the rockets unless the IDF attacks the Gaza Strip or assassinates one of their leaders.

Despite the Qassam's meager characteristics as a rocket, its use shocked the Israeli army and public, who were used to the Palestinians lacking any method of long-range military weaponry. Many civilian leaders and politicians even ridiculed the idea. Hezbollah, in contrast, has long shelled Israel from Lebanon using Katyusha rockets, hitting cities as well as farms and military targets in the sparsely populated northern border zone.

Shimon Peres claimed that Israel can afford to ignore Qassam fire. "This hysteria over the Qassams must end," he told journalists at the Knesset. "We're just adding to the hysteria. What happened? Kiryat Shmona was shelled for years. What, there weren't missiles?" Right wing Israelis counter that Israel cannot permit militants to continually impinge its sovereignty and security with impunity.

Most of the launches prior to 2006 were carried out by Hamas from the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun. Following Hamas's victory in Palestinian elections, other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have launched Qassams as well.

In November 2005, the press reported that the Israel Defense Forces would be purchasing Skyshield, a Swiss-designed rapid fire anti-aircraft defense system specifically to counter any future Qassam attacks. However in January 2006 Director-general of the Ministry of Defense, Yaakov Toran, said "We can’t invest millions in protection – that would be a strategic mistake. We need minimal protective solutions for vulnerable positions. ... we need to remember that Qassams are more a psychological than physical threat."

Israel has tried to stop the development and manufacture of such rockets by extensive crackdowns on launchers, including assassinations, and by the destruction of facilities (such as metal shops) which are, or could be used for their construction. It has also destroyed the family homes of many Palestinians involved in the construction or firing of rockets.

Qassam launches have also been the catalyst for a number of large-scale Israeli raids on Gaza, such as Operation Days of Penitence in October 2004. Operation Summer Rains, begun June 27 2006, was triggered by the abduction of Cpl Gilad Shalit from an Israeli outpost, but it also reflected pressure on the Israel government and IDF to stop the Qassams.

Israeli Naval Response

On March 29, 2006, Israeli Sea Corps (Israeli Navy) vessels shelled rocket launching sites in the Gaza Strip for the first time. The ISC directed artillery shells at areas in Gaza used by rocket launching cells, mostly in the northern part of the Strip, in a bid to deter militant cells from operating there.

In the course of these bombardments, which in some cases lasted hours at a time, dozens of shells were launched. Israel has claimed the fire is very accurate and never aimed at populated areas, in order to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties.

West Bank Fears

A particular concern for the Israelis is the development of longer-range Qassam missiles that, if fielded by Hamas in the West Bank, could be used to strike at the cities in the country's coastal heartland. Numerous attempts have been made to transfer the production of the rockets to the West Bank, but most have failed, as there has only been one rocket attack from that region.

On December 11, 2005, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed to have fired a Qassam rocket from the West Bank at Israeli civilian targets. However, Israeli officials denied such a launch took place, saying the claim was either a lie or the rocket malfunctioned. Three days later, on December 14, an Israeli operation in the West Bank town of Nablus uncovered explosive labs which were producing Qassam rockets. In January 2006, however, Israel reported that a Qassam had indeed been launched from the West Bank.

On April 9, 2006, members of the elite Duvdevan Battalion, which specializes in undercover operations, killed Tanzim fugitive Jabar Akhras in Bethlehem, after he opened fire on them during an arrest operation. Akhras personally killed two Israeli soldiers on November 18, 2003, and Israel said he had been the leading figure in attempting to build Qassams in the West Bank.

On July 9, 2006, a Palestinian attack attempt to fire an improvised rocket from the Tulkarem area failed. Several Palestinian sources boasted during the weekend that they "managed" to launch a rocket, but it turned out that the attempt failed completely.

On July 11, 2006, for the second time in past few days Palestinian militants attempted to launch a rocket from northern West Bank into Israel. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and The Al-Quds brigades claimed they succeeded in launching a rocket from the West Bank town of Jenin into Israel. IDF officials have denied any knowledge regarding the rocket launch attempt, saying that if one took place the rocket may not have reached the lift-off stage.

Katyusha Fears

On March 28, 2006, Islamic Jihad fired a 122mm (4.8") calibre Katyusha rocket (2.8 meters or 9 ft long, weighing 66 kilograms or about 150 lb) and carrying a 17-kilogram (38 lb) warhead; see BM-21), a much longer-range projectile than the Qassam, from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Katyushas have never before been fired from the Palestinian controlled areas. It is believed that it was orchestrated by Hezbollah, since they are known to use these rockets in northern Israel. Islamic Jihad spokesman Abu Abdullah claimed that hundreds of these rockets were smuggled into the Gaza Strip by ship across the Gaza-Egypt border from Sinai. Israeli officials downplayed Islamic Jihad's announcement and said the militant group was in possession of only "a small amount" of Katyushas.

Here's more:

• "Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza" (PDF). Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement [1]. January 2007. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• "The scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip". B'Tselem. Retrieved 2007-06-04.

Thanks to Doron for wikifying the references, but we shouldn't have a discussion about the extent of current Israeli control on this entry. I've tried to rewrite the paragraph in question to take no position on the issue, instead just stating the most uncontroversial parts, and focusing on how Israeli control relates to the tactical considerations for the rocket. Tewfik^Talk 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done.--Doron 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the article it is stated that both Katyusha and Grad are general terms for artillery rockets. I removed Grad is the name of a very specific rocket (the 122mm one fired by BM-21 launchers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.90.0 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I've added the number of dead and a ballpark for attacks in the lead. If people have a problem with that, I'm open to discussion. I'd also add that I am open to changing the source, since the number originally in the text was uncited. I know that Seale has had trouble in the past with the numbers, but he's still being printed in a reliable source. However, I'd like another reference - preferably not one from a partisan source - if possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The dead is listed as 11, but the photo below apparently showing citizens 'killed' in rocket attacks has at least 13 photos. I suggest the casualty number be revised - it is over a year old. Moltovivo (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article is disputed

I think the netruality of this article is seriuosly disputed. Either a tag should be put on it or extensively edited. I honestly doubt that it confers to the standarts of wikipedia that is observed and enforced in other articles. Which in my humble opinion serves a purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.51.198 (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Expertise? More like expertise in lying

"Qassams are sometimes referred to as "homemade" or "primitive", but require "both expertise and dedicated locations to manufacture"." is a quite dubious statement.. I mean, the rockets are obviously made out of the poles from road signs and similar.. Packed with a nitrate and sugar charge as propellant, and then some homemade urea nitrate, smuggled TNT and detononator fitted at the top.. Expertise required to make something like that? Please.. this is nothing but propaganda aimed at making it look like the palestinans have this "horrible weapon" and these "advanced manufacturing plants" to make it. Anyone with the slightest understanding of chemistry and mechanics could make one of these in their living room, only part that's hard to get is the TNT and the detonator and that is most surely smuggled in.

The so called "source" of this nonsense is "honestreporting.com" btw.. A well-known Israeli propaganda page.. So it's nothing but propaganda and so doesn't belong in an encylopedia. I'm going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.181.98 (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Lead section

The lead section reads:

"The Gaza Strip has been separated from Israel by a security barrier since 1996, which frustrated infiltration into Israel. During its 2005 unilateral disengagement plan, Israel withdrew its civilian and military presence, retaining control over airspace and maritime access. While Qassam rockets were fired regularly even prior to the Israeli Disengagement, the absence of access to targets on the ground has increased the relevance of the rockets, since they were designed to fly over the barrier and strike Israeli targets outside the Strip. Hamas had difficulty establishing rocket-producing and launching infrastructure in the West Bank."

In addition to the implied POV that the Qassam is somehow ín "increased relevance" because infiltration of Israel is frustrated, I fail to see, that the use of the rocket or its purpose in on ongoing conflict has any relevance to this article about the weapon itself. It should be removed. --Sir48 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I tried to reword it, then couldn't actually work out what point exactly it was trying to make, so I replaced it with something much shorter. I don't feel anything more needs to be said, but let me know what you think. --Blinken (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Update Graph

What about an update of the graph on the number of rockets fired?

.. What relevance does the graph have to the article? None from what I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Impact

doi:10.1136/emj.2008.061143 - Emergency Medical Journal paper on the medical harm that can be done by a single Qassam. From an Israeli perspective, mind you, but some objective numbers. JFW | T@lk 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

I think the image of the rocketted doll and menorah is totally unnecessary and overly emotive. It shows us nothing useful about the Qassam rocket. Does anyone have a rationale for including it? Jddriessen (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Osher Twito picture

I'm sorry User:Mbz1, but Osher Twito is not notable enough to go in this article, offers little value add to the article anyway. Normally I would give you the benefit of the doubt, however your insertion of this picture/caption into at least 2 other articles says to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Regards Suicup (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the image should not be in this article as it adds little value. The same is true of File:A house in sderot hit by Qassam rocket.jpg. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, who was hurt by hamas Qassam rocket as much as this boy was is notable enough to go in this article. Caption was taken directly from the source.I do not need any benefits from you. I know what you are about. It is not me, but you who is making a point by removing the image for the third time in half-an-hour. @Mgiganteus1 I see you are not only a big specialist in giraffes necking behavior, but also in Qassam rockets. What an amazing diapason of knowledge! Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon Mbz1, you're better than this. There's enough sh!t going on from both "sides" in other articles, that if you wish to lower yourself to that level, there are plenty of other articles to choose from. It's bad enough that people try to introduce emotive pictures and phrasing into what should be factual discourses (ie encylcopedic articles), but now you wish to use poor little Osher's picture (without his permission) to push a point of view. You need to read what Wikipedia has to say about including information relating to living persons. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to include a photograph of one particular individual who was injured by a particular weapon in an article about that weapon. Have a look at Frog-7 for an example of a good article about a rocket-powered explosive weapon. Secret Squïrrel 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really, Secret Squïrrel? And what about White phosphorus? Is this OK to include the image of little poor Ayman al-Najar (without his permission) to push a point of view or it is just double standards?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is general knowledge as to the type of damage caused by military rockets. A picture of a building with some holes in the walls or of a boy missing a leg does not add to the article in any way suitable for an encyclopaedia. White phosphorus is an unusual weapon and its effects are not well-known to the lay person. While it would be equally emotive and unhelpful to include a picture of a young boy in a wheelchair covered in bandages, it is entirely appropriate to include a closeup picture showing the effects of this weapon. The picture you mention does not identify the person and the caption does not indicate that the victim is a child. I have edited the description of the original photograph to remove identifying information, including the boy's age. Secret Squïrrel 02:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The caption has many links that identify the person and his age alright. Many people do not know what Qassam rockets are and what kind of demage they could make. They believe those rockets just the toys. So, I repeat once again it is a doble standards in effect here for everything that concerns Israeli victims. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. We're talking different languages.I would only like to add that I do not respect your opinion, Secret Squïrrel. When you removed my image of necking behavior from giraffe with the summary: "the orig is MUCH clearer, the new one shows a jumble of legs and NO necking" you proved that you're talking about the subjects that you have no slightest idea about. BTW are you and Mgiganteus1 always working in pairs?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicup is right that this picture is merely imflammatory. As is, for example, the picture of a dead girl or bombed-out houses in 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties, or the pictures of Hazar Turki and Dina Turki in Eden Natan-Zada, or the picture of the charred bus at Coastal Road massacre. Or, for that matter, the extensive quotes of hate mail, hateful quotations, highlighting of extremist statements and the obsession with acts of extreme violence that characterize all Middle East articles. They are all gratuitous attempts to imflame passions and show how evil the other guys are.

All of this hatemongering renders the Middle East coverage of the Wikipedia totally worthless as a source of reliable information, and, rather, turns it into a platform for cheap propaganda.

I would be glad to see all of this imflammatory material removed, and I don't care if it starts with this article. As long as it doesn't end here. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could agree with you about this. Wikipedia is not a good place to discuss conflict. It was not me, who started this "propaganda war", but as long as it is going on I believe Israeli victims images should be used as Arab victims images are, and I doubt very much, you would be allowed to take them off the articles. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that certain images should not be in the article to create sensationalism, for example the destroyed Judaica image, or the anonymous-girl-with-the-teddy-bear image. However, in the case of Osher Twito in particular, I believe that his photo does belong in the article. The reason is that he has become a symbol of the suffering on the Israeli side because of Qassam rockets, much like Muhammad al-Durrah and the Second Intifada. I also believe that information about Osher Twito should be in the article itself, but due weight should be given. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that the Qassam rocket article is not just about the rocket, but also about the history of the rocket and how it is used. Because the rocket has been and continues to be used to injure small children, it is only appropriate that the this picture be in the article. If the concern is for NPOV, keep in mind that the Hamas members who use these rockets aim to injure and/or kill people like Osher. They are proud to see images like this one. Nobody is doing Hamas any favors by removing them. Including a picture of a Hamas "success" is about as neutral as one can get. Also, Ynhockey, the difference between Osher Twito and Muhammad al-Durrah is that Osher Twito really is what he claims to be (a victim of Palestinian terrorism) while there is increasing evidence that Muhammad al-Durrah was a hoax fabricated to promote antisemitism. --GHcool (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably Muhammad al-Durrah is a hoax.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re GHcool's Hamas rationalisation, that is rubbish. Removing this picture is simply about 1) keeping sensationalism and emotional persuasion out of an encyclopaedia article, 2) ensuring that pictures which do make it into articles actually add value, and are not simply spammed into as many articles as possible to make a point. I notice that another photo has been inserted, which depicts a cute little boy holding a teddy bear. IMO this is not an encyclopaedic way to illustrate the damage of the Qassam rocket, but rather a propagandistic method of emotional persuasion which would be better suited to an opinion piece in a daily tabloid. I mean come on. I'll also note that just because I oppose this picture doesn't mean I 'support' Hamas, so trying to frame an argument for keeping the photo by saying 'Hamas wouldn't mind' is highly offensive. But then, this is the Middle East on Wikipedia, where singlemindedness, severe bias, and personal accusations are standard fare. Suicup (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicup, please stop pushing your POV by removing images of Israeli victims from the articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicup, I am interested in knowing if you see a substantive difference between the use of the Osher Twito photo in this article, and the use of the other photos I mentioned above. As I said in my previous post, I support the removal of imflammatory material from the Wikipedia, but do not think it should be done selectively. Would you support a move, together with me, to remove the picture of the dead girl from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties? --Ravpapa (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid then we would need to remove way too many Arab propaganda images and articles like for example Muhammad al-Durrah which is a lie, but I am surely go for this. Lets remove the images of all the victims, not only Israeli ones.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so trigger-happy, Mbz1. The pro-Israelis have at least as many hatemongering images, if not more, than the pro-Palestinians. See, for example, Ben Yehuda Street bombings, Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing, Coastal Road massacre. We are talking about a major cleanup effort here that will remove the detritus from both sides. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you believe I am happy to see victims on any side, you are deeply mistaken. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I agree that the pictures of the dead Palestinians in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties article are unencyclopaedic, and probably should be removed. That said, while I applaud your wish for a 'major cleanup effort', I do not wish to get involved for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I simply don't have time at the moment. I mainly focus on the History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles in this topic, as any more and it just gets unwieldy to keep track. I only arrived here because User:Mbz1 inserted exactly the same picture into one of those articles, which led me to find he'd inserted it here (and elsewhere). Secondly, I have found the tactics of User:GHcool to be tiresome and frustrating, which reduces the incentive for me to pursue this issue of inappropriate picture removal on a larger scale. When I removed it on the History article, he initially opposed me, ignoring my arguments, and only backed down when another editor presented virtually the same arguments, which indicated to me that his opposition was personal. Furthermore, in this talk page, he has subtly implied that I support Hamas as I have explained in my comment above. Frankly this is just not on. Keep in mind, I am not saying that ALL pictures of victims/casualties etc should be banned, just that they have to have good reasons for being in the article. If they serve no purpose other than to get some sort of emotional reaction, then they obviously don't belong in the encyclopaedia. Good luck though - its good to see there are at least some people on Wikipedia who have common sense! Suicup (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Suicup, but I did not intend to imply that you support Hamas. Your political/religious motivations for removing images of Hamas victims are of no interest to me nor to the Wikipedia community as a whole. The only thing I am concerned with is to stop a WP:CENSOR attempt. I trust now that it has been explained, you will cease this futile campaign. Thank you in advance. --GHcool (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for inclusion.

Simulated view on Propaganda black hole

I don't see it as question of censoring. Clearly there is no WP:Consensus for inclusion. Some editors are bravely honest about their motivation and say this image is a proper answer to "Stop WP", "Gaza Massacre", "International Reaction" (my favorite) images in other articles. I disagree - such images generally should be removed. There is a clear danger of Wikipedia getting even closer to event horizon and falling into Propaganda black hole. Osher Twito image in particular should be removed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if I warm this up, after nearly four years. Without any special expectation (except some info), as I saw the picture of the boy my instantaneous reaction to the picture was: this doesn't belong here. I am at wiki for information. I agree with suicup, secret quirrel, ravpapa and AgadaUrbanit, they all argue for the cause of wiki and I don't really (want to) understand, why the picture stays in the article. MenkinAlRire (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs major expansion

The Qassam is an interesting rocket because it is unlike almost all contemporary ordinance in htat it is neither intended to nor is it capable of hitting military targets. This is because it is not accurate enough to actually target a target. It can only be used to target a regions. This makes it practically unique in that it is definitionally a weapon that targets a broad civilian population. The article, therefore, needs both coverage of this fact and many more photos of the kind of damage these rockets actually cause: to schools, homes and civilians. To potray it as a military weapon is fundamentally misleading.Historicist (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Historicist. May I please ask you to extand the article? My English is not very good. In a mean time I'm going to add the image that was removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is difficult to maintain with such inflammatory subject matter. However, many people (my simple self included) find the photos not so much an instrument or catalyst for hate-mongering but rather fascinating in that we did not, up until recent times, even know that 'sugar' propelled rockets existed! Part of the subject notability is the damage that can be done with simple household items, surely? On all sides, it is interesting to see the results; be it from the design perspective or the victim's. Ernstblumberg (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Emotive photo, inappropriate infobox?

This edit today adds a picture of a child reportedly injured by a Qassam. JDE, can you explain why you think this is appropriate for the article? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You just removed an infobox from an article, providing no explanation other than that you think the image on it is emotive. This behavior borders on vandalism. If you have concerns with the infobox template's image, you can raise them at the template's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

JDE, kindly refrain from accusing me of borderline vandalism, thank you. Can you address my concern now, please? Why you believe it appropriate for this article to include an image of an injured Israeli child? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I point out that you just today made and inserted an infobox into this article and 10 others, which are under Wikipedia general sanctions. You did not initiate discussion or offer explanation. Making and adding an infobox including a picture of an injured Israeli child could be construed as an attempt to circumvent consensus in an article where it was recently decided not to include a picture of an injured Israeli child. One other issue is original research. Request that you withdraw the infobox from all articles pending proper discussion and consensus. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing an infobox from an article, with no explanation other than that you think the image on it is emotive, borders on vandalism. (A proper course could be, for example, replacing the image.) It is unfortunate that rather than attempt to explain your behavior or apologize, you choose to smokescreen with various accusations at the person who called you out for it. This makes it even harder to assume that you are acting in good faith; nevertheless, I responded to your stated concern regarding the infobox on the infobox's talk page. I should also note that your retroactive change of the title of your comment could lead a naive reader to the false conclusion that you had expressed any concern regarding the infobox as a whole at the time you removed it.

In the interests of grasping any chance at cooperative dialogue, I will respond to your irrelevant accusations toward me, but will not respond if you continue to make them. As you seem to recognize, the infobox was not created for this article, and this article is merely one of the many relevant articles in which it was placed. Therefore the idea that it was created in order to circumvent any consensus on this article's talk page is unsound, to say the least. As it happens, I have hardly been active in this article and was not aware of the discussion to which you refer. The implication that I acted improperly by creating an infobox template without first initiating a discussion is simply absurd. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

JDE, please. You have refused to respect a request to hold off with your new infobox but it has been reverted by two different editors already today. Yet you have just pushed it back in again. Why are you not willing to discuss this obviously contentious edit? Do you believe that content inserted into an article through an "infobox" is somehow beyond reproach, or that an infobox is a spatial or design element rather than a content medium? An infobox is not a Trojan Horse. But, I imagine it took a long time for you to make and I will say it does have a nice clean look. Peace. RomaC (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Answers to your questions in order of presentation: 1. The question presupposes a falsehood: in fact, I have already gone above and beyond in an attempt to have a rational discussion about your removal of the infobox. 2. No, and no. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The image on the infobox has just been replaced, following an edit by a user who acted properly. It would thus seem that your stated concern about the image, as well as my concern over your behavior, are moot. Hopefully we can all get back to work now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO the edits that were done by Jalapenos do exist should stay in the article. IMO it is wrong to remove the images without discussing their removal at the talk page before removing the images. Infobox image has nothing to do with the original recearch. It was based on facts and findings of UN commision.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

i agree with the removal of the template. not sure what this adds to the encyclopedia. should we have a template for "israeli attacks on palestinians" that could be placed on the idf page? seems npov and undue might cover these. untwirl(talk) 04:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

This merge is completely nonsensical. Surely, something about Qassam rockets can be included in the IED article but this is a unique phenomena unto itself that has had seriously implications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suggest that this merge proposition be dropped.ShamWow (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Rwendland (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree (with proviso that) Qassam rockets be included in IEDs page as per ShamWow (talk) suggestion. Ernstblumberg (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. If there is no disagreement let's proceed with deleting the merge proposal. ShamWow (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

American Bandstand?

Can somebody translate Qassam? Thx. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 11:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

POV images, etc

This is a weapons page, not a place for discussing Middle Eastern conflict. Please keep those items on other pages, which can be linked here of course. Thanks Publicus 02:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed above already. The sourced relevant material belongs in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was wrong. Its a POV image, doesn't belong. Publicus 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably know that "it's wrong" is not a valid argument in the fact of a consensus. The results of the use of the Qassam Rocket are perfectly appropriate for an article about the Qassam rocket. The fact that it's a specific belligerent that uses this type of rocket does not mean it's a "POV problem." For one example, see White phosphorus, which correctly included a picture that depicts the alleged Israeli use in Gaza. Also note that you violated the 1rr restriction by reverting twice in 24 hours. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

White phosophorus is kind of poor comparison since it is a unique wounding weapon. This is just a rocket, so showing a victim of a rocket attack really doesn't add anything--and it's an especially POV image because it's a little kid. Hellfire missiles are used pretty regularly to blow up various people and no one at that article saw fit to include images of the victims, instead those images are on other related pages. Publicus 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, it's not a consensus anymore, since I disagree. Publicus 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

One person does not change a consensus. Qassam rockets are actual similar to white phosophorus because these rockets appear to unique to this specific conflict. It may indeed be a POV problem to place a picture of a victim from one side of a belligerency in an article about Hellfire missiles, that are widely used by different belligerents. This is clearly not the case with Qassam rockets. Regardless, multiple reliable sources discuss the Qassam rocket specifically as it pertains to the Israeli victims so one picture of an Israeli victim is wholly appropriate and consistent with NPOV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the distinction between White Phosphorous as a "unique wounding weapon" and the Qassam as a "unique wounding weapon". There is consensus to include this image, and your dissent does not change the consensus. Be mindful of the 1RR restriction, as well. Jeff Song (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP is definitely a unique weapon--also the image shown of the victim on that weapons page, only showed the type of wound--not for instance, a person involved in a particular conflict that has a WP wound. The different here which some editors fail to see for some reason--is this is a weapons page. It is an article titled "Qassam rocket" and should only have, like every other weapons page, details about the particular weapon. If editors wish to list all the victims of Qassam rockets and show their pictures--that is another article not this one. The image you keep putting in, has nothing to do with the type of weapon, there is no mention of a unique Qassam-type wound, the victim is not unique in any way. If this is all true, then to me it begs the very simple question why these editors on this article are so dedicated to putting an Israeli victim in the article, but completely neglecting to add say Afghan, Palestinian, etc--victims on the AGM Hellfire page. The basic answer is a POV one, which needs to be removed.Publicus 18:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also pretty telling that those editors who want this image on the article, seem to have little interest in improving the article beyond including POV images--it would be far more helpful to work on expanding the basic weapons info box or other areas related to Qassam use and development. Publicus 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are other weapons that are widely considered to be unique to certain victims images of those victims can be added to that article. I understand this is an article about the specific weapon, but in the real world these weapons do not just exist in a scientific technical vacuum. These weapons have an effect on people and this effect is part of the information an article about the weapon needs to be considered complete. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course this weapon, or any other weapon, don't exist in a vacuum--but on no other weapons page (that I've seen) is there an image of a victim of said weapon. Images of victims on a weapons page are POV, simply because the images of victims don't belong on an article talking about the weapon. The exception I would have to this, is if the weapon is unique in some way in its functions (such as WP), but even then you don't need to show a victim of a conflict that used the weapon, you would show a unique wound created by the weapon, as the WP article has done. A Qassam rocket, while a nasty little weapon, is simply a modified rocket type weapon, from what I've seen it doesn't appear to have anything unique about its function. It has the usual shrapnel and explosive damage caused by any other rocket type weapon. Therefore there really isn't any other reason to keep putting a victim image in this article. Especially since the victim image doesn't illustrate the function of the Qassam--it's not as tho the rocket targets people's legs or something special like that. Publicus 16:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at with regards to the type of unique wounds caused by phosphorous. I don't feel strongly about this - you can keep the image or remove it, if you get consensus. I'm neutral on it. Jeff Song (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the photo of the child victim is POV. All explosive weapons are designed to kill and maim.--Nowa (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Qassam is a crude unguided weapon that is filled with ball bearings. By its very nature, it is ineffective against small or moving targets. Rockets of this nature are fired indiscriminately and the casualties produced by these devices are not collateral but the intended targets and almost all of its victims are civilians. A 2008 study showed that over half of Sderot's residents are Qassam casuaties, either physically or psychologically [2]. In this regard, Qassam's are different than PGMs because PGMs are precisely guided and their intended targets are high value military targets, justifying their cost. When PGMs cause civ injuries, it is almost always collateral. Otherwise, plain gravity bombs, which are a lot cheaper, would be used. Since the Qassam is primarily and inherently a terror weapon, and since its used almost exclusively against civilian targets, the direct results of Qassam usage should be shown.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Davidka

I added a cross reference to Davidka. Both appear to be home made weapons that have played a role in this region.--Nowa (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a photo of an Israeli victim ?

Should there not be photos of victims in every article dealing with munitions and other weapons of war??...

seems like pretty clear cut, non neutral emotive propaganda to me...

--Savakk (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)