Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.226.14.184 (talk) at 09:34, 21 April 2012 (→‎Information from IDFBlog doesn't count as an RS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met

I assess the article, and I think this is the only thing not met. Basically it boils down to one thing: why are these attacks happening? In other words, it lacks due weight coverage on the Palestinian's groups rationale for the attacks, and this severely limits the quality of the article. Everything else I think is a great contribution.--Cerejota (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very difficult problem, as it's hard to find statements by the groups responsible for the attacks coherently explaining their rationale. I spent quite a bit of time on the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam website, and they just don't have a press release saying "Rocket attacks: why we launch them" or anything even close to that. Googling yields very limited results too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know its difficult, but it is neither impossible, nor is difficulty a reason to not have it. Several of these groups have indeed published press releases with their justification for the attacks. Until this article includes such perspectives, it will be incomplete. That Israel has a great media infrastructure, superior PR, and is on the receiving end of the attacks, is no excuse for such lack of relevant information. I also noticed, afterward, that there is very little elaboration on the Israeli response, in spite of they being mentioned in the lead. For example, over one thousand people died in the most recent IDF operation, which was clearly stated to be a result of rocket attacks. Such lack of context affects the coverage and accuracy of this article. --Cerejota (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the rationales: can you give me the links to the press releases you talked about so I can integrate them into the article? Re the Israeli offensive responses, I indeed considered creating a section on that after the Defensive measures section, but in the end I think that the paragraph in the lede places the article's subject within the context of other subjects, and that Israeli offensive responses are indeed other subjects and can be read about in the appropriate articles, which are linked to. I could be convinced otherwise, but haven't been yet. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finding official reasons for firing the rockets might be hard to find, but there are notable analyses. A quick Google search found several, including: [1], [2], [3]. The article could also use a minor copyedit and has a few unsourced paragraphs. Asides from that, kudos on a very comprehensive article! Cheers, Nudve (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but these sources don't deliver the goods. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How not so? They are actually quite good.--Cerejota (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought what you found lacking in the article was the POV of the attackers: what they are trying to achieve (in their own words) and their justification of the, ahem, controversial character of the attacks. The sources Nudve brought include some analysis by third parties on why the attackers choose this type of attack and not others, but nothing (even by third parties) on what the general position of the attackers is. On a related note, the reliability of source #2 could be contested, though it seems fine to me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah by no means do they resolve all of those issues, but they do expand on the general topic of "why" this is chosen as a military tactic. Even if my third parties, it provides a perspective not currently in the article. Basically, this article currently has a one sided perspective (regardless of sources) - that of the receiving end of the attacks. That seriously limits the encyclopedic coverage of the article. However, this should not mean that we should remove material, but expand with sources as they appear. I will admit I have been very busy in the last week, but the sources are out there.
Strategypages.com is a low quality RS, which I consider supplementary, but it is used in a wide swath of MILHIST articles, and generally considered RS by the milhist people, again as supplementary to information from more reliable sources. I would like to see more of these being used in ARBPIA, instead of the news and partisan sources we are so accustomed to seeing.--Cerejota (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly rather use the military analysis sites, simply because they have a higher level of analysis than the news sites, but I always worry that they'll get contested. Is there a consensus anywhere on which of these sites are usable? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really any consensus discussion, but they stand uncontested in a number of the milhist articles, which I read a lot (probably the area I read the most). It is borderline indefensible (ie, if it is controversial, it should probably go), but if there is no controversy it seems people have not had a problem with it. Some examples: USS Omaha (CL-4), Type 214 submarine, USS Somers (DD-381), Interceptor body armor, Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon.--Cerejota (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting that in Israel-Palestine articles, everything is controversial. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did :D--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This sums it up in a nutshell doesn't it ? From the BBC

Why does Hamas fire missiles into Israel? Hamas is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. It regards the whole of historic Palestine as Islamic land and therefore views the state of Israel as an occupier, though it has offered a 10-year "truce" if Israel withdraws to the lines held before the war of 1967. It therefore generally justifies any actions against Israel, which has included suicide bombings and rocket attacks, as legitimate resistance. Specifically in Gaza, it argued that Israel's blockade justified a counter-attack by any means possible.

<ref name="BBC-QA-Gazaconflict">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818022.stm|title=Q&A: Gaza conflict|date=2009-01-18|publisher=[[BBC]]|accessdate=2009-04-28}}</ref> Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but it doesn't come from Hamas and thus cannot fill the need to present Hamas's POV. Still, it's concise and from a reliable source, so I'm adding it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recent Amnesty International report (p72) contains quotes from Hamas, PFLP and al-Aqsa Brigades just in case you are still interested in this stuff. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I read through it and I will use it when I have some time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads more like a poorly written, rambling tirade than an encyclopedia article. It needs to cite its facts, adopt an unbiased POV, and remove irrelevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.195.134 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm really concerned about this article being part of an encyclopedia. There may always be some controversial viewpoints regarding this conflict, but is it necessary that

  • we know about the name, age, injuries, appearence (obviously biased photography) and history of one single victim of this conflict starting in 1956, if WP doesn't mention even one of the hundreds of Gazan children slaughtered in recent escalations?
  • we have four different schemata of insurrectionist fire, while there's no graph for the more effective and fatal IAF bombardments over the last 53 years?
  • the article features "psychological" effects, while no single article on WP mentions psychological effects of 53 years of Israeli incursion, bombardments, siege and starvation in Gaza?
  • the double life of a teacher is covered in an overview about "Rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel"?

I want to see those rocket-launchers in dungeons, too! But that's no reason to write a large commiseration letter about the vanquishers' bravity in an encyclopedia. 80.180.27.60 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So not NPOV

What is the point of this template? Everyone knows that it is the Israeli drones and missiles that kill thousands of refugees a year. The title is not NPOV - why use Israel rather than "Occupied Territories". Jalepeanos has a history of POV edit warring, and I am deeply suspicious of his motives.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the rocket attacks are on Israel without any relation to areas under dispute (areas from 1947-8 desicions), you are welcome to provide an articale with credable sources and facts.109.226.53.77 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Material from List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001–2006

The material was compiled independently of this article, when that article served as a de-facto (if you will) introduction to the phenomenon. Most of the information in the material is already in this article at the time of this posting, but some of it isn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These attacks commenced in April, 2001, though the first rocket to actually hit an Israeli city was on 5 March 2002, and the first Israeli fatality was 28 June 2004. Approximately 450 Qassam rockets were fired into Israel between 2003 and 2004.[1] 7,500 rockets have hit Sderot from the period of 2001-2009.[2]

Hamas leaders have characterized the attacks as self-defense and as responses to the ongoing occupation, which includes the Blockade of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank Occupation, and the existence of Israel on Islamic land.[3][4] Hamas and Islamic Jihad have also carried out particular attacks as responses to assassinations of their leaders. Hamas has said that attacks from the Gaza Strip would temporarily end if Israel stopped military operations in the West Bank and Gaza and lifted its blockade.[5] Israel states that if the rocket attacks stop, their military operations will also stop and that the crossings were closed in response to Hamas attacks (usually on the crossings).[6]

According to Human rights watch, the Qassam rocket attacks violate the international humanitarian law prohibitions against attacks that target civilians or are indiscriminate.[3] According to Human rights watch, the groups that launch the rocket attacks from locations close to populated areas fail to protect civilians under their control against the consequences of the attacks, by deploying military targets near densely populated areas.[3]

The first rocket strike was on April 16, 2001, the first time an Israeli city was hit was on March 5, 2002, when two rockets struck Sderot. Some rockets have hit as far as the edge of Ashkelon. From 2001 until December, 2008, there have been over 4048 rockets and 4040 mortars fired at Israeli targets,[7][8] mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. From 2001 when the missile attacks started until 27 April 2008, 13 Israelis were killed by Qassam rockets. Until today, fifteen [9] Israelis have been killed and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage.

The Grad rocket has a 20.5 kilometer range. Qassam rockets have a range of 3 to 10 kilometers (2 to 6 mi). Most of Israel remains out of range. However, over time the range of the weapons used has increased. In the transition from Qassam 1 through to Qassam 3 the range went from 3 to 10 kilometers and the explosive payload went from 0.5 kilograms (1 lb) to 2 kilograms (4 lb), and this is expected to rise in the future. In October 2007 it was reported that members of the West Bank Palestinian al-Aqsa militia were using Google Earth to search for their targets.[10] Mortars have a range of 1.7 to 6.0 kilometers (1.0 to 3.8 mi). The Palestinian Sariya-1 is a 240 mm mortar with a 15 kilometer range.[11].

A radar system or "red dawn alarm", was installed by the Israeli government. Sderot had a system installed before September 2005.[12] Ashkelon began installation in July 2005 and by April 2006 the system was completely installed.[13] Red Color alerts Israelis to incoming rocket fire, but does not alert Israelis to mortar shelling. On cold or rainy days, the radar is ineffective in detecting the rocket launches. Sderot residents have 15 seconds, once the siren goes off, to escape to a bomb shelter. In 2005, Israel started a program to fortify homes and public buildings within range of Gaza missiles. This program was expanded in 2008, the cost estimates are over one billion shekels. An Iron Dome anti-rocket system is under development by Rafael. It is expected to be operational by 2011.[13]

The attacks have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both children and adults, with an estimated 33% of children living in Sderot suffering from PTSD.[14][15]

Lack of the word "terror"

I'm confused as to why there is a lack of the word "terror" in this article, save a couple of indirect mentions of it. In reality it is clear that the article, like most others, has suffered at the hands of mass POV suppression of facts and truth, but I'm shocked to see that it sits in this state. Is anyone prepared to argue that inclusion of the term "terror" is inappropriate? Is it not an act of terrorism for "Palestinians" to launch "rocket attacks" on "Israel" (as per the title), especially when the self-stated goal of the attackers is to cause civilian casualties? Breein1007 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, terror can go both ways, one can generate it, one can reply to it, one can start it, both sides do terrorist acts but when it comes to destruction of civilians like 1400 deaths in Gaza war, at least 1000 civilians that's total war crime, here's interesting article how son of slain settler does not want retribution: www.google.co.uk/gwt/x?ct=np&ei=J0I2S_CKNNqpoAez04xe&source=m&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091225/wl_mideast_afp/mideastconflictwbankattack&whp=3115&wsc=gh&wsi=1d0133db1a1818ac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.38 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

Does anyone else think this page might qualify as a coatrack? NickCT (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is a bit coatrack-ish in the sense that it focuses on one aspect of complex conflict presenting information in a way that is rather detached from the over all context. It's similar to Israeli targeted killings I guess. Is it really any different from 2007–2010 blockade of the Gaza Strip though ? They're all coatrack-ish content forks because of the subject framing. What's the alternative ? It seems reasonable to have articles that focus on notable aspects of the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm a feel similarily Sean. It is definately coatrack-ish, and frankly, slightly unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, I think it can legitimately hide behind the fact that it does discuss a "notable aspect" of a noteworthy conflict. Any other editors have thoughts..? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may "hide" behind the fact that it covers a notable aspect of the conflict; however, it still requires contextual detail, which it does not offer. A reader of the article would be justified believing that Palestinians just want to destroy Israel because they believe that the entire area "belongs to them." Any article that covers this issue should dissuade readers from coming away with such a simplistic notion. One could simply add a few paragraphs that cover the issue from an historical perspective. Furthermore, the section on the reasons for the attacks is ludicrous and shameful. Why simply quote a Hamas source? That would be like quoting Obama about the reasons for American foreign policy. Instead, one should adduce historical, contextual details. I went to this page looking for real information about rocket attacks and was utterly dismayed by what appeared to be vulgar propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winegabo (talk • contribs) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propganda in WIKI

this whole article is attached to the propaganda israel used before its war on gaza last year. wiki is being abused. its sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article suffers from the same bias as printed encyclopaedias did in the past. What price truth? ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.147.14 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of dead

The chart gives 27, and the article gives 28--but neither of the footnotes that are offered to back up the number 28 seem to actually give that number.

This website gives a figure of 23, whereas this New York Times article doesn't seem to give any figure for total deaths.

Nareek (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post that when I too noticed the Discrepancy. We should change it to 23, which is what the link to The Israeli Project cites. Spartan2600 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One-Sided

This article is completely biased. There are plenty of Palestinian and neutral sources you can draw from to present a balanced article. There are also lots of books you could read, and even some which present both sides. When reading a Wiki article, the reader should not be aware of your bias, yet I was overwhelmingly clear on which side you 'support'.

You really need to give the Palestinian rationale for these attacks, perhaps briefly outline the history of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. There's a lot to outline, I know, but a potted account would help a little and more pointers could be supplied to unbiased articles that do exactly that. From your article, the casual reader would have no clue as to the Palestinian rationale, other than a few references to 'perceived' Israeli aggression. 'Perceived' is a very telling choice of word on your part, since you are citing actual (not perceived) Palestinian violence.

One thing that you could do is give some of the background of Israeli aggression when you make quotes such as the following, rather than just cite notes at the bottom: 'Regarding specific strikes in 2007, Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal called the attacks self-defense and retaliation against Israeli killings of Hamas supporters.[78] In January 2009 Mashaal called the rockets "our cry of protest to the world"[79] An attack in November 2008 was said by Hamas officials said to be in revenge for the recent deaths of its militants and increased Israeli closing of Gaza crossings.[80] A barrage in December 2008 was described by the group as retaliation for the deaths of three of its fighters in combat with Israeli troops.[81]

Above, you have listed three events but told us nothing about them. If you supplied some info, we would have a balanced picture. An article about attacks on Israel should give the why as well as the what.

Please can you correct this article? At the moment, it reads as something I'd expect to find on Conservapedia, which is very alarming. Wiki articles should not be full of obvious bias. Motives and Views are the worst parts of your article in this respect. Views gives all the condemnatory opinions. I am not condoning the violence, but I still want to read both sides of the story. Views come in a range, after all, but not according to what you've represented.

Also, the part about the two premature Palestinian babies was difficult to follow and contained spelling errors and typos.--78.151.79.61 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article details the POV of the attackers at great length, unusually great for WP articles dealing with the Middle East. This required quite a bit of effort, too, since the attackers typically don't present their POV in a coherent fashion or in an accessible medium. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it doesn't. And sorry, but they do. However I know there's not much point trying to ask for objectivity from someone who clearly has an agenda. --89.242.206.140 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Does anyone have a really solid source for the "Number of Rockets fired" numbers in the "Casualties" section table? The sourcing seems rather lightweight, and completely at varience with the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (close to IDF and MFA) numbers I've added. For example the source of the 2005 number is B'Tselem saying "According to UN figures, in 2005, 1,194 Qassam rockets were fired at Israel", wheras the IITIC tabulates 179 rocket launches for that year. I'll switch entirely to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center numbers if no-one can identify more solid sources for the existing numbers. Rwendland (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITIC and B'Tselem are both "solid sources". If the discrepancies can't be explained, both sets of figures should be presented in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cant list two widely disparate numbers just because they are both given by RS. If the discrepancies can't be explained the official count should be used. Heres a few sources on numbers that also give some background that can used in the article [4] [5] with this one the most up to date [6]. Wayne (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having just read the B'Tselem source I have found the reason for the discrepancy. They are citing UN estimates and the UN figures include rocket attacks from Lebanon. As for the Sderot Media Centre, although they cite this source for their numbers, this source actually supports the numbers Rwendland posted not the numbers the Sderot article gives, which in fact exceed even those given by B'Tselem by a considerable margin. It's a mystery where they got their numbers from. Wayne (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Dome intercept

The Grad intercept on April 7 was not the first time in history such a rocket was intercepted, the haaretz story is just wrong on that point. See here for example: [7] 188.192.9.154 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COMMONSENSE. It is wrong and thus i'm removing it. 31.16.48.131 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket attacks in 2012

The table featuring the number of rockets and mortars fired in 2012 needs to be updated. It lists a total of 14, but it is well known that in March over 300 rockets and mortars were fired. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information from IDFBlog doesn't count as an RS

I've added information previously removed from the page as the cite could not be accessed[8], so I googl'ed a bit and found the data the original person used as a source. now the cite is removed again [9] idfblog is registered to IDF and handled by the IDF spokesman unit so it is really interesting to see how IDF isn't a RS for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.46 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the blog is unreliable in toto. In this case unreliability is a result of generalisation. It appears to be making no distinction between rockets and mortars and does not separate attacks from Lebanon from those by Palestinians which gives substantially higher casualty rates than those officially given by the Israeli government. In regards to the edit statement claimed that chemical weapons had been used as early as 2006, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades may have claimed they fired one rocket with a chemical warhead in 2006, but the IDF say they could not find evidence supporting the claim and no one in Israel had reported such a weapon actually being used. Considering the claim is six years old, is only one rocket, and is denied by Israel, mention is POV. In regards to the edit As of 2009 some of the shells and rockets have warheads including white phosphorus... as they numbered five in total over three years which caused no injuries and more importantly, were recovered munitions that Israel itself fired on Gaza during Operation Cast Lead and that Palestinian militant groups have stated that they will not use phosphorus from any other source, this edit also is POV unless it mentions these facts. Wayne (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding , the point is that the use of incendiary shells and rocket is a shift in the type as they fall under the banned weapons (and maybe even under the chemical warfare as they are targeted against civilians), I really don't know the source for WP but I highly doubt on the claim that it is only the Israeli in source due to speculation for WMDs bought and developed by people in the PA (due to previous history dated up to the 1990s when Hamas and Fatah tried to acquire Chemical warfare,due to attempts to develop and use chemical warfare (CSIS documents from 2002/2003 and 2007 that states "Hamas May Have Chemical Weapon" (that was pre Gaza-war)) , in the Sudan affairs in 2003,2005,2007 and the convoy blown allegedly with chemical weapons in 2011, the Karin-A and other ships containing weapons, and with recent news about Libya-PA chemical warfare trade not an RS but an examplenot to be used as an RS)), I would trust your word about the number of shells with WP (In the refs I've added I tried to use as many as possible English sources and by that avoiding Hebrew ones so that could create that impression of the number). for the matter of the rocket and shells numbers I've reentered the info to the article only because the reason for their removal was unable to access the source.109.226.49.59 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with mention of the use of phosphorus as long as it is qualified with what the media have said about it. Wayne (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, What do you about (just an idea I):
  • As of 2009 some of the shells and rockets have warheads including white phosphorus[8][9][10] that is claimed to be origin in Gaza war [10] , previous statement by militant groups claimed that chemical weapons had been used as early as 2006[11][12] that had been denied by IDF spokesman unit in 2006 ? any alternative phrasing that would contain the info would be most welcome.

btw the statement is mote then a year after the first Qassams with WP ref I used

  1. ^ Global Security
  2. ^ Rettig Gur, Haviv. "Sderot residents welcome ground op after years of rocket-fire." Jerusalem Post. 4 January 2009. 4 January 2009.
  3. ^ a b c Human Rights Watch "Indiscriminate Fire: Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip" 30 June 2007
  4. ^ "The Language of Hamas". BBC. January 8, 2009.
  5. ^ Al Jazeera "Children killed in new Israeli raid" 28 February 2008
  6. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BM2ZP20081223?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
  7. ^ ""Hamas terror war against Israel: Palestinian [[terrorism|terrorists]] in [[Gaza]] continue to fire Qassam rockets at Israeli civilian targets."". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. June 2008. {{cite news}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  8. ^ "Summary of rocket fire and mortar shelling in 2008" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC).
  9. ^ "Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism since September 2000". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2008-03-06. Incidents: June 28, 2004 (2 killed), September 29, 2004 (2 killed), January 15, 2005 (1 killed), June 7, 2005 (3 killed), July 14, 2005 (1 killed), November 15, 2006 (1 killed), November 21, 2006 (1 killed), May 21, 2007 (1 killed), May 27, 2007 (1 killed), February 27, 2008 (1 killed), May 12, 2008 (1 killed)
  10. ^ "Google Earth used to target Israel". The Guardian. October 25, 2007.
  11. ^ "Mortars". Weapon's Survey. June 10, 2008.
  12. ^ "Sharon region prepares for rockets". YNET. September 9, 2005.
  13. ^ a b "Red Dawn: Introduction". Weapon's Survey. June 10, 2008.
  14. ^ "Sderot traumatic stress center sees steep rise in new patients". Haaretz. May 21, 2007.
  15. ^ "Report: 33 percent of Sderot kids suffer post-traumatic stress". Haaretz. November 27, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel&oldid=488464150"