Talk:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

28 fatalities is incorrect - Mondoweiss is not credible[edit]

Mondoweiss lists 4 deaths for 2004, but there were 5

Mordechai Yosepov
Tiferet Tratner (mortar)
Yuval Abebeh
Dorit Benisian
Michael Chizik (mortar)

Mondoweiss lists 2 deaths for 2005 when there were 6

Nissim Arbiv (mortar)
Ayala Abukasis
Salah Ayash Imran
Muhammed Mahmoud Jaroun
Dana Galkowicz
Jitladda Tap-arsa (mortar)


BenjaminKay (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@BenjaminKay:Where has Mondoweiss been established WP:RS as not being credible? Was the conclusion based on the above data? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@BenjaminKay: - Further checks have revealed discrepancies between fatalities and/or injuries reported by the Israel Security Agency (Shabak) and by the IDF. According to your criteria, can we therefore also list both of them as not being credible? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Misleading information from Israel[edit]

This article from june 30, states that at that time, it was the first rocket attack from Palestine since 2012. Rkarlsba (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of death, dissecting idf propaganda[edit]

Why wikipedia use false numbers? -- (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole article reads more like propaganda rather than a serious Encyclopedia article. There are pictures of sad children holding a stuffed doll standing on, or next to rubble??? Plus, the article is way too long for this subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talkcontribs) 22:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mondoweiss has a noted bias. Neo12345292 (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the 8 sources listed for deaths caused by Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (table in Sec 5.1: Effects / Casualties, Fatalities and rockets fired), none correspond with the numbers listed in the table, 64. The correct number appears to be closer to 30. An anon user increased numbers significantly on 4 August 2012 but sources do not support numbers. Will review and update, relying primarily on as it is most detailed source. Grafmatic (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the figures and sourcing needs looking at. I think it will be at least 27 people killed in Israel and at least 9 killed in the Gaza Strip by rocket or mortar fire according to the MFA data. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The most accurate and unbiased source for casualties that I have found is the Israeli Human Rights site, B'Tselem If the user who mentioned "Mondoweiss has a noted bias" does not also see the "noted bias" in the framing of this article, then the rest of their input can probably be dismissed as biased. Also, using the official gov info is about as biased as it gets. Check out B'Tselem instead.Mablespam (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the MFA's site that lists personal details of the "1,245 people [who] have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000" is only biased to the extent that the language it uses to describes events is not neutral, which is to be expected of course. The data itself is, in my experience, accurate presumably because it is in the interests of the MFA to be accurate in this instance. B'Tselem is good source of course. I would be surprised to see discrepancies between B'Tselem and the MFA on named individuals who died as a result of the actions of Palestinian armed groups or individuals. For interest, I have seen discrepancies between B'Tselem details and those of Palestinian NGO PCHR. For example, if a Palestinian is killed by a driver who is an Israeli settler, it appears in the PCHR reports but not in B'Tselem's. An example of a discrepancy between the MFA and B'Tselem is Eliyahu Naim (79) who died a couple of weeks after sustaining a head injury while running for cover from a rocket attack on 2011-08-22. The MFA lists them as a victim of "Palestinian violence and terrorism" whereas B'Tselem does not. So the various sources use somewhat different criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks, but these sources don't deliver the goods. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How not so? They are actually quite good.--Cerejota (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
You're forgetting that in Israel-Palestine articles, everything is controversial. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I did :D--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(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=|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)

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)
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)
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)

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 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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. (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So not NPOV[edit]

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. (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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. (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to provide a background to the biased framing of this article, it is exactly along the lines of the propaganda model outlined in Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land which you can watch here: Israel is always portrayed as "responding and defending," which is a framing bias. If your thought is, "Well, that is because it is true," then you have fallen prey to the framing and the propaganda has worked on you. Going strictly by civilian death tolls (and especially as a percentage of all victims), the terrorists within the IDF are far worse than the terrorists within Hamas, but their PR and Spin Doctors are much better...especially with their echo chambers in the Western media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mablespam (talkcontribs) 17:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TALK and WP:NOTADVOCATE. This page is for proposing changes to the article based on published reliable sources and Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Do you have any specific suggestions based on those things ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, don't really edit much...the majority of the article is framing in a pro-Israel manner, I was merely advocating for an objective/neutral stance. One specific example is in the intro: "Israel has responded to the attacks with several military operations" frames Israel as responding - supporting the IDF framing of the scenario as Israel defending itself as opposed to being offensive (as they were in the military offensive Operation Cast Lead). As I mentioned though, the entire article is laced with this type of bias in its framing. Mablespam (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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"[edit]

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)

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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


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

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)
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)
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 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
hmm .. Al-Zahar wants 'Palestine from river to sea' Palestinian foreign minister, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar tells officials ministry's policy should be to establish Palestinian state in place of Israel, says Jewish State must not be recognized[4] and Haniyya: “Palestine Is Palestine, From The River To The Sea”, Palestinian Prime Minister of the dissolved Hamas-led government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyya, stated Friday that Palestine is and will always be the same to the Palestinians, from the river to the sea, and that the Palestinians will always defend it[5] (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Propganda in WIKI[edit]

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 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Total number of dead[edit]

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)

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)


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.

Not true, "Views" _starts _with_ "Palestinians" section, which isn't condemnatory in the least. If you are frustrated that not many other countries agree with their tactics, perhaps you chose a wrong planet to live on. (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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.-- (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. -- (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


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)

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)
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 [6] [7] with this one the most up to date [8]. Wayne (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
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)

Iron Dome intercept[edit]

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: [9] (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Rocket attacks in 2012[edit]

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. -- (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Information from IDFBlog doesn't count as an RS[edit]

I've added information previously removed from the page as the cite could not be accessed[10], so I googl'ed a bit and found the data the original person used as a source. now the cite is removed again [11] 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 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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)
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. (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 [12] , 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert[edit]

I added some information in the casualties section about the circumstances of a few of the Israeli deaths because the circumstances as well as ages of child victims for Palestinian deaths are all given. I gave a source. Why was this reverted? -- (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the "effects"[edit]

The political effects are very poorly describes. The deeping of the conflict, effects of elections and country relations are not describes. Likewise, there is no part describing the economical damage, as for the rockets themselves and the operations in Gaza. That part also lacks the "Baby Boom" phenomena in southern Israel and the effects of rockets fired from Gaza on Israeli sexual passions and desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014[edit]

The numbers quoted for dead in 2012 should be 3 or 4. 3 confirmed in the apartment strike. 1 Yarmulnik either killed by mortar or rocket (news sources say both). The other dead in 2012 were not rocket attacks. source: (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

6 is consistent with the Israel MFA data. This article covers both rocket and mortar attacks on Israel despite the title.

  • Nov 15, 2012 - Three people were killed in a direct rocket hit on an apartment building in Kiryat Malachi: Mirah Scharf, 25, Aharon Smadja, 49, and Itzik Amsalem, 24.
  • Nov 20, 2012 - Cpl. Yosef Fartuk, 18, of Emmanuel and Alayaan Salem al-Nabari, 33, from the Beduin village of Rejwan in the Negev were killed by mortar fire in the Eshkol Regional Council area.
  • Nov 21, 2012 - IDF reserve officer Lt. Boris Yarmulnik, 28, of Netanya, mortally wounded by rocket fire on Wednesday, Nov 21, died of his wounds the following day.

Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It seems that we have two different numbers, from different sources. A discussion should take place before any change is made regarding this. —cyberpower ChatOnline 09:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'm not aware of a discrepancy in the figures for 2012. There may be one but I haven't seen it and the OP's post doesn't support the notion that there is. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


  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. ^
  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.  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. 

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

Please change the number of the dead Israeli civilians in the 2014 column of the "Annual Number of Attacks and Fatalities" table from 1 to 3. Three civilians have been killed so far during Operation Protective Edge. One was a Thai agricultural worker, so he probably wasn't a citizen, but he at least had a work visa, and so his might be counted as a civilian death. Sunraining (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edit about poll[edit]

@Wlglunight93: This is an egregious edit. The source states: "Eighty percent of respondents made ​​it clear they would support firing rockets and mortars at Israeli communities if Israel does not allow unfettered access to the coastal enclave.". Yet the crucial qualification is erased. I remind you of the WP:NOTADVOCATE obligation to edit in this area. Kingsindian  13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


This entry is pure pro Israel propaganda (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed the entire concept of "facts" was created by Israelis to perpetuate their propaganda. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


I have read through the talk and came across the following unresolved problems:

“Why are these attacks happening?”: [Talk: Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met] which was brushed off with a “too difficult”, notwithstanding the wealth of PCHR and OCHA data.

“This article is completely biased. There are plenty of Palestinian and neutral sources you can draw from to present a balanced article. You really need to give the Palestinian rationale for these attacks”: [Talk: One-Sided], which ended with "the information isn't there" / "Yes, it is".

But what astonishes me most is the acceptance of a blatant built-in imbalance in the article. Beyond the above “sub-points, @Nishidani: – he has referred to the amazing one-sidedness of this theme. There is absolutely no attempt to provide context for the rocket attacks, as mentioned above, but the real carbuncle is the fact that absolutely no attempt is made to establisn balance, which is core to Wiki, by providing a record of the ordnance that went in the other direction. I find it astonishing that there has not been an insistence in the past that neutrality be brought to this article by providing a record of the artillery barrages, air strikes and drone attacks launched by Israel. Could someone please explain the astonishing anomaly cause by this article not being entitled “Israeli-Palestinian airborne Assaults”, with appropriate significant addition of Israeli attacks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I note support for this criticism in [Talk: Propaganda] above. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I am presuming that there is indeed no justification for the existing non-NPOV imbalance. I would therefore like to propose a change of name as provided for in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Since I am aware that not all interested editors routinely visit this Talk page, I anticipate that there might be as yet unvoiced disputes and disagreements with the proposal. I am therefore initiating a Single Page Move request under WP:RM#CM, as follows: Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket attacks on IsraelHigh-Altitude Attacks between Israel and Palestine since 2005 – The current title is inherently non-NPOV, being confined to attacks on Israel.
Israeli and Palestinian deaths 2000 to 2014
The balance required by WP:NPOV is automatically thwarted by the constraints imposed by this title. There has been no acceptance of the need for balancing text to record the reasons for the rocket launchings (if any), plus there is no counterbalancing article entitled Israeli bombardments and aerial attacks on Palestine, and, if there were, a merge request would seem appropriate, once again so as to provide immediately contrastable WP:NPOV. The reason for starting with 2005 is multiple: First, February 2005 is the acknowledged end of the Second Intifada; it was marked by a Ceasefire agreed to by all major parties; Palestinian attacks prior to that date had an intrinsically different nature (suicide bombings); the ceasefire was relatively robust for over a year and represents a natural "break" in hostilities as evidenced by the chart. There are ample data of the (balancing) Israeli bombardments on Gaza in;; and, plus analyses and syntheses of attacks and fatalities in;;;;; and Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal, and I'd support it, not necessarily in that phrasing ('Aerial attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict' or something like that. Anything that would allow the articles to be integrated by representing both sides actions per NPOV). Either that or integrate all of this material in the I/P timeline articles.Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
ping Erictheenquirer Nishidani
Suggest and support Rocket Attacks between Israel and Palestine since 2005 as per WP:UCRN. This is based on scans through searches on israel AND palestine (rocket OR missile OR bombardment OR "high altitude") and (israel OR palestine) (rocket OR missile OR bombardment OR "high altitude"). If another article needs to carry information on bombings on Palestinian occupied (meant in non military sense) locations then such an article can be linked to. GregKaye 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that a solution to this NPOV imbalance should be open to any subtlety of title wording, as long as that allows application of WP:UCS / WP:COMMON, and would not, for instance, deny the recording of a rocket barrage on Israel being resultant from prior strafing of collectors or farmers in the "buffer" zone or of a cross-border violation by military vehicles, based on (hypothetically) the reasoning that the latter were not aerial attacks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support This is clearly a reasonable request, although I would suggest a less cumbersome name be adopted, such as that which Greg has suggested. Flynn58 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not know what Palestine is mentioned in this proposal. Thanks to IDF, there aren't yet rocket attacks from the East, only from Gaza. And the title just names what is happened since 2000 till now: rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli territory. The rest is already in article's body. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title describes the subject of the article. If the Israelis were attacking Palestine with rockets then we could have another article about that. There's nothing POV about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal per WP:COMMONNAME: nobody calls rocket attacks from Gaza "rockets between Israel and Gaza". The attacks are clearly one-directional, there title should be as specific as possible describing all the certain facts. I would consider a rename that would add mortar shells into the name, the article describes rockets as well as mortar shell attacks. WarKosign 12:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Rocket Attacks between Israel and Palestine since 2005" - as per reasoning by Gregkaye above. Mbcap (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as this is the mirror image of articles like List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Now, if those agitating for a change of this article to a more even-handed one are also going to go and make a similar suggestion on that article and others like it - Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces, or List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, I could be persuaded otherwise. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen. Byutiful Kampus (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WarKosign. Holy shit, "High-Altitude Attacks"? Thanks for the laugh. Keep your feet on the ground! Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: - If we change the word 'Palestine' to 'Gaza', presumably you will be OK with that?

Using (specifically) the word "Rocket" attacks is too restrictive. The IDF does not use (much of?) such attacks, instead it uses mainly more powerful 155mm Howitzer-type aerial bombardments. It also uses airstrikes, drones, gunboats and cross-border 'incursions' with military vehicles. Gaza militants, on the other hand, also use mortars; some throw stones. By restricting the type of attack that dominates the Wiki on the topic of cross-border attacks, a transparent bias is being introduced to an overall appreciation of the cross border conflicts. In other words the core Wiki principle WP:NPOV is being violated by the very definition of the article scope, as provided by the title. I find this situation to be totally unacceptable. Hence this proposal

@Necrothesp and WarKosign: - your comments epitomises the non-NPOV nature of the current article. The reason is that you are willing to have mortars added, but nothing else. In other words you only want to see the attacks from Gaza on Israel reflected, and not the attacks that go in the opposite direction. This is blatant cherry-picking. How could that satisfy WP:NPOV?

Let us say that one solution is to create a similar series of articles entitled "Israeli attacks on Gaza" in which all the IDF assaults are listed. Sure, that IS a possibility, but it is a very weak one. And the reason is that, by having two separate series of articles, we deprive user readers of the very core character that Wiki tries to achieve - the ability to have at our disposal different views on a topic. Not only that, but keeping them separate deprives users of an option that has been criticized in many Talk pages on Israel/Palestine, namely cause-and-effect. "Who fired first" is currently completely obscure. Hands up who are striving to keep it that way; who wants the cherry-picking to continue; who wants to have the OCHA data on Gaza rockets highlighted, but not the 155mm IDF bombardments of Gaza?. You should "Oppose" (or have Opposed) the proposal. But is that what Wiki stands for? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think if you bother to actually read my post you'll notice I never once mentioned mortars! I also said that I'm quite happy for another article about Israeli attacks on Palestine. However, the current article (and title) is valid as the rocket attacks are the focus of considerable attention internationally and are therefore clearly a distinct topic. Before you get started on a rant, please try to accurately reflect what others have actually said as opposed to what your POV thinks they may have said! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: This article describes attacks going in one direction. There are other articles, such as List of Israeli attacks on Gaza, 2009 that describe attacks going in the opposite direction. Articles of both kinds can be written to be NPOV. We can discuss the merits of such separation, perhaps it is a kind of WP:POVFORK and it would be better to unify pairs of such articles into something like List of attacks between Gaza and Israel. WarKosign 12:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: No, "Gaza" not helps. Again: we're talking about very specific & recognized phenomenon: rocket attacks from gaza ("-wikipedia", 2,250,000, 13,700 results, books). --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My intention is indeed to merge ALL of the articles that are specific to Israeli attacks on Gaza, and vice versa. And rockets, mortars and stones will all be included, also small arms fire into the buffer zone, staffing of fishing boats, extra-judicial drone assassinations, air strikes, artillery bombardments and cross-border invasions. Those who only want rockets reported have a very clear agenda, and it is NOT to seek WP:NPOV. As I have mentioned repeatedly, there should be no bias. Just reporting one side remains not-NPOV, irrespective of which side it is. Regarding the "international focus on Gaza rocket attacks on Israel" that is EXACTLY the problem. It is one-eyed. And as claimed above by Necrothesp (talk · contribs) aove, it is NOT an international view, but promoted by idealogical interests and biased persuasion; a promotion by pro-Israeli quarters. When I lived in Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, there was equal attention to both directions. There is a very specific wish in this Talk section to record only the Gaza rocket attacks. I ask you to be honest in answering WHY? I also ask again, is this slant really WP:NPOV. I do not view the upholding of Wiki core principles to be subject to a vote. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
To illustrate just how one-eyed a restriction to rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel is, take the very specific period from the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005 up to May 2007 when Hamas finally took over Gaza from Fatah. It was the period in which Hamas unilaterally agreed to observe the Feb 2005 ceasefire; won the 2006 PA elections; was prevented from governing by Fatah, Israel and the USA; when Gaza was subject to crippling sanctions and embargo by Israel; the escalation after the June 2006 IDF assassination of a Hamas leader; the Gaza beach killings; leading to conflict escalation and the kidnapping of Shalit, etc. One would expect the rocket attacks "raining down on Israel" from Gaza during this period of pressure on Gaza, to have far outweighed the bombardment by the IDF going in the other direction. Right?
But the UNOCHA data shows this preferred "international" focus on Gaza rocket attacks to be completely unjustified. 'The real fact that is obscured by the myopic focus only on rocket attacks from Gaza is as follows:
Source HRW: - "From September 2005 through May 2007, Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 rockets into Israel. Over EXACTLY the same time period, the IDF fired 14,617 artillery shells into Gaza - shells that are an order of magnitude more destructive that the Qassam rockets.
Now explain to me again, why a focus on only the Gaza rockets is justified. "International" attention? I ask for the 6th time; is this WP:NPOV? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a consequence of keeping the current format of this article, i.e. only rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel. If that reasoning were to be upheld as a Wiki standard, then we would have separate articles on each of the following; each with its Fatalities and Injuries data; each with its own triggers and chain-of-events. Really?:
  • Mortar attacks from Gaza on Israel
  • Israeli strafing of fishermen within Gaza territorial waters
  • Israeli unilateral creation of Buffer zone in Gaza - strafing and cross-border incursions
  • Israeli extra-judicial assassinations in Gaza
  • Israeli artillery bombardment of Gaza
  • Gaza kidnappings of Israelis
  • Israeli kidnappings of Gazans
  • Israeli air-strikes on Gaza
  • Gaza stone-throwing at Israel
  • Gaza suicide bombings in Israel
What about multiple causes in the chain-of-events: e.g. Gaza rocket fire leading to IDF bombardment? Obscured forever in Wiki?
And, although I am quite willing to be the initiating author of all of these, what would be the natural consequence of this plethora of articles? To combine all of them EXCEPT for Gaza rocket launchings at Israel, because THAT is 'special'? Ridiculous. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"There is a very specific wish in this Talk section to record only the Gaza rocket attacks." Since this is clearly not true, I have come to the conclusion that you can't actually be bothered to properly read anything written by any other contributor that conflicts with your very particular point of view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: Let's see what coverage we have for your list of subjects:
While there is certainly room for improvement in organization, I don't think you can say that the representation is one-sided. The subject of "Violence in Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is way too big to be represented in a single comprehensive article, so it has to be split in some way, and this is the structure that evolved so far.WarKosign 20:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw my request for a name change to this article, not because the non-NPOV nature of the article is not a fact, but because it would become massive and unwieldy were details of all types of Gaza-Israel attacks to be listed. The request is most certainly NOT being withdrawn because it is a topic of "international" acknowledgement. Instead I propose to examine the text carefully and to provide the WP:NPOV balance that Nishadani (talk · contribs) correctly highlights below, and to create, where necessary, articles in a similar vein that deal with 'attacks going the other way', plus to ensure that main articles are completely reflected in this one and that other sources of attacks are listed under "See Also". Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IP and newbyt mass removals[edit]

The statement I deleted was biased and not fit for an encyclopedia

UUm, Wikipedia is dedicated to the balancing of POVs, not their elimination. Please explain your successive elisions of material introduced.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:It is tiresome when propagandist editors delete text 1) without proper Talk discussion; 2) Ironically using their own unsubstantiated POV of text being 'POV' because it is purportedly 'biased'; 3) without paying the slightest attention to a well-established Wiki principle - quote from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." As a rookie editor, this also applies to me. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this version is better. There is too much bias here when it comes to rockets attacks, where some are writing it to look like Israel only responds (as it was here before it was changed) and also don't mention the context (such as the incursions, buffer zone and attacks on fishermen in Gaza, which continue until this day). --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I restored the deleted bit. It's well-sourced, and appropriately weighted, given how we note the Palestinian side is also accused of war crimes, immediately above it. Without it, it seems like they're criminals and Israel is the police. In reality, both sides are up to nasty shit, one is just better equipped for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, April 27, 2015 (UTC)


No one can miss the ARBPIA 1r sanction. It's on the article talk page. Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the article from top to bottom. It had no mention of context, background, for one party to the I/P dispute. There is an WP:NPOV problem. I'm all for lists. But they require a preface that sets out both points of view, and the material I added attempts to provide some of this.
As to statistical clashes. There is not one article with statistical details that doesn't meet my worried eye. The various tables we have are skewed by different premises and timeframes. The solution is to add more sources, not to eliminate existing ones.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani. In B'Tselem and other websites they have different civilians-militants numbers (much higher than 850 militants). And the "39 Israeli civilians and 87 IDF soldiers" is not about the rockets and refers to those killed inside Gaza only, and doesn't include those killed within the green line, so is it relevant at all here? Also, "All of these included the same sort of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures..." is POV and it's best to have here the obvious, what the sources say, that both sides were criticized by different organizations. Yuvn86 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoring NPOV[edit]

Given the numerous criticisms of this article as being extremely un-NPOV, I took the first step to restoring balance by adding a [Background] section to provide the historical context for the rocket attacks from Gaza. I apologise up-front for the weakness of the Israeli perspective, but I was unable to find much that outlined an Israeli view of the reasons for the rocket attacks. Most works are heavily non-NPOV, referring to 'terrorists'; 'rockets raining down'; 'war crimes' etc, with very little encyclopaedic content. Perhaps the pro-Israeli advocates can assist. I will continue by adding balancing content to the detailed entries. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer and Plot Spoiler: Since we agree that this section was not NPOV enough, let's draft it here. I can point to two major problems I see in the (now removed) version:
  • The "key events" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are completely cherry-picked - only events that are supposed to justify the rocket attacks appear.
  • The assertion that the embargo/blockade on Gaza in 2006 "forms the background to rocket attacks" contradicts the fact that Qassam rocket were introduced in 2001 and quotes 1 extremely biased and 2 irrelevant sources.WarKosign 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not seen any consensus that, as you phrased it, "this section was not NPOV enough". What on earth does that mean? Please explain.
When I read the Talk, I see reasoning not to rename it (about 50:50), but in addition, elsewhere, there are lots of complaints about non-NPOV in other Talk sections, so the NPOV accusation stands. I will challenge the reasoning of Plotspoiler's deletion. He is establishing a fine record for unsubstantiated deletions based on one-liner accusations laden with his own POV. Regarding your claim that my edit was laden with cherry-picked key events for the decision by Palestini9an militants to engage in rocket fire on Israel, please justify: Note - it was intended to explain their willingness to undertake rocket attacks, not to provide a balanced summary of 100+ years of history. If you can think of other historical reasons for them to engage in rocket fire, you are welcome to add them. Erictheenquirer (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: You wrote "I apologise up-front for the weakness of the Israeli perspective", which I understand as admitting that it's not balanced enough. Plot Spoiler wrote in their comment "POV disaster". I also think that it requires much work before it can be a part of a proper balanced article. So far it sounds mostly like justification to the rockets attacks given in wikipedia voice.
If you whish to give the reasons for the rocket attacks, let's find sources of the militants explaining their actions, we don't need to try and guess what their reasons were. Per WP:WikiVoice "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them". It can be something in the spirit of Israeli's perspective that you wrote. Of course some comments by neutral analysts are also welcome. WarKosign 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please reply to earlier questions before starting new ones. I am awaiting your evidence for concluding a) The article entirely focussed on Palestinian attacks is not grossly skewed; b) that in providing background reasons for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, specifically to explain the source of the Palestinian discord, it is not necessary to give a full and balanced account, only the major sources of THEIR antipathy. I will wait a short while longer. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: a) The article describes a certain type of attack. It is not skewed as long as there are other articles describing different events in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
b) The article should report what the people firing the rockets say their reasons are. It should also report how Israel sees these attacks. It should also report how scholars or other notable people see it. It should not cherry-pick through historical background, selecting only the facts that apparently justify the rocket attacks as legitimate reaction to oppression and occupation - just like we should not cherry-pick only the facts that show the rockets as yet another vector of attack by terror groups determined to destroy Israel. Both POVs exist and we should report notable people expressing them, not express our own views. WarKosign 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - in response to your post of 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC): Your conclusion that my contribution of the Israeli view as to the reason for the rocket attacks "is not balanced enough", is utterly without foundation. I clearly wrote in [Talk] above that I was unable to find succinct non-POV responses from Israeli sources. That gives you absolutely no basis for supporting the deletion of the Background. Instead, and also as I noted previously, I welcomed contributions from editors of your persuasion to provide more scholarly reasons than the standard "terrorist"; "destruction of Israel" rants. As we shall come to see when NPOV is established regarding specific peaks in rocket launchings, most of these were triggered by prior Israeli actions, so those POV rants just mentioned are clearly untrue; they just don't stand up to historical facts. I leave it up to you to find those scholarly Israeli analyses I failed. That is not non-NPOV. Please apply proper logic and reasoning. I find it very illustrative that you critique me for not finding Israeli sources and providing them in [Talk] (your protocol also), yet at the same time fail to provide them yourself. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I find your paragraph on Israeli perspective short and to the point. If you wrote a similar paragraph on the militant's perspective I would say that it's NPOV. In fact a whole section is already dedicated to describing their perspective; and Israeli perspective is given at the views section, so I do not see a need to repeat more or less the same views in a different section. Cherry picking a list of historical events that in your opinion justify the rocket attacks is absolutely unacceptable on wikipedia, per WP:WikiVoice, WP:OR and WP:NPOV.WarKosign 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - I am gratified that you no longer view the section on the Israeli point of view as non-NPOV. Note that my version of the Israeli view contains a string of unsubstantiated POVs by Israeli politicians. I find it ironic that you approve. Or maybe not. I intend to improve it. I am tired of Netanyahu's word being taken to be "the truth". Rockets did NOT rain down on Israel in the months after September 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza. In fact the period between February 2005 and June 2006 was the quietest since 2000. Check the graph above. Netanyahu lied. You approve. But let us wait for the detail to appear; then we can rewrite the Background section. I am not overwhelmed that a piece that is clearly background appears under "Views". That obviously needs to be corrected. But I will not revert now, and rather wait for the detail to emerge. Fair enough? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I did not say that Netanyahau's view is NPOV or that it's even true. Wikipedia should be saying "Netanyahu said this and that while Khaled Mashal said this and that about the rockets". You described Israel's official position in a neutral manner without any loaded words and in impartial tone. Pairing it with a similar paragraph describing the views of those supporting/performing the rocket fire will achieve an NPOV section. It's not for you or me to decide who lied and who told the truth, if there are notable sources that say that we can report it as well. WarKosign 10:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: Fair enough. In the final version of [Background] I will make sure that his statement is reflected as a claim, and will strive to find sources to show that his claim was a lie. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: As to your WP:OR assertion that Netanyahu lied - rockets were fired from Gaza hours after the last soldiers left. Rocket fire continued through 2006, until Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and Operation Summer Rains began. It was not the quietest since 2000 - in 2000 there were 0 rockets fired from Gaza. How many rockets per year fired on your country would you consider acceptable ? We are deeply in OR and WP:SOAP territory here, it doesn't really matter what either of us thinks. WarKosign 10:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign:That is purely a function of your fixed focus only on rockets. There was a dribble of rockets during the period that I mentioned after Israel's September 2005 withdrawal. Hamas fired none. Take a look again at the injury levels on the graph. It is undeniably a quiet period. Sorry. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: You seem to believe that there is some amount of rocket attacks that can be justified, and tried to do that in the section you wanted to add. I personally can't disagree more, but it's irrelevant. We (as WP editors) don't justify or condemn the rockets, we report what the people involved (mostly those firing and being fired upon) have to say or do about the rockets. WarKosign 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - if you want to PROVE differently, it is your turn to step up to the plate with facts, and show the DETAILED development of rocket fire statistics between September 2005 and past early June 2006 to the end of Operation Summer Rains (preferably weekly figures, but monthly might do). Please don't waste your time and mine with the non-analytical lumped annual data so beloved by Shabak and the IDF. That would be like trying to dismantle a watch using a jack-hammer. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want a PROOF that the attacks are unacceptable, read the views section. These attacks are condemned nearly universally - by Mahmoud Abbas, UN, USA, EU. Only the terror organizations who fire the rockets and some of the Palestinian public support these attacks on civilians. It is your right to support terror, but I don't think it's something to be proud of. WarKosign 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you, WarKosign. Instead of the subjective opinions of victims, we must look more at how Shabak, the IDF, JPost, OCHA, HRW, PCHR, the Guardian, Mondoweiss, Vox, Global Security and other political, military and current affairs analysts interpret the raw data. If you are correct, we should see the articles related to the 1948/1949 Nakba and the 1982 war in Lebanon replete with the views of the victims. Instead these have been religiously exorcized from Wiki. How do you explain the difference/double standards? Do we need to correct this? I am moving onto the analytical detail of the article now. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that we should include personal opinion of every individual in Israel affected by these attacks, it would include millions of people. We need the position of the legally elected representatives of the people ("a string of unsubstantiated POVs by Israeli politicians"). WarKosign 13:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Motives [Other Groups sub-section][edit]

Current text [4th Paragraph]: “Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, a Salafi group in the Gaza Strip, emphasized in explaining its rocket attacks on Sderot in 2012 that "Jihad for the sake of Allah against the criminal Jews is an obligation that we draw closer to Allah whenever we find a way to that, in any place, by what Allah facilitates to us from the reasons of power and repelling".[184][185]”

Observations: Citation [184] is a (dead link). On trying to fix this I realised it was a video. Are videos permitted? Anyway, I failed to fix it – all I got were quotes from the Quran. Citation [185] is far more serious. The citation does indeed provide the specific reasons for the launchings, but these are different from those quoted in the text. That is fraudulent editing, because it substitutes some text later in the article as though that other text was the reason given for the launchings. Not pretty!! Here is my substitute draft:

“Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, a Salafi group in the Gaza Strip, emphasized in explaining its rocket attacks on Sderot in 2012 that the reasons it fired the rockets were “ a military ceremony held at the Cave of the Patriarchs, the continued “Judaization” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the persecution of Salafi activists in Gaza”.[1]

Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Elad Benari (2012). "Salafi Terrorists: Jihad Against 'Criminal Jews' is a Duty". Arutz Sheva 7. 

Section: [Overview][edit]

Current text: "Attacks began in 2001. Since then, nearly 4,800 rockets have hit southern Israel, just over 4,000 of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005. The range of the rockets has increased over time. The original Qassam rocket has a range of about 10 km (6.2 mi) but more advanced rockets, including versions of the old Soviet Grad or Katyusha have hit Israeli targets 40 km (25 mi) from Gaza.[34]"

Commentary: In the BBC citation there is no evidence whatsoever for the first sentence. Nonetheless, it would indeed be valuable to know how many rockets were fired during 2005, before and after the Israeli withdrawal in September that year.

Current Text: "Some analysts see the attacks as a shift away from reliance on suicide bombing, which was previously Hamas's main method of attacking Israel, and an adoption of the rocket tactics used by Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.[35]"

Commentary: The Fox News citation does not use the adjective "Militant" for Hezbollah. This was inserted by an editor. Suggest deletion. In anticipation, whether Hezbollah is a 'terrorist', a 'militant', a 'national' or a 'liberation' group or any other adjective, should be discussed elsewhere.Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Overview [Sub-section: Participating groups] First paragraph: Hamas has been the de facto governing authority in the Gaza Strip only since June 2007. This article spans 2001 to 2015. Needs editing, since the current text implies that Hamas was in control of everything in Gaza over the entire period. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Second paragraph: This is a cherry-picked mess, especially once the entire YNet article is read. The final sentence is off-topic. Provide balance or delete. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

After no objections, made changes to [Overview] text to properly reflect the cited source. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Section: History[edit]


One of the key aspects of the period 2001-2006 was the end of the 2nd Intifada. Where is it? Another was the signing of a ceasefire in February 2005 with Hamas unilaterally agreeing to abide. Where is it? A third and perhaps most important was that Hamas refrained from launching rockets 100% until the Gaza Beach killings in early June. Where is it? Is the excuse that they had nothing to do with rocket fire but that Sderot psychology issues did? Some improved sense of reality required, methinks. This section is appalling for its bias. The worst I have seen in all my time here. I suspect that the main page is also an insipid list, barely informative of the give and take in tensions, aggression and action.

WarKosign When I create the article on Israeli Aggressions against Gaza that you have invited, in order to balance this non-NPOV article - goods embargo, artillery bombardments, fisherman strafing, dictating by Israel of a no-go zone within Gaza, restriction of border movements, dictating who may enter Gaza, cross-border small arms fire into Gaza, cross-border violations by military vehicle incursions, drone assassinations, arrests without trial, IAF air-strikes, etc., you can be sure that cease-fire agreements and violations will also be addressed. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is 8 June 2006? You know, the rocket fire from Gaza after the IDF resumed extra-judicial killings by assassinating Jamal Abu Samhadana, and which was followed by the killing of the Ghalia family in a Gaza beach, which led to ..... etc.? I am now going to check List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06 to see if the creating editors were honest enough to enter it there. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This reliable source (unlike the unreliable opinion you are citing from Counter punch) Says rockets were fired on June 8th, unrelated to the killing of Samhadana - . You are POV-pushing on multiple articles subject to severe editing restrictions, this will have consequences. All Rows4 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@All Rows4: I challenge you to show me support for your claim "unrelated to the killing of Samhadana" in the HRW citation that you provided. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, where does it even mention Samhadana? Are you aware of the concept "Logical Falacies", especially the utter weakness of an Argument from Silence? And based on your flawed logic, you choose to threatened me for the third time? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: In your last edit you wrote about abduction of two Palestinians a day before abduction of Shalit. I think we discussed it on some other page before, but I can't find any mention of it in any of the sources. Can you please point to it ? WarKosign 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: No problem. We discussed it in Talk on List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–06: "June-August peak of 2006 Rocket Attacks". I believe that it was a compromise to a long discussion about why Galit might have been kidnapped instead of 'captured' (the verb used in the JPS), versus why the Palestinians were 'arrests' and not also kidnappings or 'administrative detentions', which would have had to have opened up the whole can of worms about the legality of such detentions under the Geneva Conventions, etc., and how the IDF was authorized (or not - with attendant implications) to make 'arrests' in a foreign country. Months would have passed, adding very little extra value, compared to just using 'abductions' in both cases. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: I'm not disputing the word choice at the moment, I would like to see a source for the fact of the abduction/arrest/kidnapping. WarKosign 17:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@WarKosign: - Did you check the Journal of Palestinian Studies citation?. I found the 'chain-of-events' link to Shalit's capture on page 149. In the Lin source, I found reference to his "kidnapping" (Lin's quotation marks). So as to forestall low-added-value debate, I will add additional citations. Erictheenquirer (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Erictheenquirer: Thanks, now it's clear who the two people were and why they were arrested. WarKosign 07:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I see Shalit in JPS page 149 and Lin, but nothing about Muamars or any other Palestinian civilians the previous day. However, with a wikilink to Muamar family detention incident I think it's fine. We can always copy some references from there if someone is picky. WarKosign 07:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. Yet again, thanks for the positive critiques and participation in attempting to find a WP:NPOV way to represent these complicated, often interlinked, and highly politicized events. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph of overview[edit]

There needs to be some discussion on the validity of the last paragraph of the overview. The debate is to figure out if sources like the BBC and Haaretz constitute sources and if there is bias in stating that Israel attacks civilian areas indiscriminately. There is a bit of an edit war brewing about this revision:

Iwant2write (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That BBC is used for ten other claims in this article, and Haaretz is used for twenty-two, suggests they're alright here, notwithstanding their being the most established news organizations in the UK and Israel.
Citing what they report about Israel is no different from citing what they report about Palestine. Omitting the info is biased, as we're left with just one side looking like the bad guys, contrary to the reported reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, April 28, 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph makes a sweeping statement ("All of these included the same sort of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures they were purportedly intended to punish"). Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. None of the provided sources supports this statement:
  • Mezan report is a dead link, but the reference gives its title as "A Report on Human Rights Violations Perpetrated by the Israeli Occupation Forces in Rafah From 18 to 24 May" meaning that whatever it says refers to a very specific period.
  • Haaretz says that Israeli High Court started hearing a petition.
  • BBC is a collection of quotes, not one of them mentions war crimes or violations
  • Reuters says "U.N. Security Council urges end of Gaza violence"
  • Second Haaretz source says "IDF downplays action against officers"
  • OHCHR report expresses "concern" about "possible violations" in November 2012
  • middleeastmonitor reports that one specific organization (Euro-mid Observer) expressed "great concern" about a specific practice in the 2014 war
These sources are nowhere near enough to back up such a statement, especially not presented in wikipedia voice as an objective fact. One could write "<list of organizations> expressed concern that in some of these conflicts there may have been violations of human rights", followed by a long list of relevant citations from these organizations. WarKosign 06:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a more sensible objection.
  • The Mezan report is indeed dead, and should be replaced. Summarized here and at Operation Rainbow#Human rights violations. Only refers to a specific period in Rainbow, because it was meant for that operation. These are in chronological order.
  • Haaretz also says "According to Adalah, the two operations constituted a violation of humanitarian laws as well as the Geneva Convention of 1949. They claim that the IDF also violated the Hague Convention of 1907 and international law." Also, as fact, "Dozens of Palestinians - 44 of them children - were killed in the two operations, and 258 houses were destroyed." The operations are Rainbow and Days of Penintence.
  • The BBC reactions include "These massacres of children, women and civilians are unjustified and incomprehensible and unexpected. Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories have gone too far" (Arab League Secretary), "Israel has a right to defend itself, but not at the price of the lives of the innocent" (EU External Relations Commissioner) and "The UN Security Council must stop these massacres and punish Israel for its repeated crimes" (Syrian Foreign Ministry). These, and others, don't specifically say "war crime", but the condemnation as such is clear.
  • Reuters quotes Ban Ki-moon, "I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children".
  • The second Haaretz is admittedly weak. Not sure what I was thinking there. There are likely replacements in Operation Cast Lead#Controversial tactics allegedly used by Israel.
  • "OHCHR's findings raise a number of concerns with regard to the IDF‟s respect for the basic rules on the conduct of hostilities, including distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack." The specific condemnations are too varied and numerous to summarize here, but are clearly there.
  • MiddleEastMonitor quotes Euro-mid Observer, "Holding civilians accountable for an act they did not commit amounts to collective punishment, which is a war crime under International law." That's explicit, and that Israel did such a thing is documented.
All in all, especially combined with the Wikilinked operation articles, it's clear that each retaliation killed civilians and destroyed homes indiscriminately, did so to a greater extent than the Palestinian attacks, were purportedly intended to punish the same, and were condemned as war crimes (whether the charges stuck in court doesn't matter). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
For the most part I second what WarKosign is saying. As such I will only add that the BBC be treated with caution. It is not hard to find claims that they have a history of being biased and omitting details.
The real issue here is that it is not hard to find a news article from even the most reputable sources to corroborate an opinion. As such I suggest the following solution(s):
  • Move the content to the controversies/ dissent section and use neutral language (plenty of allegedlies and reportadlies)
  • No longer consider news sources as valid in particular cases
Neither of these are perfect but do keep in mind that this is a type of page that lends itself to a narrow perspective due to its content. There are many anti-israel pages like this so it is not surprising that there would be a Pro-Israel page like this.
Iwant2write (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want any pro or anti-Israel articles. Just ones which disinterestedly reflect the sources. I'd have no problem moving the Israel war crime allegations from the lead to a dedicated section, if the same is done for Palestinian war crime allegations. One of the sources we use for those in the lead (Human Rights Watch) also accuses Israel. There's no need to pick a side; fine to call both spades spades. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Even if you had a specific quote mentioning "war crime" and "indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures" for each end every of the 8 mentioned operations, and even if they were from neutral sources (Arab League Secretary? Syrian Foreign Ministry ? Seriously ?), it would still be original research and specifically WP:SYN. If you want to include this statement, you need a source (preferably several) that supports this statement explicitly, and even then -a claim so controversial has to be attributed to whomever is making it. WarKosign 03:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can understand the case for calling it synthesis, as is. Not that I don't argue it, but I understand. I don't understand how the same would apply to eight exact quotes from eight reliable sources, though. Do you suggest each operation would need its own sentence and attribution? Seems wordy.
Also not sure what's so "Seriously?" about the Arab League or Syrian Foreign Ministry. Sure, they're not exactly friendly to Israel, but couldn't you say that about anyone who accuses it of war crimes? That sort of thing is inherently adversarial. Doesn't make it inherently unreliable.
I'll take a look for an all-encompasssing quote that says something to the same effect, but I'm getting the feeling that'll be shot down, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
Would it sit better with either (or both) of you to omit the war crimes part? Simply note that each response killed far more civilians and wrecked far more buildings than the crimes they were purportedly punishing did? That much, I think, we agree is accurate. We'll probably disagree that it's leadworthily significant, though. I think it's a key component of the "Why?" in the situation, and this is currently discussed in the Motives section. Lead should summarize the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
Even if you had a statement regarding war crime in each of the 8 operations, the conclusion that "war crimes were committed during all of these operations" would be your own. A completely reasonable conclusion, yet original research and therefore not allowed.
Arab league and Syrian Foreight Ministry are "not exactly friendly" to Israel, so their condemnation may be less than 100% genuine. Even condemnation coming from an organization not known for its inherent hostility to Israel can't be stated in wikipedia voice. You can certainly write that X said Y (if X's opinion is relevant) , but you can't simply report Y as a fact unless it's universally accepted to be so.
Do you have a source saying that any of the operations' goals was punishing crimes ? Israel usually announced that the goal of an operation is to prevent further attacks and to weaken the militants, not to "punish the crimes".WarKosign 05:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
My conclusion wasn't that war crimes were committed in all, it said they all included indiscriminate attacks on civilian people and structures. That's clear as day. These were "likewise condemned as" war crimes. That's a sourced allegation in all cases, but a disputed one. To say that war crimes were indeed committed would be synthesis, yes. Not trying for that.
What you say about Israel's enemies also applies to Israel's friends. Liking or disliking something creates a bias about it, real or perceived, intentional or not. A truly neutral observer will be the most genuine reporter, yet, because of how humans work, truly neutral observers don't exist. We have to work with what he have, on both sides of the fence.
Here is a New Yorker piece, saying "What Israel is doing in Gaza now is collective punishment. It is punishment for Gaza’s refusal to be a docile ghetto. It is punishment for the gall of Palestinians in unifying, and of Hamas and other factions in responding to Israel’s siege and its provocations with resistance, armed or otherwise, after Israel repeatedly reacted to unarmed protest with crushing force."
As the Wikilink and a quick Google show, that's not a fringe view or only that one time. From the same piece, "The pretexts change: they elected Hamas; they refused to be docile; they refused to recognize Israel; they fired rockets; they built tunnels to circumvent the siege; and on and on."
The stated intention is along the lines of prevention and weakening, and collective punishment is the means to that end. There are ways to prevent attacks and weaken resistance besides punitive violence. All eight operations predominantly avoided these, so their tactical intention is clear, and not contradicted by their strategic goal. Something like how saying "I intend to buy ice cream" includes "I intend to go to the store" more than it precludes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: The statement added to the article mentioned war crimes as well as indiscriminate attacks, so to be kept it had to have proper sources. The New Yorker piece presents a view of a single researcher who used to be an advisor for Palestinian officials, hardly an objective outsider. I have no doubt that you can find a long list of impressive names that support this view, there are however many researchers that hold the opposite opinion, both opinions can be reported, neither can be stated as an objective fact in wikipedia voice. WarKosign 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I definitely didn't mean to imply The New Yorker was an impressive name. Just near the top of a quick "collective punishment" Google. The New York Times is the distinguished one.
More importantly, what do you think about omitting the war crimes part, and just noting the recurringly disproportionate response? Nevermind whether it was punishment or prevention. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: This is a case of Confirmation bias. You are finding sources supporting collective punishment because this is what you are looking for. Try looking for "Israel is justified", you'll find opinions like this.
My opinion is not relevant to editing wikipedia, here we go by sources and policies. If you are interested, in my opinion Israel's response is absolutely proportional. As long as Hamas continues firing, Israel government's duty towards its population is to stop the attacks. Similarly, it is Hamas's duty to protect Gaza population, and it could do it at any moment by ceasing the fire or at least by not launching rockets from close proximity to civilians. Gazans still support rocket attacks on Israel however, so apparently they are happy with the way Hamas protected them, who am I to tell them otherwise?WarKosign 10:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for "collective punishment" because you asked if I had a source to that effect. "Israel is justified" gets plenty of good stuff, too. I'm not saying they aren't justified, just that they're trying to punish.
Justification is a tricky thing, and an endless debate. Numbers of deaths, injuries and dollars in damage is just cold, neutral math. Israel has a disproportionately large share of those, in each round. I didn't mean they were morally or strategically overreacting.
Sources and policies matter, and so does editorial judgment. Your opinion on the conflict isn't relevant, but your opinion on how (or if) to work this numerical imbalance into the lead matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
We report the number as they are available (and since they are conflicting reports on percent of militants among casualties we report all the versions), and we report different views on the casualties. I doesn't matter which numbers we consider correct or which views we are more inclined to agree with. WarKosign 12:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, and in each of the eight operations, the civilian numbers, varied as they are, are always higher than in the rocket attacks that triggered them. So is it safe to note this in the lead, in place of the old version, minus mention of war crimes or intent? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, April 30, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it falls under WP:OR (forbidden) or WP:CALC (allowed). Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. WarKosign 14:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps. I think it's routine math, but outside opinions never hurt. Mainly curious as to what sort of wording you'd be least likely to revert. You've been active on this article for a while, and will probably be here longer than I or the editor assistors. Makes sense for me to leave a version you don't hate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: I do not own this article, and if you think that my objection to any change is unjustified you should use dispute resolution.WarKosign 10:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Iwant2write, every media gets criticized, not at least in this conflict. You could easily find pro-Palestinians criticizing BBC, just as the ones by pro-Israelis. Here is one just recently by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: BBC hands airwaves over to Israel's minister for war and Deconstructing the BBC – Radio 4 interview with Israeli defence minister. Does this really say something about "treating BBC with caution"? No, BBC is a very respectable source, no matter if both sides complain sometimes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
All I am saying is be careful with news sources as they are prone to bias and hearsay. I suggest you use journals. Google scholar appears to work for this, it even provides citation info.
An example:
On another note I suggest we create a causes section rather than a controversy section and subdivide it into the two main views. This may help resolve the issue and perhaps set a more sustainable precedent. Thoughts? Iwant2write (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like it'd have the potential to be extremely controversial. Right off the bat, which two views are the "main" ones, and what good does looking at it like a dichotomy do? This conflict is probably the longest and most complicated one Wikipedia covers. Since the beginning, it's been a world issue as much as a local one. When one cause dies down, another flares up. Sometimes the old ideas come back, but tweaked for the new generation. In amongst the varied rational decisions, there's also pure madness.
That said, it might be worth a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, May 15, 2015 (UTC)


There needs to be a corresponding article the other direction.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean something like any of these ?WarKosign 06:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC) This editor has evidently gamed ARBPIA3 (see contribs-All sandbox games) and should be reverted on sight. Obvious sock In any case the summary gives a motivation that, checking the sources given there, is WP:OR. The source for 2006 is crap (Martyrs Brigades claim to fire chemical warhead Sydney Morning Herald 29 June, 2006 is a claim that a chemical warhead was fired into Israel's southern desert, not 'white phosphorus'. The Israeli army said they had no evidence either that a rocket was fired or that it was chemically tipped) Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WarKosign. I didn't include the Palestinians because they are not Israeli Arabs, and did not apparently from thesource die as a result of a rocket attack on Israel. Like 2/3 of the soldiers these were killed inside Gaza, and this contradicts the prose which is as follows

Since 2001, Palestinian militants have launched thousands[1][2][3][4] of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip as part of the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict. From 2004 to 2014, these attacks have killed 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers, and at least 11 Palestinians

The soldiers killed inside the Gaza Strip likewise were not killed by a 'rocket attack' on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed by rockets fired from Gaza with the intent to kill/injure/terrorise Israelis, wherever they happen to be. Similarly, 11 Palestinians killed by the same rockets are equally notable, even though they were (probably) not the intended targets of the attacks. It would be more correct to rename this article "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israelis", but I prefer simplicity of the current title. "Attack on Israel" is not necessarily "attack inside internationally recognized borders of Israel", but also "attack on interests or citizens of Israel". WarKosign 15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Those soldiers killed in war while fighting inside the Gaza Strip are not properly to be considered as targets of some Gaza Hamas campaign to kill Israelis over the border. The 2/3 soldiers killed by rockets inside that area were not killed by 'rocket attacks on Israel'. Palestinians again are not targeted by Gazan rockets: for all we know, some may have been killed as militants firing defective rockets. Trying to fudge the numbers upwards is POV pushing.
I'm not fudging the numbers, I'm correcting your POV push. Read the source carefully: "... were killed in Israel by Palestinian rocket and mortar fire. In addition, five soldiers were killed, three in Israel and two in the Gaza Strip." "Palestinian rocket fire also killed at least 11 Palestinians (eight of them minors)." Do you have reasons to believe the 8 minors were militants ? WarKosign 13:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock disturbance, wp:or etc.[edit]

This editor has evidently gamed ARBPIA3 (see contribs-All sandbox games) and should be reverted on sight. Obvious sock In any case the summary gives a motivation that, checking the sources given there, is WP:OR. The source for 2006 is crap (Martyrs Brigades claim to fire chemical warhead Sydney Morning Herald 29 June, 2006 is a claim that a chemical warhead was fired into Israel's southern desert, not 'white phosphorus'. The Israeli army said they had no evidence either that a rocket was fired or that it was chemically tipped) Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WarKosign. I didn't include the Palestinians because they are not, in the source, Israeli Arabs, and did not apparently from the source die as a result of a rocket attack on Israel. Like 2/3 of the soldiers these were killed inside Gaza (the soldiers in a war in which they were on enemy territory,. not in Israel), and this contradicts the prose which is as follows

Since 2001, Palestinian militants have launched thousands[1][2][3][4] of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip as part of the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict. From 2004 to 2014, these attacks have killed 27 Israeli civilians, 5 foreign nationals, 5 IDF soldiers, and at least 11 Palestinians,

The soldiers killed inside the Gaza Strip likewise were not killed by a 'rocket attack' on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The proper venue would be WP:AE or WP:AN/I some admin claimed that its OK to do 500 edits in sandbox though there were a minority.--Shrike (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Commonsense is required, Shrike. Firstly, there is not a shadow of doubt that someone who suddenly enters, dabbles a couple of hundred times making tiny adjustments to a sandbox to meet a 500 edit rule and then jumping into the I/P articles is in bad faith and gaming the system. Secondly, the editor falsified the last cite from 2006 which does not mention white phosphorus. Thirdly, the 6 articles cited were in good part overlap, saying little or nothing. Three articles were sufficient. The editor is wasting our time. Serious editors should not haggle over the obvious, which is one reason why I and WarKoSign never really descend to hairsplitting despite fundamental differences. To check that bad edit and discover its flaws took 20 minutes, though the WP:OR was self-evident. Technically 'white phosphorus' shouldn't be in the lead because it was apparently used on three rockets fired into the Negev, not on hundreds of occasions (WP:Undue) but I don't fuss about that. Yesterday I simply corrected the citational form, which I don't regard as an 'edit' or alteration. Today I have fixed the falsification. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani, why did you replace "according to the militants" with "said" ? "Said" sounds like a weasel word, we know who made this statement and there is no reason to hide it. WarKosign 14:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

- space[edit]

There's an unnecessary (additional) space between the second and the third paragraph--Yschilov (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


You owe the page an explanation of your revert because the edit summary nostensibly justifying it is subjective, if not, policy-wise, empty.

This is both meaningless in policy terms (what is meant by 'not relevant in the way it is cited'?, and contradicts the practice of the lead which has several statements that have a restricted time period. E.g.
’Another poll conducted in September 2014 found that 80% of Palestinians support firing rockets against Israel if it does not allow unfettered access to Gaza,’
’In 2012, Jerusalem and Israel's commercial center Tel Aviv were targeted with locally made "M-75" and Iranian Fajr-5 rockets, respectively,[15] and in July 2014, the northern city of Haifa was targeted for the first time.
’prior to the 2008–2009 Gaza War, were consistently supported by most Palestinians (8 years):Please tell the page why 'it is not relevant in the way nit was cited, and why, instead of moving it down somewhere on the page, since it is unchallengeably related to rocket attacks on article, why you erased it. Are you saying that shouldn't be anywhere on the page?Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The editor who started this thread already opened an Rfc below, so I commented there. In any case I reject the statement that I owe an explanation. My editsummary was clear enough, and only Nishidani's eternal POV blinds him from seeing it. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Is the following material relevant to the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel article?

Between June 2004 and the end of 2007, 12 Israelis were killed by rockets and mortar fire from Gaza, and over 1,100 Gazan Palestinians died from Israeli strikes.[1]

Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. The connection is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it is somewhat relevant, No, it should not be included here. It's cherry-picking. As Debresser wrote in the revert comment, the information refers only to 4 specific years out of 16. It does not distinguish between dead civilians and militants. Please follow WP:BRD and make an attempt to discuss the changes that you like to introduce before staring an RFC. WarKosign 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please explain why it is cherry-picking? The pages you edit with me are replete with statistics like this. As to your other remarks, you are asking a valid scholarly source to finesse information along lines you would prefer. We don't do that. We add, bit by bit, the information available as it comes to hand. It is immaterial if those 12 or 1,000 killed were civilians or soldiers. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You had to open an Rfc about this? Before even allowing me to respond in the section above? The problems of this sentence are 1. that it relates to a very limited period of time 2. it is meant to promote a certain POV by presenting raw data that are not connected causally in a direct way, a bit like comparing apples and pears 3. the place of the sentence is wrong, since the first part of it relates to the sentence above it, but the second to the sentence following it. This last point is what I meant when I said that there is something wrong with "the way it is cited". Debresser (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Almost 4 years is not a limited period of time. (b) Statistics are given, and you say their use is to promote a POV. The whole page is edited to promote a POV that Israel is 'under constant attack'.Read it. Wiki editing is a science. (c) If the place of the sentence is wrong, (which in my view it isn't) then a serious editor would find the correct place in his view. (d) eliding this statistic from a page where, somewhere, it must be cited, is censoring valid information with no policy ground given, as in the comments above.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Regarding (a) and (b) we obviously disagree. Regarding (c) please review WP:TE which says something about editors who demand other editors do their work for them. In this case the best solution would be to split it, and I didn't want to do that without input from other editors. Regarding (d) please cut the Wikidrama. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)