Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 15

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6
Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.


 * The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
 * Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
 * Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
 * New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
 * The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
 * Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

People seem to be missing a really simple point here, which is that rockets are not like pistols or knives, that is, weapons that may be privately owned and distributed. They are a form of artillery, and are therefore mostly used and deployed by state actors, or quasi-state actors like Hamas. To say that non-Hamas sources fired some rockets is therefore absurd; Hamas builds and pays for the rockets, therefore, when they are fired, it is highly unlikely that Hamas knew nothing about it, or had nothing to do with it; rather the opposite. In other words, it is a distinction without a difference. Hamas fires the rockets, one way or another, all of them. Theonemacduff (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article says "Hamas and its affiliates had been firing rockets off and on throughout June", which contradicts the official story that Hamas began firing only as a response to Israel's aggression. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Nishidani helpfully provided this article, supposedly from a "mainstream Western newspapers, written by [a] competent journalist" that says that "on June 29 or 30 did Hamas restart the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Currently the article does not say that Hamas began its fire on July 7, only intensified it and took formal responsibility - the only change that perhaps is needed is to mention end of June as beginning of Hamas's fire. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. One has to weigh the 2 sources, against the several than say differently. I think all of this is one of those issues that demand patience, since there is a source conflict. The simplest way around this, while waiting more definitive work, is to attribute to Sharon and Goldberg the earlier date, and follow Thrall et al., for the assuming responsibility for rockets fired from July 7. Unfortunately, these facts should be ascertainable, but we cannot assume that any of the 9 sources got things right in their respective versions, esp. since no one can figure out whether 29 or 30th. If you don't know which day of two it might be, you don't know. I'm personally amazed scholars can't figure this out, and don't care one way or another whether it is 29/30 or 7 July. But we have to be very careful in this because it is a conflict in sources. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Time to make a decision on undue weight
I think it's about time we make a decision about the undue weight about Jews in the past possibly using civilian structures to hide weapons in. Before it got purged, most agreed that it is irrelevant and shouldn't be included in the article. Not only that, it's in the section "Use of civilian structures for military purposes", and the sub-section says "In Israel" giving at first the impression that Israel is currently doing it. It's just a mess all together which shouldn't be included. I vote remove Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove, to avoid article bloat. I think it's bigger than only this comparison. For every alleged violation there are historic precedents, whether by a side in this conflict (Jews using terrorism against the British mandate, previous cases of Palestinians manipulating the public opinion into reporting massacre where there was none, etc) or by others (for example Nazi Blitz vs Hamas rockets attacks). I think the criteria for inclusion should be - does the comparison provide any new information about the conflict ? If it does not, if the comparison is notable enough it belongs in "reactions", otherwise it is undue.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gideon Levy is a respected journalist, and his perspective is by no means undue, and, responding to Kosign's argument that there are " historic precedents" for all alleged violations, the human shields argument is unique because #1 The human shields claim is quite frequently used, and thus attention must be given to both sides of the argument, and #2 it's a remarkable case of irony that the same Zionists now criticizing Hamas for allegedly using human shields had at one point in their history done exactly and precisely the same action. JDiala (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole basis for a return to Eretz Yisrael, endlessly recited in innumerable volumes and newsprint, is past precedent. it affects every argument, every article. Make an analogy of the same kind dealing with Arabs and suddenly you tend to get rejectionism. The Palestinians also have an historic memory. If one had but one source, you might have a case for ridding the page of a mention, but several prominent Israeli and Jewish writers made that comparison during the war, and because it was a relatively frequent talking point in commentary, its presence here is not optional, but obligatory.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, note that Plot Spoiler, as he invariably does, reverted one component of this section out twice today, the second time after he was warned by myself that the matter was being discussed here, which he denied, evidently without looking at this section. So, it must be reverted back until a consensual decision can be ascertained.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, Silverstein is not mentioned at all in this section and inclusion of that material blatantly violates WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to remove the section in which Silverstein is used. Silverstein's blog is perfectly legitimate, as Nableezy stated below, for his views. Pay attention, next time round. Anybody can revert at glance, but wiki requires people who read and respond to talk page discussions.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're completely missing the point. I'll repeat what I said in the purged talk. Just because someone you think is respected says something doesn't mean it's inherently relevant. What Jews might have done 75+ years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the events of today. Most of those Jews are not alive today and none of them are certainly still in leading positions in the government. This undue weight is arguing a tu quoque and two wrongs make a right fallacy. Your personal view of irony has no place in an information article. I believe it was Nishidani that I asked, is Germany not allowed to criticize genocides happening today since they committed genocide around the same time Jews allegedly did what Hamas is doing today? He refused to the question. Since he wouldn't answer the question, let me ask you. Is what Hamas was alleged to have done in the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict wrong and if so, is Israel correct in criticizing Hamas for it regardless of what Jews might have done 75+ years ago? Now if you agree with that, what relevance does what Jews might have done 75+ years ago have to do with it? Your only argument you can possibly give is that since Jews did it, Hamas should be able to do it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in this article does the "return to Eretz Yisrael" come into play? It's not in this article. Why? Because it's not relevant to this article. Just like what this undue weight is. It's irrelevant. It has a certain time and place it's needed, and this isn't one of them. The background for this article goes to 2005 with Ariel Sharon withdrawing troops and settlers from Gaza, not the 1930s/1940s during the Mandate period. Not every single article about Israel/Palestine needs to go back thousands of years. Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief! Learn to read. It was an analogy made by sources. (2)We write articles according to what sources say. Several sources remark regarding the endlessly reiterated outrage by Israel at the use of civilian structures for hiding munitions that Israel did the same in its war for independence. You and a few others find this source statement distasteful. It is not 'background' as you want to skew it: it is relevant to the rhetoric of charge and countercharge made re the war. It has nothing to do with WP:Undue. It certainly has everything to do with WP:NPOV, i.e., establishing the neutrality of the article by giving all relevant input on a huge controversy dominating the discourse on the war.Is that clear? Or do I have to reframe it in even simpler language?Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no POV problem with this analogy - it has a denial by Ross Singer that balances it. The problem is with structure and DUEness. The claim is under "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law/Alleged violations by Hamas/Human shields/Use of civilian structures for military purposes/In Israel". Is anyone accusing Hamas of using civilian structures in Israel ? If the section is supposed to be titled "Israelis also violated the same IHL some 70 years ago" - maybe, so what ? Israel did a lot of things, some of them bad. Is there someone accusing Israel of this violation in the context of this article ? An opinion that makes no claim for or against Hamas committing this violation is UNDUE here. It is inconsistent to include only this opinion but not other comparisons (Hamas's rocket with Nazi's blitz, pallywood, Hamas war crimes vs Yugoslavia and Rwanda, etc). Detailing only one historic precedent won't do, either we do every single precedent or we keep the opinions and comments in the "reactions" section. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What right have editors got to dispute an RS-verified analogy? Where's your policy support for an editorial refusal to accept RS on the grounds that 'analogies' are not acceptable? Many editors have labored to build up the section with the IDF/government argument, and one or two have noted what Israeli critics of this case have noted. That's all. It's very straightfortward. We write to sources, we don't censor them according to personal likes and dislikes. I have no objection to a mukltisourced line with Israeli analogies to the Blitz (Netanyahu etc.)Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's problems with you're arguing. Firstly, not every analogy is the same. The significance of the analogy we are discussing, compared to the "Blitz" analogy, which is quite a poor analogy, is much greater, for reasons I have previously addressed. The "Hamas human shield" argument is a primary argument used by Israel-apologists. Why should critiques of it by respected journalists from respected newspapers not be included? The fact that we choose to include this doesn't mean we must include every single analogy or every op-ed. How we select them is based on how due they are, how relevant they are to a particular section, and from the source they're from. Another factor to take into account is the number of prominent sources which use the analogy; we have three which use it, and one which criticizes it. That is more than sufficient to warrant inclusion. Also, some of the sources you linked are farcical to say the least. Irwun Cutler - a Canadian Zionist Jew - who also likes perpetuating anti-Iran hysteria, has quite poor arguments, and most of the WP:RS sources which talk about Hamas's violation of IHL contradict his claims; it's well-known from a number of RS sources(ie. NGOs, human rights organizations, etc.), that Israel's violations of IHL are more frequent and egregious in nature than that of Hamas. The systematic usage by Hamas of "human shields", "child soldiers", "misuse and abuse of humanitarian symbols for purposes of launching attacks" is not taken seriously by other legal analysts. Indeed, the Goldstone report explicitly denied many of his claims, and unless Hamas's conduct this round was radically dissimilar than that of 2008-9, the UN-report for this "conflict" will say the same also. His legal claims are not supported by other legal scholars. Besides, if you're interested in including him, then we must also "balance" that by pointing out how Israel breaks international law for a living; some examples include illegally stealing land, illegally violating the principle of discrimination and proportionality, illegally using human shields, illegally annexing Jerusalem, illegally building settlements, illegal besieging Gaza, illegally building apartheid walls, theft of resources, failure to meet humanitarian provisions per fourth geneva convention etc. Point is, we can have a serious discussion as to who breaks international law the most, but it won't come out in Israel's favor. JDiala (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is what Hamas was alleged to have done in the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict wrong and if so, is Israel correct in criticizing Hamas for it regardless of what Jews might have done 75+ years ago? Now if you agree with that, what relevance does what Jews might have done 75+ years ago have to do with it? Your only argument you can possibly give is that since Jews did it, Hamas should be able to do it. No, that's a misinterpretation of the argument. We are not trying to justify Hamas allegedly using human shields, but rather we are trying to merely point out the hypocrisy. A tu quoque is a logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. However, the goal of this analogy is not to discredit the position that Hamas uses human shields or whether or not that is justified. That may be done elsewhere, by looking at, for example, human rights organizations. Rather, the goal of this analogy is to point out the hypocrisy itself. Israel purports to be at a higher moral standard than Hamas, well, a number of WP:RS sources argue that history disagrees with that. There is no reason they should be excluded. If a number of RS sources mentioned Germany's historical crimes and its "hypocrisy" at condemning other states that have done genocide, then there is no reason we shouldn't include them in a relevant article. However, it's worth noting that Germany, unlike Israel, has come to term with its historical crimes. This is a crucial difference which you fail to note. JDiala (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can make a lot of claims against Israel, the question is - are they DUE here? Every alleged violation of IHL by Israel that is connected directly to this conflict is represented. If you find some non-fringe claim, please add it. The same goes for alleged violation by Hamas - they are all represented. This is what this section is for - listing what each side is accused of and what their counter-claim is. Saying that Israeli allegedly violated IHL on other occasion doesn't counter nor promote any of these claims, it's simply irrelevant here. These claims belong in a "How bad Israel is" article, not here.
 * A "respected" (by whom ?) journalist made a comparison. Does this comparison claim against or for this alleged violation ? Neither. We are not here to judge or advocate ("Hamas's violation of IHL was acceptable because..."), we are to represent the relevant facts.
 * Please find a RS supporting your statement that "Israel's violations of IHL are more frequent and egregious in nature than that of Hamas". Looks like you too were mislead by the media bias. There is ample evidence of systematic war crimes committed by Hamas, while there is "concern" or "a strong possibility" that "probably" IHL was violated by Israel "in several cases", proper investigation pending. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Gideon Levy, rather than a "respected" journalist, we can call him a "well-known" journalist. It's a semantics issue; he is clearly an influential Israeli journalist, and for almost all people with knowledge of the Israel/Arab conflict and Israeli media, this a WP:COMMON thing. Also, again, I am not claiming to "advocate" that Hamas's violations were acceptable. I addressed this in a previous post (to knightmare). Concerning Israeli violations of IHL, I can cite a number of sources - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'tselem are main contenders - though you're correct that it is "investigation pending". The fact that they are alleged war crimes also applies to Hamas; no investigation has been completed for Hamas either, so what Irwin Cotler says is ultimately of little significance. My point ["Israel's violations of IHL are more frequent and egregious in nature than that of Hamas"] will be made much more clear in March when the UN report is completed. My main point was simply that if Hamas's alleged "war crimes" are to be included, then Israel's must be also, and there is a substantial number of sources for that. Nevertheless, I have to say that the Forbes source you cited did change my mind on Hamas using human shields. It was well-written, though its arguments regarding casualty statistics and other topics (like antisemetic incidents) were not as convincing. Should it be used as a source for the Hamas/human shields section? JDiala (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost everything you wrote now; yet you did not respond to the main question - why should Gideon Levy's opinion be mentioned here? All alleged violations by both sides during OPE along with their counterclaims should be listed. If you see something missing, let's add it. Gideon Levy's comparison is not a claim that Israel's violated IHL (during this conflict), nor is it a claim that Hamas didn't violate it, so what is it doing under "alleged violations" ? I want to read the Forbes source (all 26 pages of it) further before deciding if/where it can be used. Are these NGOs actually claiming that Israel committed more numerous and/or severe violations of IHL? They are usually careful enough to say that they "have reason to suspect" or "are concerned" about violations "by both sides" leaving the reader's bias to fill the details. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion veered towards a different topic. The reason is quite simple: it's related to the "human shields" accusation, and thus has a place in the "human shields" section - which would fall under alleged violations of IHL. You're being much to narrow; every single claim under the "violations" section does not strictly need to be an alleged violation. I am fairly certain there is no rule that says that we cannot bend the rules slightly, and include something which, even though it doesn't, again, include a violation, is still very pertinent and due to the topic at hand, since, as I mentioned, it firstly comes from a reliable news source from a well known journalist, it has been replicated and criticized by other sources, and it responds to a commonly used statement by Israel supporters. I have responded to several of your (and knightmare's) arguments above. JDiala (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So the criteria for inclusion under IHL violations is not just claims for/against alleged violations but also notable opinions comparing these violations with historic precedents ? I think it is not a good idea since it would bloat this section (and the whole article), but if this indeed is the consensus I can live with it. Is it the consensus ? So far I think we heard 2 opinions for and 2 against inclusion of these comments. If would be difficult to run an RfC on this, hard to state the question in a short and clear manner. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I gave a number of other criteria also. I will repeat what I previously said: How we select them [notable opinions, analogies etc] is based on how due they are, how relevant they are to a particular section, and from the source they're from. Another factor to take into account is the number of prominent sources which use the analogy; we have three which use it, and one which criticizes it. That is more than sufficient to warrant inclusion. JDiala (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hamas allegedly using human shields, but rather we are trying to merely point out the hypocrisy. A tu quoque is a logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. However, the goal of this analogy is not to discredit the position that Hamas uses human shields or whether or not that is justified. That may be done elsewhere, by looking at, for example, human rights organizations. Rather, the goal of this analogy is to point out the hypocrisy itself. Israel purports to be at a higher moral standard than Hamas, well, a number of WP:RS sources argue that history disagrees with that. There is no reason they should be excluded. If a number of RS sources mentioned Germany's historical crimes and its "hypocrisy" at condemning other states that have done genocide, then there is no reason we shouldn't include them in a relevant article. However, it's worth noting that Germany, unlike Israel, has come to term with its historical crimes. This is a crucial difference which you fail to note. You, as Nishidani have failed to do, is give a reason why it's relevant. Just because it's sourced from a "well known" journalist doesn't mean it's relevant to the article. Levy can say what Netanyahu ate during a meeting about what strategy to use during this conflict. That doesn't mean it's relevant. Israel "claims to have the moral high ground" as you say. If this is the case, Israel does have the moral high ground. Why? Because what Jews did allegedly 75+ years ago is just that. It's from 75+ years ago. Israel isn't doing it now. So logically Israel has the right to criticize Hamas for allegedly doing it now. There is no reason whatsoever to have this in the article because it brings nothing to the table. It's just a jab at Israel. Plain and simple. There is no "hypocrisy" because Israel isn't doing that today. If Israel was doing it today, then it should definitely be in this article. What Levy and others (who are known Israel critics) are just bringing up past incidents to show how bad Israel is. If this is allowed, as I said before, this article can go back thousands of years. It's nothing but a blame game, and it is incredibly childish. "Israel did this bad thing a long time ago!" "Oh yeah, well you can't complain, the Palestinians did the same thing before that!" and so on. Knightmare72589 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming by no more responses that we are in agreement that it should be removed since the "removes" have the majority? Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
According to the WP:BEGIN the first sentence would better start with 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict or some thing like this, while the bold term in the first sentence is Operation Protective Edge which seems biased. We might include the operation name by Hamas or edit the first sentence so that it does not start with Israel–Gaza conflict merely with Israel–Gaza conflict. Mhhossein (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEGIN, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict is not a proper name, it is merely a description that everybody was equally (un)satisfied with. I tried to reach a consensus on a different name, so far without success. Per WP:BOLDTITLE "the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold", hence the bolding of the Israeli name of the operation. Hamas called the conflict "Eaten Straw battle" or some variation of it, but it's very obscure - I don't remember any non-partisan source using it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are all the possible names of the operation. I would rather copy/transclude this section than try to awkwardly fit them all into the first sentense. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't it be written like the 2008-2009 Gaza War? The lead sentence says: "The Gaza War, also known as Operation Cast Lead (מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎),[38] was a three-week armed conflict between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Israel that began on 27 December 2008 and ended on 18 January 2009 in a unilateral ceasefire". For this article, we could change it to "The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: מִבְצָע צוּק אֵיתָן, Miv'tza Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Operation Strong Cliff") was a seven-week armed conflict between Palestinians armed groups in the Gaza Strip and Israel that began on 8 July 2014 and ended on 26 August 2014 in a ceasefire" JDiala (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not directly related, and I've pretty much given up on trying to salvage this article, but the lead (and body) should mention Hamas' June 24 decision to stop enforcing the ceasefire with other groups, (as well as properly cover the Khan Yunis incident, as previously discussed at length).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even for the cases of descriptive titles, there should be a mention of the title while we don't see any parts of the title in the first sentence here. I oppose sentences like 'The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Protective Edge' because the operation names are what both sides call the war! and the fact is that the war is not really known as Operation protective edge by all also not known as 'eaten straw' by all! So we'd better say for example: ' 2014 Gaza-Israel conflict began by Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: מִבְצָע צוּק אֵיתָן, Miv'tza Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Operation Strong Cliff") in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.' Mhhossein (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, your definition of "salvage" is relentless pro-Israel POV-pushing. The source you're citing is an op-ed. It may be of value, for the body, but the lead should be composed of clearly reliable, non-controversial claims, not, again, POV op-eds. JDiala (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2008-2009 Gaza War is actually called Gaza War by significant number of sources, while this conflict isn't often referred to as "(2014) Israel-Gaza conflict" outside of WP, so while it is a usable article title, it is not the actual name of the conflict so there is no need to force it into the first sentence. It is more often called by names like "Gaza War" or such, so if the article was renamed to "2014 Gaza War" it would lend itself far better to a lead similar to 2008-2009 Gaza War. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * However we're judging based on the article title (not based on what the title should be) and know the first sentence should reflect the title. We'd better discuss the name change in its proper place. Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is : the current title of the article is not an actual name of the conflict, therefore per WP:BOLDTITLE there is no need to force it into the first sentence. "Also known as" makes sense if the article name is a name of the subject - in this case the article is about the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict, which began and ended with Operation Protective Edge (also called by other names which we can mention as well). It should be clear that the article is about the time frame of OPE and does not deal with events of say March 2014. This ambiguity in name is why I think the current title should be changed, but as you pointed there is a separate discussion for that. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There was another issue in the lead paragraph - the statement that Hamas reacted for the first time to Israeli agressions after not firing for 18 months. It is wrong for several reasons: It is detailed in the background section, and we agreed only to include undisputable and simple claims in the lead, leaving every disputable claim that needs several versions to describe to the body of the article. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several source saying that Hamas began firing in the end of June (29 or 30) and not on July 7 after the the Khan Yunnis incident.
 * There was rocket fire from Gaza throughout 2013 and 2014, so Israel's "aggression" was arguably justified
 * The 'assumed responsibility' that has been so contested, but to my mind, if read intelligently, did not exclude Hamas involvement in a few earlier incidents, was sufficient to cover that base. It was strenuously contested, hence the complications. Israel was striking, certainly, Gaza through June consistently, and rocketry from Gaza occurred over the same period. I don't think we harp on the fact that Israel availed itself of airstrikes for weeks while Hamas held its fire, and I don't think we need get our bowels in a knot over the assertion that Hamas may or may not have been behind some launchings either 29/30th. Given the immense coverage of this conflict, it is still a matter of astonishment to me at least that, with everything recorded, registered, reported, etc., this can't be resolved yet. So the lighter the tough the better. I expect in the next few months, technical historical analyses will address the time line minutely, and suggest we exercise patience rather than preemptively second-guessing things by POV patches. No one to my knowledge says Hamas was firing rockets consistently from 29/30: they state it was desperately seeking a diplomatically mediated ceasefire (cf. July 2). On the other hand, the story that Hamas planned to wage a war for July is now part of an acrimonious dispute between the Shin Bet and the IDF (The Times of Israel) and will be featuring shortly in many newspapers. If the IDF and Shin Bet (who have extraordinarily deep data bank knowledge not known to the public) can't agree on what happened with each other, I think it wise to just bide our time until disinterested scholars with no horse in the race come in and provide everyone with some serious textual guidance.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this edit that was being pushed in and out of the article. I think the lead is fine without this controversial statement, especially after your last edit. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Yes, now I see your comment in context. Yuvn's revert was correct.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "the lead's already quite pro-Israel" ? There was consensus that the lead was neutral and contained only relevant and undisputed facts. If Beitunia killing of two that Nishidani added was important enough to mention, surely terrorizing hundreds of thousands of people in Israel for two years deserves a mention. Are you disputing that there were tens or hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza to Israel in 2013 and 2014 ? I did not write they were fired by Hamas, so you did not need to deny that. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it as JDiala does, and his revert of your addition was quite appropriate. I balanced a key Israeli argument centering the immediate link to the decision for war to the three teenagers killing. In the Palestinian POV, which was lacking, the three teenager incident highlights Israel's POV that its casualties from terrorism led to retaliatory steps. That stood alone, and the Palestinian side would argue that since killing unarmed Palestinians, almost always unarmed, and in dubious circumstances which are never investigated seriously, was, in the Beitunia case, an egregious form of coldblooded murder (that would inevitably led to escalation, e.g. like the kidnapping/murder) the Beitunia incident was crucial timeline of significant events. I thought that we'd got finally some balance, and you, WarKoSign, overegged the pud to reestablish a greater profile for the Israeli POV. That opened a can of worms and was destabilizing as JDiala in his edit summary noted.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. this is laughable for 2012 November-2014 June.
 * "surely terrorizing hundreds of thousands of people in Israel for two years deserves a mention."
 * I have read several Israeli newspapers everyday for over a decade, and there was, throughout that period of 'peace' no mention I can recall of penny mortar bombs hitting the Negev desert from time to time leading to mass panic in the cities of Israel. So please drop the wartime retroactive ueberhyperbole please. No one listens to such nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why in your opinion are these "penny mortar bombs" are fired if not to trigger alarms, disrupt the lives of the residents of Israel's south and terrorize them ? There is no hyperbole, simple facts. Of course only the suffering in Gaza matters, any mention of suffering outside of it is inherently biased and should be reverted on spot.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the edits we are discussing. But, since Israel is widely seen as violating every obligation under the Geneva Conventions, state terrorism is one way of reading the history of its occupation. It important that Israel's case as being a victim of the people whose land it steals, colonizes, and whose people it terrorizes or abuses, whose lives have been "disrupted" for at least three generations, be stated. But it must be balanced by equal weight: i.e., balancing Israel's victim narrative with that of the Palestinians. You are not allowed to overstep the limit and edit in such a way that makes out either narrative is more important, or deserves more attention, than the other (which is what you did). Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Article name
Following the previous discussion regarding the article name, no consensus was reached for name change. This consensus is necessary for modification of the lead paragraph. In this context, I believe that "Operation protective edge", "Operation Eaten Straw (Hamas's name)" and etc can not be candidates because we'd better look for names invented by third parties (not by the two conflicting sides). Although we may mention how the two sides (Israel and Palestinian side) call the conflict. Having the above in mind, I think current title or Gaza war (2014) are good titles. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaza War (2014) is consistent with Gaza War (2008-09) and gives more specific time frame than the current title - it bothers me that it's not clear from the title that this article is not about Operation Brother's Keeper. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, One may say that two major incidents happened in 2014. But, as you know, Operation brothers keeper is associated with Westbank not Gaza. Readers will tell them apart! Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaza war suggests it was a 'war'. It is not described as a 'war' by most sources; it is generally described as a 'conflict'. JDiala (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with JDiala. Just leave it the way it is. I also believe the 2008 Gaza War should be renamed to the 2008 Israel-Gaza Conflict because the conflict also took place in Israel, but I supposed we are way past that point of changing it's name. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A few first pages of google results for "gaza war" are mostly related to this conflict, I think it's sufficient to conclude that many sources call it a war.
 * During Operation Brother's Keeper rockets were fired from Gaza and Israel attacked targets in Gaza, so while it wasn't the main focus of the operation one can't say that it was not a part of the whole 2014 conflict. In addition there were over a hundred of rockets fired from Gaza before OBK, they can also be called a part of "2014 conflict". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with JDiala and Knightmare72589. Current title is suitable because there's no reason that the major conflict occurred in 2014 be mistaken for other incidents that you mentioned (OBK & rocket firings), while most of them have their own names. They are not of course at the same level of importance. Mhhossein (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it is. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International published a report examining eight exceptional cases
The report nowhere states that the 8 cases were 'exceptional'. To the contrary, it states that "These attacks fit into a broader pattern. In addition to the cases detailed in this report,Amnesty International has documented more than 12 other targeted attacks that caused the deaths of civilians, including children, and destroyed all or part of inhabited home." The word 'exceptional' is used in the report solely in citing the IDF position, on five occasions p.40 where Amnesty refers to the IDF language in inverted commas, signaling that this is the IDF POV, and refers to 44 incidents (not 8). Of these, 'N)one of the cases examined in this report was mentioned. The adjective therefore confuses the IDF provisionary report with cases not mentioned there, in a separate report by Amnestyt. (WP:OR) Therefore this adjective must be removed immediately.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have no problem with that proposal. JDiala (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty report
"According to the report, because Israel failed to disclose any information regarding the incidents, it was not possible for Amnesty International to have been certain what was being targeted in the attacks, and that if there were no valid military objectives, international humanitarian law may have been violated, as attacks directed at civilians and civilian objects, or attacks which are otherwise disproportionate relative to the anticipated military advantage of carrying them out, constitute war crimes." - what's the point of this long sentence ? Basically it says that "maybe Israel violated the law, maybe it didn't, we can't know". I changed the biased "failed to disclose" to "did not", since it is a deliberate policy. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was a deliberate policy than "would not" or "refused to" would be correct. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your change was fine; "failed to" was pov. Also the reason I have that long sentence is that it's crucial to note who or what was targeted, and, of course, what international law says. The fact that Israel did not disclose any information to AI implicitly suggests that they may have something to hide, and moreover serves as a limitation to the report (one party refused to cooperate). If you feel it's necessary to re-word it or something, you can make suggestions, but the information itself is clearly worth having. JDiala (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AI does not know who or what was targeted, what is notable about it ? The only entities who know for sure are IDF and Hamas. Saying that the attack may or may not be unlawful depending on information AI can't obtain provides is a tautology and hence pointless. Israel refusal to cooperate is a direct result of past experience, cooperating with AI only gives it legitimacy in supporting a terror organization. If you want to cite the relevant portions of IHL we have better sources than AI. If you insist on keeping this claim, here is a response that should also be represented. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this source must be included. AI is a WP:RS source. There is no reason to not include it; saying that it supports "a terror[sic] organization" is POV nonsense. That is your opinion, and the opinion of other fringe pro-Israel groups (NGO monitor and the sort, not reliable); it's irrelevant.The core point, which you're overcomplicating, is that Amnesty accused Israel of war crimes - clearly documented and well substantiated - but failed to obtain from Israel a proper motive and objective. That limitation is described both in the publication and in this article. That is all. It in no way implies that the source is a "tautology" or "pointless". It's like saying if, in a criminal investigation, one party refuses to cooperate, the investigators are not allowed to publish their findings. It's a facile argument. You are correct that Amnesty cannot obtain information from Israel's perspective, but it has obtained substantial information from Gaza. Indeed, if you actually read the report, which I did, AI makes a strong case. And yes absolutely you can post Israel's response. Though, it must be given due weight(one sentence max), particularly since it's a meager statement rather than a point-by-pont refutation, and creating a false balance with the Israeli Foreign Ministry [the comparison with the Ministry of Truth from Orwell's 1984 must be made] and a well-respected international human rights organization is uncalled for. Ideally, use the direct source rather than from the JTA. JDiala (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does amnesty accuse Israel ? At the moment AI's site gives me a "document unavailable" error. I remember the report saying that depending on the target of the attacks there may have been a violation, and Israel did not disclose the target to AI. There are several facts that can be derived:
 * AI wrote a report on possible IHL violations
 * Israel did not provide the information regarding attack targets to AI
 * Either Israel violated IHL or it did not violate IHL, AI does not know.
 * The source I provided is not just NGO monitor, it links to a response by Israel's MFA. Supporting terror organizations is not my opinion, it is what the MFA response says: "Amnesty serves as a propaganda tool for Hamas and other terror groups". There is more than a single sentence, the response deserves as much coverage as the accusation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again you are using the word "respected", which is both WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. Both Amnesty and HRW have whole articles dedicated to their criticism, so not everything they say is pure and unarguable truth. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it never explicitly states that Israel committed a war crime. Again, as an analogy, police, when investigating some crime, don't immediately release a report with a verdict. They offer evidence, meaningful evidence at that, and for that reason the report is of considerable value. Note that several sources in the "alleged violations of IHL" section don't explicitly and forthrightly accuse a party of war crimes. That is not a necessary prerequisite for inclusion.
 * If you have an issue with the terms "respected" or anything of the sort, that a frivolous complaint. AI and HRW are considered WP:RS sources. That is the fundamental point. Moreover, they are third party sources[see WP:3PARTY], and thus what they say has greater weight than what the Israeli MFA says. Israel's response has absolutely nothing of substance. They never offered a real refutation. It was four paragraphs written by a single spokesperson. They accuse AI of "supporting terror groups" and say they're doing their own investigation. They never even looked at the eight individual cases. The idea that this deserves to be given "as much coverage as the accusation", which is a published, well-substantiated thoroughly researched report by a major human rights organization is silly; (see WP:GEVAL) JDiala (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I pointed that calling the sources "respected" gives no additional value. You respect them, good for you. They are a valid RS regardless of your or mine (dis)respect to them. The report is still unavailable online so I can't check how "well-substantiated" and "thoroughly researched" it is when they admit not having the key facts that are necessary to decide if there was a violation. First you wrote "Ideally, use the direct source rather than from the JTA". Then you wrote "[AI] are third party sources[see WP:3PARTY], and thus what they say has greater weight than what the Israeli MFA says" - is it why you prefer to "ideally" use a direct source, so it will have lower weight than AI's report which you like better? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to be viewable now for me. I thought it was well-substantiated, and if you were to ask me the report definitively proves Israeli violations of IHL, though clearly the conclusions they reached were conservative, since determining whether or not international law was violated is a complex legal matter(in addition to the politicized nature of the conflict, making it more difficult for AI to make stronger statements). Again, though, that's irrelevant; what's stated in the article more or less sums up what the report says. Regarding the usage of "direct" sources, that makes no difference, since even if you use a secondary source [like the JTA] it would still be reporting on what was stated by a non-third party organization [the MFA]. I agree that one sentence should be allotted to Israel's response, possibly something like "The report was criticized by the Israeli Ministry of foreign affairs, which stated that the report produced 'no evidence' and 'ignores documented war crimes perpetrated by Hamas'", though, for the reasons listed above, not more than that. JDiala (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I still can't open the report and google cache doesn't help either. I was able to read the Hebrew version of their report, it matches what I remember and what you quoted from the English version so I assume it is a plain translation. The report says they examined 8 cases, names 4 of them, admits lacking crucial evidence and jumps to conclusions and recommendations. I don't see a hint of any new facts or analysis. Where is this "substantial information from Gaza" you said they provided? Comparing to a legal procedure - they consider Israel guilty until proven otherwise. It is not how it goes. AI has the burden of proof and I did not see a hint of anything resembling a proof. You wrote that MFA did not look at individual cases - where are these individual cases ?

I looked for one of the few names that AI did provide and found this BTselem's report - a list of names and events that can be checked and responded to. This is what should've been in AI's report in the first place.

If you want third party criticism of the report - here is some. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is that you simply haven't read the full thing. The English version is 45 pages long, whereas the Hebrew report you linked is 5 pages. As noted, the source has its limitations, and these limitations are described in this article. The JPost link simply cites NGO Monitor. The source is a pro-Israel advocacy group, and quite biased (according to the RS noticeboard). Again, it can be included, but proper weight must be given, as it is a fringe partisan source. JDiala (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I could open the document and saved it locally just in case. Indeed there is substantially more information than in the Hebrew version. I wonder if MFA/NGO Monitor responded to the Hebrew version - there is no indication in it that it is abbreviated or is only a cover letter. I'll know better after carefully reading the full report, will do it later today. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've read it. There is one major factual point missing - AI wrote the report remotely, based on information provided by Hamas (via its Health ministry) and local "fieldworkers".
 * We must add missing details on the methods they used to write the report, as well as criticism of the report by MFA and 3rd party sources (preferably other than NGO Monitor, since it's considered biased) &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless it is explicitly stated within the report that AI used information obtained from Hamas, this would be WP:SYNTH. The report makes no mention, in the 'methodology' section, of using information provided by Hamas or other militant groups. There is nothing wrong with using the MFA or NGO Monitor per WP:BIASED (indeed, the inclusion of the former would be ideal) but, as I have said, those sources must be given due weight and claims made must be attributed to them. JDiala (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I refined your edits further:
 * Calling NGO Monitor "pro-Israel advocacy group" is biased. The reader can click the link and read a balanced description of the organization, which says among other things that it's accused of pro-Israeli advocacy.
 * I paraphrased "fieldworkers based in Gaza who were contracted to work with the organization" as "hired Gaza residents". I don't mind using a different phrase, as long as it tells that they are not regular AI members and they normally live in Gaza. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, refer to it as "Israeli" or "Israel-based" organization. It must be made clear to the reader that NGO Monitor is not a neutral source, which is quite well known and uncontroversial.
 * Gaza "residents" makes it sound as though they're Palestinians, thus diminishing their credibility, even though there's no way of knowing whether or not they were Palestinians or foreigners(doesn't say in the report). Ideally it should be copied verbatim ("fieldworkers based in Gaza"). Moreover, the word "hired" is unnecessary. That would be WP:OR, and it's, again, a loaded term meant to diminish the credibility of the report (ie they're just Gazans making up lies to make money). The sentence in general is clearly pov ("Gaza residents hired as fieldworkers") JDiala (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The report bothers to call them "contracted" fieldworkers, which means their non-member status in AI matters. I understand being "based" in Gaza as residing there, and 99.9% of the population there is Palestinian, but there is no mention of their nationality in the report. Do you see another reasonable interpretation of the word "based" ? We can write "Gaza-based contracted fieldworkers", but I find it more awkard.
 * NGO Monitor doesn't call itself "Israeli", nor does WP article about it claim so. Their mailing address is in Jerusalem, but since it's disputed that Jerusalem is in Israel - we might as well call them a Palestinian NGO. I see nothing wrong with "Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor".
 * Again, refer to to them what the report refers to them as. Don't use your words ("hired", "resident"). Use their words ("based", "contracted", "fieldworker"). That's all I am saying. They may very well be the 0.01%. We don't know, nor are we allowed to guess. Regarding NGO Monitor, it is not NPOV to refer to it as "Israeli" or "pro-Israel". You're being fastidious and intransigent. Its members are virtually all Israeli, and there are a multitude of reliable sources which refer to it as biased. Considering how biased the source is, this clarification must be given if the organization is to be included. There's simply no convincing reason why it shouldn't; almost all reliable sources acknowledge that the source is pro-Israel. Why then should we not say it is? JDiala (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They may be in the 0.01% of non-Palestinian Gaza Residents, where does my version say that they are or are not Palestinian ? "Gaza-based contracted fieldworker" sounds more awkward to me than "Gaza residents hired as fieldworker", but I can live with either.
 * Do we include the bias marker for other allegedly biased NGOs ? Do we say "Pro-Palestinian Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights ..." or "Pro-Palestinian PCHR ..." ? No double standard please, either we add such comments on all the NGO's statements or none. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I cannot. I shall change it to field worker.Moreover, NGO Monitor's bias - unlike the PCHR - is not implicit in the name. JDiala (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The report is too long despite a CE. One should not write from primary sources when we have secondary source reportage which I have provided. I can't see the point in pussyfooting over the fieldworker description. They were locals hired as fieldworkers, two in number, as Rudoren reports. There's nothing wrong with being a Gazan, or being employed by Amnesty to do field reports. It is normal in all the world, from anthropology onwards.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The report is too long despite a CE. One should not write from primary sources when we have secondary source reportage which I have provided. I can't see the point in pussyfooting over the fieldworker description. They were locals hired as fieldworkers, two in number, as Rudoren reports. There's nothing wrong with being a Gazan, or being employed by Amnesty to do field reports. It is normal in all the world, from anthropology onwards.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Casualties update
It's time to get some order into the overall data, according to the most recent sources, in order to wean the article of its stale pro tempore reports and replace them by more detailed analyses as they are forthcoming. This is UNWRA's assessment as of the 4th of November,
 * 538 (civilian) children and 306 women were killed (vs the UN 519 children/269 women on our page at present)
 * 11 UNRWA colleagues were killed.
 * 1,500 children have been orphaned.
 * Of the 11,000 people injured, 1,000 were children who will suffer from permanent disabilities
 * 110,000 people homeless
 * More than 500 businesses were destroyed
 * 40% of Gaza’s livestock was destroyed.
 * 7 incidents of UNRWA schools being fired on, 3 with lethal consequences accounting for 42 deaths and an estimated 200 persons with multiple injuries.
 * 14,000 refugee homes were destroyed
 * 70,000 refugee dwellings were damaged
 * 118 UNRWA buildings were damaged
 * 7,000 explosive items including unexploded aircraft bombs and ammunition left in the rubble of buildings.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

La Familia
I'm still trying to figure out how La Familia is not even mentioned. I've tried wading through the background sections. I just end up slamming my head against a wall over and over and over again while trying to figure out where to put the sourced info.I Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what is it about. Care to explain or link to a source?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cptono. Technically one could argue that Beitar behind Khdeir parallels Hamas behind the three teenagers, and therefore the addition you made balances the article per NPOV. In that sense I appreciated it. However Hamas was an 'actor' in the war, whereas the Beitar football club was not, and for that reason I think inclusion of details re Beitar WP:Undue. However, it's not something that I feel passionate about.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you found a good spot where it fits in the text. Not the most important detail, but Beitar Jerusalem fans are known for their rightist opinions.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Nishidandi, the sources gave 1000x more prominence to kids fighting in the streets than they did to Hamas. That is why I am so butt hurt. It is great to try to be a scholar or some sort of writer who creates a narrative about an almost important event. But when it is all said and done it was just another fight that somehow got kicked off by kids doing stupid things. Look at the sources instead of creating a complex story. (edit: Talking about before bombs started falling and tanks rolling)Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of Hamas involvement in kidnapping
Here is evidence of Hamas involvement that ISA provided on June 15. Is it not evidence or are they not officials ? The source was missing, I will add it. Also this source contradicts "The arrests yielded no information about the abduction" by Assaf Sharon, so both claims should be represented. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence says "No evidence of Hamas involvement was offered by the Israeli authorities". In light of this source, the sentence should be rearranged to "No evidence of Hamas involvement was offered by Israeli authorities, but a Shin Bet probe alleged that they had", or something of the sort. It's also worth noting, even though I couldn't read the article (paywall), the title says "Analysis". Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact", so that statement should be attributed to the author Amos Harel if it did indeed constitute analysis. JDiala (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here I broke the paywall for you. Generally cachedpages.com works great with haaretz.com. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is more or less the same information from CBS, without the word "analysis". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WarKoSign. You've added nothing to what we've know for several months. Amos Harel said on June 15 that Shin Bewt had evidence of Hamas involvement. The evidence was that they had identified two youths, later linked to a (rogue) Hamas cell and a Hebron clan famous for defying Hamas.
 * '"No evidence of Hamas involvement was offered by the Israeli authorities".
 * That is still correct. No evidence is given by Amos Harel of Hamas (organization) involvement. Evidence is given that two Hamas members did it. No organization is indicted for a crime by the fact that two of its members carried out a crime.
 * 10 days after that article Israeli officials were leaking word Hamas might not be involved:


 * By the 22 June, Netanyahu
 * "began responding to the increasing pressure prompted by the crackdown. He insisted that the government had “unequivocal proof” that the kidnapping was Hamas’s doing, and that he had provided it to several countries and would make it public soon. And after criticism from two of his own ministers about having initially brushed off Mr. Abbas’s promise to help find the teenagers, he said in an interview with NBC News, “I think it was good that he said that.”"
 * By September it was being pointed out, given that he failed to air the evidence, that we had a replay of the Goldwasser scam, i.e. pretending stuff that was known to be false.
 * "Daniella Peled, Israel campaigned on false hope to rally Diaspora support"
 * Five months have passed and Netanyahu has still not come forth with the evidence he promised to make public. Until that is published, attempts to alter the sentence by adding 'at that time' falsify the record. For it is still true that 'until this time' (Nov 16 2014) 'No evidence of Hamas involvement was offered by the Israeli authorities.' (here Hama =organization, please do not play on the equivocation) Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently there are 3 statements in a row:
 * Israel blamed Hamas and Netanyahu said he had proof Hamas was involved
 * IDF said the two suspects were members of Hamas
 * No proof of Hamas involvement was provided
 * Statement 3 is a logical continuation of statement 1, but the way it's written it appears to include #2 in lacking proof as well. It can be fixed by switching 2 and 3, and ideally adding an "as of " comment to #3. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You can't switch 2 and 3, which would ideally suggest the IDF found the proof that was lacking, which is, as far as we known, counterfactual. I've no objection to altering
 * 1 Netanyahu blamed Hamas and stated "unequivocal proof" in his possession would soon be made public
 * Two suspects were identified as members of Hamas
 * No proof that Hamas itself was involved was provided/has been forthcoming (Nov.16).
 * The reader can draw his own conclusions.
 * What is in fact lacking is Netanyahu'0s promise to provide proof soon. If smoking-gun proof exists, you can be sure it would have splashed world headlines any one day, sometime, over the past five months.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What we have now is misrepresentation of the sources. IDF said two were members of Hamas, and there IS evidence (such as Hamas seniors admitting) that IDF's statement was correct. Currently the article reads that there is no evidence for #1 or #2, which is incorrect. Also, the article reads "no evidence was offered" - according to Haaretz it was offered (by Shin Bet), but not to the press. "No evidence was published" would be more factually correct.
 * No smoking gun is one interpretation of Shin Bet's evidence not being published. Another would be their not willing to expose the sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Assaf Sharon wrote "Netanyahu was quick to lay the blame on Hamas, declaring that Israel had “unequivocal proof” that the organization was involved in the abduction". Jodi Rudoren wrote "He insisted that the government had “unequivocal proof” that the kidnapping was Hamas’s doing" However, both are misrepresenting what Netanyahu actually said: "We are focusing on returning the abductees, on finding the kidnappers and on striking at the organization to which they belong. We have unequivocal proof that this is Hamas. We are sharing this proof and information to this effect with several countries".
 * This repeats his earlier statement that you can hear yourself, or read a translated transcript: "Those who perpetrated the abduction of our youths were members of Hamas". Here again, the journalist is the one blaming Hamas, while Netanyahu only says that abduction was performed by its members.
 * Are there sources saying that Netanyahu blamed Hamas (and not just Hamas members) for being behind the kidnapping without misrepresenting his "unequivocal proof" statement?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hair-splitting on the intrinsic ambiguity of 'Hamas', and I'd remind you that Mr Netanyahu or his press office can speak for themselves, and editors should not undertake to construe their words in a way that might cast a new, hitherto unknown interpretation of their meaning. All of the Western press reported Netanyahu as attributing the abduction to Hamas, and the justification for his crackdown against Hamas was that Hamas had conducted the kidnapping.
 * "Hamas is behind the kidnapping of the three teenagers late Thursday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, which was held at the defense compound in Tel Aviv.' 'Netanyahu blames Hamas for the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens,'Jerusalem Post 15 June 2014"
 * "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says they 'have a lot' of proof that Hamas is behind the kidnapping of three Israeli teens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says they 'have a lot' of proof that Hamas is behind the kidnapping of three Israeli teens, which includes one dual U.S.-Israeli citizen. 'We've pretty much figured out who are the kidnappers,' Netanyahu said during an interview with NPR's Morning Edition. 'The actual perpetrators, the supporters, the command structure and there's no question — these are members of Hamas. We've passed some of that information to the U.S. government and others. We'll make it public as soon as the investigation enables us to do that. Our — my number one goal right now is to bring back our three kidnapped boys.' 'Well our first goal is to get our boys back. The second is to find the kidnappers who are Hamas. The third is to weaken as much as possible Hamas that performs these grizzly deeds and calls for our destruction'.'NPR.org 23 June 2014"
 * "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said his government can prove that Gaza-based terror group Hamas is responsible for the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers last week in the West Bank.' Alhemeiner 22 June 2014."
 * I.e., everybody right, left, centre, in Israel and abroad has interpreted Netanyahu's remarks in one way, and you disagree. Now, if a politician's words are misinterpreted by the press, i9t is standard procedure for his office to release a statement denying that the politician said what others assume he said. Netanyahu's press office never issued such a statement. So the quibble you raise is pointless. The world at large took Netanyahu's speeches from 15 of June onwards to indicate he had proof the organization was to blame. Secondly, you ignore the other element in this curious story. He promised at the same time that he would publish the elements of this 'proof'. He never has. The text needs no alteration, therefore, unless in the direction I suggested above.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that, again, Netanyahu is quoted saying "a lot", while "of proof that Hamas is behind the kidnapping" is someone else's words. This seems to be parts of the same interview, and again - no quote of him saying that. If he indeed said so, the direct quote should be somewhere on the net.
 * The nearest he gets in the NGR article is "... to find the kidnappers who are Hamas", which can be read either as "who are [members of] Hamas" or "who [were sent by] Hamas [to kidnap]". Even if it the second interpretation, he does not promise to prove that. The promise to provide the evidence always (as far as I could find) came with the claim that the kidnappers were members of Hamas, and evidence for that was provided and further collaborated by their leader's admissions. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All reliable sources take the meaning to be what we said it was. There is no room for WP:OR to finangle a different meaning out of it that would contradict the simple construal of his remarks.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OR also consists in challenging the reliability of,among other things, the NYTs in its report of Netanyahu's remarks:
 * "In Israel, Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday began responding to the increasing pressure prompted by the crackdown. He insisted that the government had “unequivocal proof” that the kidnapping was Hamas’s doing, and that he had provided it to several countries and would make it public soon. And after criticism from two of his own ministers about having initially brushed off Mr. Abbas’s promise to help find the teenagers, he said in an interview with NBC News, “I think it was good that he said that.”"
 * You are doing original research by claiming that this report, which dozens of other sources back up, does not measure up to the content of the transcript you consulted. This is forbidden. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it borders on OR, maybe from the wrong side. I posted a question on the Editor assistance noticeboard asking in general how to handle obvious errors in supposedly reliable sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that uncommon for Rs to screw up. In the instance you cite there, commonsense must prevail, and one can insert a note of correction, alerting the reader. It is also true that a huge amount of reportage consists in meme replication, and usually one has to await for scholarship or analysts to correct the nonsense. I think the problem here different, because throughout the world in the best newspapers, Netanyahu's words were construed to mean the organization was responsible, and neither he nor his press office protested at what you argue was a 'misinterpretation'. Silence is an endorsement operatively (you don't mind it being reported that way). In any case, The crackdown operation was not conducted as a criminal investigation requires, by a rigorous focused pursuit of the culprits whose identities were known within a day or two, but by a general crackdown on the whole Hamas infrastructure in the West Bank, which in turn provides a real-time gloss on what Netanyahu was asserting, i.e., 'Hamas' (organization) is responsible. Historians are compelled to read it that way because the political option exercised was not to treat this as an individual criminal case, but as a political challenge directed by Hamas at Fatah and israel/as a political opportunity by Netanyahu to destroy the Fatah/Hamas unity government, perceived as a threat to his incremental seizure of the West Bank, and Israel's long term (imperially normative) policy of divide and rule/divide and ruin.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I was obliged to revert that edit, which misconstrued the source as saying Shin Bet had (past perfect) gleaned information when the text was predictive and potential:'Interrogations by the Shin Bet security service will glean bits of information that could help locate the cell.' To recast that as a fait accompli is source distortion. By the way, one could add from that source that the kidnapping led to an unusually heavy bombing of the Gaza Strip' in those days. We haven't used that, but contextually it very much reads as though the bombing raids were understood to be punitive attacks on Hamas for the kidnapping.
 * "Meanwhile, the army has flooded the Hebron area with special units, prevented anyone from entering Israel from there and southern Bethlehem, begun thorough inspections at crossings on the Green Line and into Jordan, increased activity along the Gaza border fence and carried out an unusually high number of air strikes on Gaza.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)"

How come this is only described as a conflict and the one in 2008-2009 a war ?
More people where killed this time than in 2009 and there where more damages. This (2014-conflict) one must have been the most devastating war in Gaza in modern time. I think it should be labeled a war too.--85.166.156.163 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have previously discussed this and came to the conclusion that conflict is the more appropriate term. Ideally, the 2008-2009 article should be changed also (the problem with that is "2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict", since it has two years rather than one, sounds somewhat odd in my view). There was no "war" in Gaza. It never resembled a war. That's nonsense. It was a crushing military power brutally bombing a civilian population. It was, clearly, a massacre. Of course, terms like that cannot be used. So a neutral middle ground, which is quite fair and satisfactory, is used: conflict. Moreover, 'conflict' is also, from the sources I've looked at, the WP:COMMONNAME for the event. JDiala (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I didn't know the well-trained, military wings of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other groups there are considered "civilian populations" now. Or that a massacring army give warnings to residents days ahead to evacuate dangerous areas. What's next, maybe the beheaders of ISIS are also innocents to you. So please no biased POV when dealing with this article. Yuvn86 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'am certain that most people will be confused if we define this as a conflict and the other one a war. I see this as a big problem.--85.166.156.163 (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Planned assassination of Lieberman
It was cleared for publication that during the operation Hamas planned assassination of Avigdor Lieberman and other Israeli officials.

In which section of the article, if at all, do you think it belongs ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is an 'aftermath' section (which there, in light of the recent Jerusalem attack, should be), that would be the ideal section to place it in. If it is to be included, it must be attributed to the Shin Bet or IDF. JDiala (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rockets or missiles
You've been replacing every use of the word "missile" with "rocket". Technically the things that Hamas fired were both rockets ("a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine") and missiles ("any thrown object"). In modern use "missile" is also used to refer to self-propelled guided weapon, which most of the rockets fired from Gaza were not.

The media used both terms to refer to Qassams and Grads, in each of their own article both words are used. The sources use both terms interchangeably. Exclusive use of the word "rockets" misrepresents the sources, as well as the situation: these were not spaceships, fireworks or model rockets; these were unguided missiles intended to hit and kill targets. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rockets" is, by far, the most common - and the most neutral - word used. Missile, in this context, refers not to any thrown object, but a military weapon. See the article on the subject for more clarification. Wikipedia also uses the term "rockets" for this; Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. JDiala (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, the word "missiles" is used less frequently, but it is used. The article on Palestinian rockets mentions "long range missile", "Grad missile", "Iranian missiles", "Palestinian missiles", "missile launchers". Generally, as the rocket is bigger and deadlier, it is more likely to be referred to as missile - Qassams are usually called rockets, while Grads and above are as usually called missiles. Mortar shells are not rockets, but they are missiles. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping and taking it to the talkpage. In response: 1. I didn't change every instance. I.e. I left the 'anti tank missiles" since the sources don't go into detail about what equipment exactly was used. Although I think they're most likely just talking about the RPG-7 . 2. Most missiles are rockets but unguided rockets are no missiles. That's a simple fact. "Any thrown object" as you put it doesn't apply for such rockets unless someone literally would throw them which is not the case [They wouldn't had made it out of Gaza unless thrown from about a yard or less from the border :) ]. 3. As for: "'rockets' misrepresents the sources", absolutely not. Missiles and rockets are interchangeable this way arround and with exception of direct quotes [again, I left a quote using the "wrong" term intact] it's in our discretion to use the widely sourced correct term. 4. The article on Palestinian rockets has it's own problems and are of no concern for this article. And BTW, mortar shells are neither rockets nor missiles but projectiles. One last thought: If thousands of Hamas rockets fired towards Israel were in fact missiles, Israel would look in part similar to Gaza after this latest conflict. Hard to imagine but true.TMCk (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thousands of Hamas rockets didn't cause much damage mostly thanks to Iron Dome anti-missile system which intercepted over 90% of them. "Rocket" is an incomplete term. Not all rockets are weapons, all missiles are weapons. Hamas fired rocket-propelled unguided missiles, calling them just 'rockets' is correct but is incomplete. Previously we had a mixture of both terms, just like in the sources and other articles. Now after your efforts the military aspect is downplayed. If you are concerned that a reader may think the missiles were guided, we can write "unguided missiles" where appropriate. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Iron dome had a success rate of 90% against rockets it engaged, NOT 90% of ALL rockets fired from Gaza. Most of them (the rockets] landed in open field and were NOT intercepted as they posed no danger. Please get the facts straight. Further, there is no doubt what-so-ever that the article is talking about military rockets (weapons). The article's subject is afterall a military conflict, not a New Year's Eve celebration. As for calling them "unguided missiles", now that would be indeed OR and the wrong term.TMCk (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reaction in Gaza
The section "Gaza" is not neutral. We'd better add refs to balance it. Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first and the last paragraphs talk about rallies/polls in support of Hamas. The middle paragraph talks about people accusing Hamas, protesting publicly and this protest turning violent (beating the spokeperson and of course shooting the protesters). Which way is it unbalanced and what kind of refs do you think it needs ? There were a couple of tags, I replaced one with an additional ref, but couldn't find better sources for the other. The existing sources IMO are reliable enough to keep the statement, but not reliable enough to remove the tag. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first and last paragraph are just a small part of this section. We'd better reflect the fact according to the sources. Of course some people are opposing, but this section make you think Gaza people are mostly opposing Hamas! Mhhossein (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-grouped paragraphs. Now the first paragraph is support, the second is opposition and the related violence, the third paragraph is refugees; I consider them neutral since it's not clear from their statements which side they support/blame.
 * The support paragraph renders as 3.5 lines at my computer, opposition is 4 lines (+ ref overkill and tag). Slightly unbalanced, but I don't see what can be added or removed to balance better. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now it's better. May be I seek some other refs to improve the section in a later time. Mhhossein (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

not neutral
You attempted to improve neutrality but I think it wasn't correct. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Amnesty, it asserted " - I think it's clear from the previous sentence that it is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
 * The word "terror" isn't neutral per WP:TERRORIST, but is acceptable if "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Hamas is considered by many countries to be a terror organization, and many reliable sources call it so. Also, this is a direct quotation, and per WP:QUOTE the text should be provided verbatim or clearly marked in case it was modified.
 * Oh you're right, I made a mistake by putting a tag. "Terror" is not of course widely used by many reliable sources. By the way, if we're going to act based on what "many countries" say, many things will change and many other designations will be done. Mhhossein (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet it is a direct quotation, so by omitting the word you're implying that Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn't consider Hamas to be a terror organization. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A point to which I did not pay attention. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty report
Amnesty recent report is mentioned in the article and the report it self is cited as source. As yo know many sources such as these (1, 2 and 3) have dealt with this issue. The question is:
 * Why such sources are not reflected in the article although are reliable?
 * The report it self is counted as primary per ALLPRIMARY, so we have to find reliable secondary sources regrading this subject. What should be done? Mhhossein (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted on my talk page, I think you're misinterpreting the rule. Direct publications or press releases by NGOs are ubiquitously used as sources. It's highly unlikely that this would be an exception. The rule states that "Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication". It's not disputed that the name, date, etc. of the report are primary, but the actual report is not primary; looking at the article on secondary source, "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information". This is what the report was, as it evaluated and synthesized the data obtained primarily from the field workers. If the report was simply a transcript of, say, an interview, then it would be a primary source. It's also worth seeing the section right underneath it; WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD JDiala (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not Hamas' fault
This article is quite misleading, not to say false: as a matter of fact, though the Israeli propaganda machine did repeatedly told that Hamas was behind and therefore responsible fro the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers, such an outrageous crime was - on the contrary - executed and carried out by a rouge Palestinian group/faction, therefore without any prior approval and/or "green light" by Hamas officials . Juve74 (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does the artile say the kidnapping/murder was approved by Hamas ? Several Israeli officials, including Netanyahu are described saying so (though it's debatable if it's indeed what they said or were misrepresented by the media), and Hamas officials are described denying the apriory knowlege, yet approving of it and congratulating the "heros". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You may not have noticed it, but if you read carefully then you can realize that the article does actually say that "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which increased after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank was launched following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers[38] BY TWO HAMAS MEMBERS" Juve74 (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Whilst I must concede that the 'immediate events' section is relatively balanced, the lead, in particular the second paragraph, is not, as it fails to provide relevant context. "The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which increased after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank was launched following the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers[38] by two Hamas members". While on the surface it may feel factually correct, it misrepresents and ignores several key issues, effectively exonerating Israel of any blame for the initiation of the conflict. This is of utmost importance, as the average reader will gloss over the lead and be mislead into believing that it was all Hamas's fault. There are several points which are not considered in the lead.
 * As you noted, there is no evidence Hamas had knowledge of the killings. However, when reading the sentence, it makes it sounds as if they did. The relevant detail is deliberately excluded.
 * It uses a euphemistic term ("crackdown") to refer to Operation Brother's Keeper, when in reality it amounted to collective punishment of the Palestinian people, including a number of cruel actions taken by the IDF, including house demolitions, ransacking businesses and homes, brutal arrests of anyone even linked to Hamas[and, of course, children throwing stones], killings of several people (including one child burned alive, Mohammad Abu Khdeir; and one child shot, Mohammed Dudin), mass curfews and movement restrictions, etc. This is well documented by Human Rights Groups.
 * It ignores the blockade and occupation, and Israel's violation of the ceasefire. The fact that Gaza is blockaded, contrary to IHL, and contrary to the November 2012 ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, is a crucial piece of information, the exclusion of which makes it seem as though, again, Israel was this "innocent victim", merely "defending itself" from the "rockets", when in reality it's a brutal and ruthless occupying power not even remotely interested in peace, a fact exemplified by its immediate rejection of the April 2014 unity government. The "Hamas-ruled" designation of the Gaza Strip further obfuscates this straightforward issue; Israel "rules" the Gaza strip according to most international institutions, as it is, again, the occupying power practising, under international law, effective control over region. JDiala (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * These claims represent a single point of view. The article represents them, along with the opposite POV:
 * It is inarguable that Hamas members did the kidnapping/murder, and this is what the lead says. It is arguable whether Hamas leaders knew about it, and this is exactly what the article body says.
 * The "crackdown" is how many sources called Operation Brother's Keeper. One opinion is that it was collective punishment and it's represented, but it's by no means an objective fact.
 * The Gaza was/is blockaded by Israel, but controlled/ruled by Hamas, which is exactly what the article says. The blockade allegedly violates of the 2012 ceasefire, but so does the unstopped rocket fire from Gaza - the article mentions both. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Unarguable' that the kidnapping/murder was conducted by two men who were members of Hamas. Well, just as it is unarguable that the gunning down of Hazar and Dina Turki, Michel Bahus and Nader Hayek, was undertaken by Eden Natan-Zada who was a soldier, i.e., member, of the IDF. To infer from membership of a group, that criminal activities undertaken by all members of that group reflect or prove the group's orders or consent is, as I have had to repeat here, improper, and, until we have a clearer picture we must hone our language to avoid desired or undesired implications, according to POV (there is growing evidence of a Turkish wing to Hamas that appears more 'pro-active' than the Qatar-based leadership: one of the enigmas here is the relationships of rivalry and collaboration between these two groups and the Gaza authorities under Salah al-Aruri) Fragmentation of Palestinian society goes back to the clan-structures of the pre-modern period, its political history is fissiparous, and it may well be that the tricephalous arrangements we see now are something that belie the Unitarian implications of always referring to the descriptor 'Hamas' as though it were a single reality. It's like those who speak of Judaism when the reality is one of competing, rivalrous distinct, ethnic groups with distinct traditions, and diverse political views, which do rally around the flag, but in reality often go their own ways. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Affiliation: During his attack Natan-Zada was absent without leave and in hiding from the IDF. Salah al-Aruri credited the kidnapping to Hamas's Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
 * Official Reaction: Ariel Sharon condemned the attack unequivocally. Khaled Mashal praised the kidnappers.
 * Handling after the event: Natan-Zada was immediately disarmed and hand-cuffed by Israeli police. No attempt by Hamas or any other Palestinian force to arrest the kidnappers was ever reported.
 * Sure, you can call the cases similar if you are determined to ignore all the differences. Black and white are really the same, if you are blind. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with June74.--Ezzex (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias
So, in this article there is the statement "UNRWA workers were subject to Hamas threats at gun-point during the war."

The Israeli source does not give a source for the claim. The UNRWA says the claims are false. Why is it that this article gives so much voice to claims made by anonymous people when the claims are anti-Palestinian and so little voice to those who are not anti-Palestinian? 76.68.49.155 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ You may check it. Mhhossein (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criminal investigations
IDF opened 8 criminal investigations in addition to 5 already announced. Where, if at all, do you think it belongs ? I thought the IDF investigation was already mentioned in the article but couldn't find it now. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel–Gaza or Gaza–Israel
Why is Israel first if 'G' is before 'I' in the alphabet? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The title is absurd in many ways:
 * It's a part of "Gaza–Israel conflict"
 * Gaza is not listed as a belligerent, "Gaza militant groups" are
 * The name is one of the least popular variants used by the media, with "(2014) Gaza War" or "Operation Protective Edge" being far more popular
 * The name does not set a proper time frame, every violence in 2014 could be counted in
 * But it seems less objectionable than any alternative, so we're stuck with it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it matter? Gaza-Israel or Israel-Gaza! Mhhossein (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Better grammar. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you opposed to Gaza–Israel as a somewhat better alternative than Israel–Gaza?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose, I just don't think it's important enough to bother renaming the article.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, as there is no opposition I will accordingly move it. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No opposition means consensus? Mhhossein (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Legality"
I reckon that we'd better merge the legality section in the introductory paragraph of "Human shields" and in "Use of civilian structures for military purposes section. There's no need to have a separate section of "Legality". Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. JDiala (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this section is messy otherwise as well:


 * Alleged violations by Hamas
 * Killing and shooting of Gazan civilians
 * Killing of suspected collaborators
 * (related to above, yet a separate section)
 * Human shields
 * (a summary, including legality, israel's claims and different types of human shields accusations)
 * Use of civilian structures for military purposes
 * In Israel
 * (comparison of hamas's use of civilian infrastucture with similar uses in israel's war of independence)
 * Legality
 * (discussion of legality of use of civilian infrastructures)
 * Medical facilities and personnel
 * Urging or forcing civilians to stay in their homes (a.k.a. "use of human shields")
 * I'm not sure how it should be reorganized, but current organization is suboptimal. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2014

 * 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: not moved. Some of the arguments used for or against the rename are bizarre to say the least, but it's clear there is no consensus. Number  5  7  00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → 2014 Gaza–Israel conflict – Placing Gaza before Israel for proper alphabetical order. No reason for Israel to be first.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename, as nominator-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Gaza existed before the modern state of Israel. The title will match the format of a article Gaza–Israel conflict. Some consider Gaza as being part of Israel and, in this case, I think it makes sense for the sequence to follow a similar format as "London, England", "Paris, France" etc.  See also Sino-Soviet border conflict and many others.  GregKaye  ✍ ♪  10:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Gaza City existed before modern state of Israel, the strip didn't exist as a separate named entity before 1948 Arab–Israeli War. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Israel initiated it, good reason for them to be listed first, and no WP:UCN can be established at this stage. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who "started it", even if relevant for naming purposes, is an issue of disagreement between commentators and scholars. Your or my opinion are not germane to this analysis. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Usage appears to prefer here Israel as the larger actor, than its opponent. Most empires or imperial states simply speak of the state where the action took place, ignoring the split between major power and minor power. (Bosnia, Iraq, Afganistan, Falklands etc.). In many cases known or larger state/to asymmetric or lesser state, though there is no rule. Alphabetical order has no intrinsic cogency, or logic. There is no reason for a change, unless it can be shown that in conflicts regarding the two actors, 'Gaza and Israel' has a higher source frequency than 'Israel and Gaza.' Some examples that defy the alphabetical soup
 * Third Anglo-Afghan War
 * Sino-Japanese War China invaded, but larger state.
 * Russo-Japanese War
 * Sino-Tibetan War
 * Sino-Vietnamese War
 * Spanish–American War
 * Mexican–American War Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The listed above, which you found, do not substantiate your claim that the larger is listed first. To the extent that this conflict is not known colloquially as the "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" there is no good reason to have it in reverse alphabetical order. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, believe me, English prose is not difficult to construe, even when I write it.So when I write a comment like:
 * "In many cases known or larger state/to asymmetric or lesser state, though there is no rule."
 * I make no claim about the larger being listed first. Please reread it for nuance.
 * It is you who are making a claim, which is unsourced, subjective and capriciously fortuitous, based on some premise that alphabetical numeration has some magical superiority in conflict titles.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are no rules why do you oppose the move? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you used one of many arbitrary rules, none of which is a comprehensive rule. The alphabet system of listing is no more persuasive than the big vs small power rule, since neither covers all the cases. I thought this is what my quite straightforward argument implies to any ordinary reader of English.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try again: if in your opinion there are no rules, why do you favour one over the other? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I googled round and it appears to me Israel-Gaza/Israel-Palestine is more frequent than Gaza-Israel, Palestine-Israel. Again, on a point of reading what someone else wrote, I did not say there were no rules. To the contrary, I said there are various systems and rules and that no one rule covers the field. When I wrote:'In many cases known or larger state/to asymmetric or lesser state, though there is no rule,' contextually 'rule' here meant 'protocol applicable in all cases', which would have been grammatically clearer has I written 'no one rule. I thought that is excluded by the fact that I'd shown several rules exist. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're opposing it based on some Googling. I'll note this for next time you make fun of that argument. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Peacemaker67. Mhhossein (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2014 (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.

Conflict is misleading for this one event
This was an invasion/military operation by a strong military against militant and civilian groups. 2014 Gaza invasion by Israel would be a better title. Suri (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This title you are proposing ignores the rocket fire by Hamas on civilian population in Israel, which arguably triggered the conflict. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Image ballance
This revert and its un-revert are of me adding this image here, which was to restore the balance which was violated when this image was added. To keep the previously agreed upon balance both images should be either removed or kept.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did the image analysis last time. So please provide me with an analysis that shows that while Israel had minimal damage and Gaza 96,000 houses, mosques, schools damaged and destroyed, the pictoral ensemble still shows a gross disparity in Israel's favour that inverts the historic realities of how much damage was done to each party in the dispute.Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the last discussion, which in turn links to your analysis. The number of images doesn't have to be proportional to the damage, since one can as easily claim that it should be proportional to the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the vast majority of attacks from Gaza. Instead it was agreed to keep rough thematic parallel between images representing each side, with slight bias toward images of destruction in Gaza. Once a picture of an injured Gazan child was added under "violation of humanitarian law", I added an image of a damaged installation used for children in Israel right next to it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic you accept 'parity' of representation' and therefore wherever there is an image of children/schools damaged in Israeli a parallel image must exist for similar things in Gaza. So you concur that 'parity' of representation is fair, which means 3 Palestinian images by my count are missing.
 * That mortars and rockets falling overwhelming in the desert are instances of 'the intentional targeting of civilians, which is the vast majority of attacks from Gaza,' is an Israeli POV. It's quite remarkable that Israel consistently and predictably comes out with a huge civilian kill/victim/damage ratio to its massive advantage, and yet spins this as 'unintentional' (though repeated in Lebanon, and the occupied territories over a dozen times in 3 decades) while depicting its adversaries as engaged in, not a military face-off, but an intentional onslaught on civilians, who are, however, almost never killed. Be that as it may, be it that this is nonsense, a rhetorical position of the Israeli government and its friends, it is none the less a legitimate POV here. But you cannot use that reasoning here to justify an imbalance, in highlighting damage to Israeli children's institutes and schools, while underplaying damage, far more massive, to similar Palestinian institutions.
 * By my count, Israel's image representation of civilian damage or threat is double that of the Palestinians and this constitutes imbalanced, and thus violates NPOV. I'd settle for parity in representation not proportional representation (90% in Gaza's favour). I'll be happy to discuss this with you, but to do so, you must give your tally of the images and their breakdown, like I did. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see 7 images detailing damaged buildings in Gaza and 3 images detailing damaged buildings in Israel. Are we looking at the same article ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a profound imbalance, and you have to show me why the analysis below is, in your view, proportional and compliant with NPOV.

There are 5 maps (1)	Gaza Strip: access and closure (2)	UNOSAT picture of Gaza, 1 August 2014 (3)	IDF-released map of rocket launch sites in Gaza (4)	A map showing the location of damage in Gaza (5)	Range of rockets launched from Gaza Strip I leave these aside. (1) and (2) are void of content, neutered or neutral. However, of the other 3, 2 indicate military threat to Israel, 1 indicates damage to Gaza. That is a tilt towards Israel.

The Infobox dual image is not a problem (right) Iron Dome missile defense system in operation
 * (a) (b) A home in Gaza bombed by Israel

(2 ands 3 paired)
 * (1) A sculpture in Sderot made from rocket debris (Israel)
 * (2) Street in Ramallah after an IDF raid during Operation Brother's Keeper, June 2014 (Palestine)
 * (3) Factory bursts in flames after rocket attack in Sderot, Israel, 28 June 2014 (Israel)

(6 and 7 paired, two Israeli images) (8 and 9 paired) (10 and 11) paired
 * (4) Israeli residents of Ashkelon run for shelter during a rocket alert. (Israel)
 * (5) Ruins of buildings in Beit Hanoun, August 2014 (Gaza)
 * (6) A kindergarten in central Israel during a rocket attack (Israel)
 * (7) One of the shelter signs that were placed in the Ben Gurion Airport because of the rocket attacks on Israel (Israel)
 * (8) Quds Day 2014 pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin, 25 July 2014 (Palestine)
 * (9) Pro-Israel demonstration in Helsinki, Finland (Israel)
 * (10)Demonstration against Operation Protective Edge in Tel Aviv, Israel. (Israel, Message ambiguous. we have internal dissent (b) The operation was regarded by some in Israel as wrong)
 * (11)Banner on a kindergarten in Kiryat Ono saying "Dear soldiers! Take care of yourselves! You are our heroes!" (Israel)

(12 and 13 paired)
 * (12) Five-year-old Shaymaa al-Masri was injured on 9 July 2014 (Gaza)
 * (13) A children health clinic in Ashkelon severely damaged by a rocket fired from Gaza on 16 July (Israel)
 * (14) Ruins of a residential area in Beit Hanoun.(Gaza)
 * (15) Photo taken during the 72-hour ceasefire between Hamas and Israel on 6 August 2014. A destroyed ambulance in Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip.(Gaza)
 * (16) House destroyed by a rocket in Yehud (Israel)
 * (17) IDF soldier overlooking an uncovered tunnel in the Gaza Strip (Israel.IDF image of a threat. Israel )
 * (18) IDF Artillery Corps fires a 155 mm M109 howitzer, 24 July 2014 (Israel.IDF image of its army in action.)
 * (19) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Benjamin Netanyahu, Tel Aviv, 23 July 2014 (Israel.America and Israel shake hands at the end of the narrative. Israel

Of these 19 images 13 have the Israeli narrative. 6 the Palestinian/Gaza narrative. Nothing has changed. You have an excess of at least 7 images arguably favouring Israel.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maps are images, and you cannot say arbitrarily that they are devoid of content. Otherwise, let's remove them and replace them with other images.
 * (1)*Both Sderot sculpture and access and closure map illustrate alleged violation of the 2012 ceasefire by each side.
 * False. (a) An 'access and closure map' does not allege a violation of the November ceasefire. A map containing access routes does not contradict any terms in the ceasefire agreement which regarded, exactly, access. (b) There is no indication that the sculpture illustrates a violation of the 2012 ceasefire. The photo was taken by the IDF some two months after the ceasefire came into effect, on an installation that is not identifiably related to a violation of the ceasefire (3) you have confused the distinct map series (mentioned above) with human images, where I have distinguished them. If you join maps to photos, you get 24 of which 16 are pro Israeli, and 8 Palestinian, so the imbalance remains. By including a map that has no clear human reality with a work which is an image in a damaged Israeli village you have blurred the distinction to your favour Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The access and closure map illustrates the main claim of Israel's violation of 2012 ceasefire - closure. It is a weak illustration, there is no indication whether the sculpture was actually made from rockets fired during the ceasefire, so if anything the map promotes the pro-Gaza agenda better than the sculpture.
 * (2)Residents of Ashkelon running - indeed no immediately visible balancing image. +1 for imbalance in favor of Israel for now.
 * (3)Map of damage in Gaza, ruins in Beit Hanoun - balanced with 2 images of danger to kindergartens and the airport in Israel.
 * Two to one, again.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (4) Two international demonstrations obviously and clearly balance each other.
 * AgreedNishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (5) Demonstration/banner for and against the operation in Israel also balance each other. If there are images of demonstration for and against the operation in Gaza, it would be nice to add a pair. Do you have one ?
 * You have ignored the reading. An Israeli demonstration against Israel at war does not tell against Israel, but underlines its democratic nature.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignored my comment. Israeli demonstration against the operation does tell against Israel - "you see, even Israeli themselves know they were doing wrong". It would be better to put a pro-operation demonstration/banner from Gaza, but as far as I know everybody who protested Hamas were executed. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (6) Wounded girl in a clinic and the damaged children's clinic. These two are the latest addition to the article.
 * AgreedNishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (7) Ruins in Beit Hanoun - no nearby balancing picture. Let's count it against the people running in Ashkelon above.
 * No. You are doubling the count for one image. You used this at (3) equating a map of damage and Beit Hanoun, with kindergarten/airport images. The picture of visible people running in Ashkelon in any case is not balanced by an empty image of rubble in Beit Hanoun.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not use it there, you did. I specifically noted there that Ashkelon remained unbalanced then, and the two others balanced each other. Now I counted the ruins vs Ashkelon.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Damaged ambulance in Gaza, followed by a destroyed house in Yehud. Balanced so far.
 * Map of Gaza rocket ranges and Gaza tunnel - two military technologies employed by Hamas, followed by M109 howitzer. Justified since there is a soldier in the tunnel photo, let's call it 1.5 photo for each side. If you would like, there are plenty other images of rockets and rifles that IDF captured from the militants, we can add more samples of war technology by each side.
 * Nope. Again you are mixing maps and photographic images. One image = Israel threatened by Hamas tunnels, and the other is Israel defending itself with artillery. Both are IDF images.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose we replaced the map of the rocket ranges with an image of some rockets, would it satisfy you ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kerry and Netanyahu handshake is neutral, because of the tension between the two.
 * Nope. They are shaking hands at the end of the page, talking about a ceasefire. Politicians mug shots have no place in this article. That image should definitely be removed. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want, let's add some image of Palestinian politicians. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind removing it&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 24 images, 5 maps plus 19 human reality photos. Your replies are not replies to the statistical imbalance, because you induct the maps as though they were of equal value to human on the ground realities, for which Israel is given 13 images and Palestine 6, a huge imbalance.


 * Essentially you have ignored my analysis, and I would therefore ask you, as I have done here, to return to it and reply to each of the 19 instances I cited and analysed.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with your analysis and explained the reasons. In your analysis you categorized 6 pictures incorrectly:
 * Gaza Strip: access and closure map - (Gaza)
 * UNOSAT map of attacked sites in Gaza - (Gaza)
 * Range of rockets launched from Gaza Strip demonstrates Hamas military technology - (Gaza)
 * Demonstration against Operation Protective - against IDF, pro-(Gaza)
 * IDF soldier overlooking an uncovered tunnel - either neutral or (Gaza), definetely not Israel. If you are concerned that the picture was taken by IDF spokeperson - please find a free image of the tunnels released by Hamas.
 * Kerry and Netanyahu - I think it's neutral but can agree that it can be seen as pro-Israel, and it can be easily ammended by either removing it or adding one with Abbas.
 * Therefore, of 19 images at most 9 serve the Israeli narrative, while at least 10 serve the Palestinian narrative.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . Maps and of themselves do not imply bias. Thus the access and closure map is neutral. This, again, was explained by Nishidani. The degree to which an image supports a particular narrative is a judgement call; it's a spectrum. The rocket-explosion images are unequivocally pro-Israel, and there are far too many of them. Similarly, the injured Palestinians and things of the sort of clearly pro-Gaza. The range of rockets launched from Gaza, especially, is pro-Israel, because, again, it construes Hamas is this 'terrorist' organizations and Israelis as these 'victims' of long range 'rocket' fire [the word used btw is missile, highly pov]. Further, it's from the IDF. This is what it would be interpreted as. I can concede the tunnels image. The Kerry/Netanyahu image should be removed. No clue what it's necessary. In my view there is a net pro-Israel bias of +1. Since our previous discussion - during which consensus was reached - no pro-Gaza images have been added, and one pro-Israel image has been added. Why? JDiala (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bias, or rather POV of the map entirely depends on its content. If it's a map of "where Hamas can kill in Israel", surely it's POV is pro-Israel. If it's a map of "where Israel blocks Gaza borders", it's pro-Gaza. Since the last consensus, someone added the picture of politicians which is arguably pro-Israel, and someone re-added the picture of the injured girl which I balanced with a picture of damaged clinic. I think it's better to add than to remove so I'd prefer to add a picture of Abbas or some Hamas officials, but I don't mind removing Netanyahu+Kerry if it will make everybody happy. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean "re-added" the image of the injured girl? In the original discussion, there was no consensus to remove the image of the girl. This is one of your edits around the time the consensus was reached[a few days later I believe]. That is how the article is supposed to look like image wise. The girl is there. The girl was always supposed to be there. There was no need to "restore the balance". Compare that edit to the current revision. What net difference, aside from the minor re-formatting, is there? The Kerry image, and the Ashkelon clinic image. Thus both have to be removed, as they deviate from what was agreed upon. JDiala (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see any mention of Shaymaa in the previous discussion, nor I do I see the image in the version of the article from 3 November. I do see that it was added on 11 December. I wrote "re-added" because it used to be in the article a while ago.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The girl was mentioned, but there was no consensus to remove her, or add another image to "rebalance" her. Note that, during the discussion, Shaymaa was mentioned, though I referred to her as "injured child". Look at the revision from November 3. Look underneath the impact section. She is there. As I noted, the photo was seemingly placed elsewhere during the [11 December] edit. This, of course, is a reformatting. It doesn't really matter. There is a very simple thing one can do - look the images during early November, which was essentially the consensus as to how the article should look image wise, and compare them with the images right now. What difference is there? The Kerry image, and the Ashkelon image. Both, therefore, must be removed [or two corresponding pro-Gaza images added]. JDiala (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are correct. The image was removed here. In this case I do not mind removing the Ashkelon clinic picture, but Shaymaa doesn't belong under "violations of international law"; the location of the image implies that her injury was a violation while we don't have any sources that say that. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will remove the Ashkelon image. JDiala (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have an argument about the image please make it here, do not edit war. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And now you've violated 1RR. I recommend you self-revert and follow the proper protocols.
 * You are mistaken. My last edit wasn't a revert as defined at WP:Edit warring. I moved the image to a different place. Although JDiala probably broke 1RR several times. Greetings.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'The range of rockets launched from Gaza,' is of course a propaganda image because any IDF research centre has a precise map of where all of these things landed, or shot down, indicating density of range, and that is not, to my knowledge provided. I don't mind POV crap of course, as long as it is balanced (and I don't mean by adding something too real like this. In any case, I see we have agreement to eliminate the picture of the two clowns at the bottom of the page.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The access and block borders map is not a map against Israel,and you have, WarKOSign, no logical response to my point. In any case, the way this should be handled is by distinguished maps from human images provisorily, and getting balance in one, then the other. As it is, and as the above analysis shows, there is a marked pro-Israel bias in the latter.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can't anyone put some images of Hamas militants?
 * As of map of rockets range, it is the only one available. The exact landing sites are classified as to not provide Hamas with reference points. Ashtul (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I think images of Hamas militants would be nice. JDiala (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are currently 12 or 10 pro-Palestinian images and 13 or 10 pro-Israeli images: Therefore, the article is pretty balanced regarding images, although I think is necessary a couple of pictures showing Palestinian combatants and politicians (if someone has any). Certainly more images of destruction in Gaza aren't needed, let alone LESS images of destruction or attacks in Israel.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * File:The home of the Kware' family, after it was bombed by the military.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:Iron Dome in Operation Protective Edge.jpg (pro-Israeli, although it might be simply neutral)
 * File:Gaza closure December 2012.jpg (pro-Palestinian, although it might be neutral)
 * File:PikiWiki Israel 29526 Israel Defense Forces.JPG (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Street in Ramallah after IDF raid during Operation Brother’s Keeper June 2014 2.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:SderotBurningFactory1.JPG (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Btselem-south israel2.jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Unosat-gaza.png (pro-Palestinian, showing destroyed and damaged structures, not just a map of Gaza)
 * File:Map-of-rockets-launches-from-gaza-from-2014-07-08-to-2014-07-31 2.jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Israeli Strikes on North Gaza.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:20140805 beit hanun8.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:Shaymaa al-Masri, five years old, at a-Shifaa Hospital, Gaza. Shaymaa was injured when her uncle’s house was bombed in the early afternoon of 9 July 2014.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:Operation Protective Edge (14665449614).jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Shelter sign in Ben Gurion Airport during Operation Protective Edge.jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Al-Quds 2014 Berlin 20140725 173841.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:Tzuk-Eytan-Helsinki-protest-1.jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Peace demonstration in Tel Aviv.jpg (pro-Palestinian, Israeli demonstration in favor of Gaza, against the operation)
 * File:Kindergarten in Kiryat Ono in August 2014.jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:20140805 beit hanun7.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:Destroyed ambulance in the CIty of Shijaiyah in the Gaza Strip.jpg (pro-Palestinian)
 * File:House in Israel Destroyed by Hamas Rocket (14713208821).jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Rocket Strikes Child's Health Clinic (14669909615).jpg (pro-Israeli)
 * File:Rockets from gaza (en).png (pro-Israeli)
 * File:IDF Soldiers Uncover Tunnels in Gaza (14513059999).jpg (neutral, hardly pro-Israeli)
 * File:Artillery Corps in Gaza (14550733300)a.jpg (pro-Palestinian, showing an Israeli artillery peace firing against Gaza, although it could be neutral)
 * File:John Kerry and Benjamin Netanyahu July 2014.jpg (neutral or pro-Israeli)
 * The Gaza closure is clearly neutral. The UNOSAT image is neutral; no destruction is visible; it doesn't have an obvious bias. Could very well showcase how precise the IDF is. It has no obvious political leaning. The artillery corps is neutral. Thus there is one surplus pro-Israel image. The Ashkelon image. It must go. JDiala (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)