Talk:2014 Gaza War/Archive 16

Gaza Strip not treated with a NPOV
referring to the Gaza Strip as the "Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip" in the opening sentence of this article is an oversimplification of a complex situation and not a NPOV. Gaza is considered to be "occupied" by the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. That's a problem. There is also the issue of the unity government which makes things more complicated. I say the "Hamas-ruled" claim should just be removed. How can you 'rule' a region when you lack control of its airspace, coastline, borders, etc? JDiala (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This expression was chosen as a compromise after an RfC. The rational is that while Hamas doesn't fully control Gaza borders, it is the main ruling entity inside it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

JDiala edits

 * 1) Regarding this edit: There isn't enough pictures about destruction in Israel, unlike destruction in Gaza. See my comment above.
 * 2) This edit is too controversial to state it as a fact. Not clear Israel or the US was planning a coup. In this section the following sentence says: "The purported coup plotters..." (for the Hamas coup against PA). Therefore, in order to respect attribution, balance, NPOV and reciprocity, in the case of the alleged planned Fatah coup against Hamas should say "purported".
 * 3) About this edit: You have no consensus to remove tag for POV article (which is an opinion piece full of speculations, nothing more).--Ashurbanippal (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, even if that was true, there wasn't any destruction in Israel. Hamas fired these trivial projectile weapons into Israel in response to siege and occupation; they did absolutely no damage, and the vast majority were blown up by the Iron Dome or just landed in the desert. 1500 Palestinian civilians were killed; 6 Israeli civilians were killed. Do the math. Is proportional representation not something which should be strived for? Secondly, that's not true. There are more than enough images of 'rockets' and 'rocket destruction'. WarKosign evidently agrees, even though he's Israeli. Every other editor in the discussion agrees. Why don't you? All one needs to do is count.
 * Why is it too controversial? Where is the controversy? Cite sources please. You cannot remove or obscure reliable, scholarly material because you believe it to be "controversial" [because, evidently, it doesn't conform to your POV].
 * You do not need consensus for every single edit you make[otherwise the system wouldn't function efficiently, as there would be a corresponding discussion for every edit]. Opinion pieces can be cited, and, so long as they are properly attributed, do not require a disputed tag. The reason given for the disputed tag was absurd. I provided an explanation in the edit summary. You did not respond to it. JDiala (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your anti-Israel biased activism is astonishing. You don't even make an effort to dissimulate. Honestly, given your edit record and your comments, I think a blog would be more appropriate for you than this encyclopedia. I won't even bother to explain you why the aggressor doesn't always suffer less casualties than the side which is defending itself. Nazi Germany suffered far more casualties than the British and the Americans... so what? Actually there was plenty destruction in southern Israel, including six civilians killed, dozens of wounded, 8,000 displaced and destruction of property. You can check the images and read the sources of the article if you don't believe me. Currently there are only three pictures showing rocket destruction (proving that property damage is not a fake like you think). One from Yehud, another from Sderot and the third one is the photo of the Ashkelon clinic you want to remove. Compare that to five images of destruction in Gaza: here, here, here, here and here. I know that Gaza suffered more damage than Israel (ask Hamas why they started a war against an enemy much more powerful and rejected ten ceasefires in the meantime), but five images against three is more than enough.
 * The plan for the alleged coup against Hamas is based on rumors and statements, nothing more. It was never materialized and I seriously doubt Fatah could have carried it out. Besides, there is more evidence of the Hamas plot to overthrow or seriously damage the PA in the West Bank which was aborted by Israel. You didn't address my concern regarding your double standard: while you don't seem to have a problem that the Hamas plan for a coup is described as "purported" (which is correct attribution), you can't accept that Fatah's plan to expel Hamas in Gaza (supposedly instigated by Israel or the US) maintain the same language.
 * Such a tag raises concern about the fact that the opinion piece used as "RS" doesn't explain how they came to the conclusion that "US media focused on Hamas rockets, of which only 3% actually strike populated areas (causing little damage), with less attention paid to Palestinian casualties." I also think that the media focused much more on Palestinian casualties than Hamas rockets. In any case, if you want to clear up doubts (something you haven't done in the edit summary, which is too short to have a real discussion), you can do it here on the talk page from now on.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what variables you would like to compare (ie. death, displacement, destruction of property), what happened in Gaza was orders of magnitude worse than Israel. Nevertheless, I'm willing to compromise - as I did, again, with WarKosign. As the "rockets" were a major part of this war, I can understand the argument that they should be included. Your intransigence, however, with regard to the belief that they needn't only be included, but they comprise more than their fair share, is the main issue here. You, again, act like a child. Reverting my edits at every opportunity you get. Note how the first thing you did after your block ended, rather than immediately starting a discussion as would be expected from a mature individual who's learned from his previous mistakes of edit warring and being obstinately unilateral [the latter of which is, humorously, a trait also shared by the state whom you're defending], reverted it back to how you think it should be first. And yet I'm the one who's not making an effort to dissimulate. Now, regarding the images, it must be stressed that we are not looking at the number of rocket images per se. Rather, we are looking at all of the images with the intent to create a net balance. This has been discussed in the upper section. Other editors evidently disagree with you. There are several rocket-related images. You did not include, for example, the Sderot sculpture, the people running from Ashkelon, and the IDF released map. These images, though they don't necessarily show the destruction, still have the same functional role of conveying to the reader the effect the 'rockets' had on Israeli life.
 * That's your opinion. I don't care about your opinion, nor does Wikipedia. If by Hamas's coup you mean the recent one allegedly being planned in the West Bank, there is one major difference - the Hamas coup is based on what the Shin Bet said, whereas the Fatah coup is described as a statement of fact by scholarly sources. The former is to be attributed. Not the latter.
 * That's also your opinion (I also think that the media focused much more on Palestinian casualties). We do not care what you think. We care about what the sources think. If the sources are not necessarily in concert with your particular ideological leaning, that is not any justification to maintain a disputed tag. JDiala (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I started a discussion on the talk page to avoid an edit-war. After all, you said: "I can play this game all day." By the way, you were also blocked for the same reason than me. Remember? Although you broke 1RR many more times. I thought "unilateralism" was the new way of your President Abbas to achieve his political demands, given the fact that brutal force and violent struggle have proven futile or counterproductive to Palestinian aspirations since... 1920? Regarding the images, I made an analysis about all the 26 pictures currently in the article (one picture of Palestinian fighters was added later to the article). I ask you to read it and check the images one by one. I demonstrated that there is almost exactly the same amount of pro-Israel images as pro-Palestinian.
 * You and I disagree about what is exactly "statement of fact". If the investigation of an effective intelligence service like Shin Bet needs attribution, I can assure you an opinion piece by Chomsky, Tareq and some other guy can't be treated as an indisputable fact. I'm not even asking you to delete all that... I'm just demanding a small attribution like all the other claims in this and other articles of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 * Come on! Be serious, please. It's not a matter of my personal point of view. That pathetic essay doesn't provide a factual explanation to demonstrate why the media allegedly focused on rockets more than Palestinian casualties. That's absurd! If you analyze the US and other media during the war, you will find out they gave full coverage to Palestinian casualties, showing pictures of Palestinian dead or injured, while Hamas rockets received much less attention, like a secondary issue, in part because Hamas doesn't allow journalists to investigate their military actions in Gaza, let alone film them when they are firing rockets. I watched TV and read newspapers during the war last summer. As a matter of fact, I don't understand why that opinion article hasn't been deleted so far for irrelevant, false, unreliable and undue.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting a discussion is meaningless if you insert your edit before the discussion even began. Did I break 1RR? Yes. And I accepted the punishment for it. However, the fundamental difference—as opposed to the more legalistic/formal violation of having made my edits a few hours too early—between my edits and yours was that mine actually had an argument, whereas yours were (and still are) based on the reiteration of the same dogmatic assertions which I already addressed. Regarding Abbas, I disagree with his moves. Joining the ICC is likely not going to make a difference. As much as one would like to hope, at this point, there is no diplomatic settlement, be it unilateral or bilateral. I am in favour of a third intifada. Regarding your so-called analysis, I shall address that in that section.
 * This is precisely what I'm talking about. Do you have a deficiency in reading comprehension, or are you deliberately ignoring what I said—in violation of WP:GF— such that when I then refuse to take you seriously you begin to portray yourself as some integrous victim of 'edit warring'? Again, you don't need to play this game.It seems as though you almost thrive on conflict. This is contrary to how Wikipedia works. This is not a forum. This is not a place for personal or political debate. This is not a place for spite. It is about objective collaboration—which means honest discussion as opposed to intransigently and childishly attempting to force a certain ideological viewpoint onto the articles when it's clear doing so will undermine the article, and this project in general. It's quite clear from your edit history that you have an agenda. You want to maintain the dispute tag here, for example, but not, of course, for the citations of Middle East Quarterly on the "list of ethnic cleansings" page. I responded to this exact argument, about the silly assertion that the citations regarding the coup were all "opinion pieces" several times in the edit summary. There are three citations in that section which relate to the coup. Only one is an opinion piece. The Shin Bet needs attribution. Is that not obvious? How do we not know the Shin Bet isn't just making stuff up? It is an Israeli organization. It is biased.
 * I don't care about your opinion. This is the fundamental issue you're not understanding. Is it a reliable source? Yes. Is it a published source? Yes. Is it attributed? Yes. Is it due in that particular section? Yes. Thus it is to be included. Your opinion is irrelevant. See WP:OR. JDiala (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of factual corrections:
 * 1. "there wasn't any destruction in Israel" - false, over 3000 properties suffered direct damage from the missiles (rockets + mortar shells) fired from Gaza
 * Let me rephrase - The 'destruction' was negligible relative to the damage in Gaza. JDiala (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The damage in Israel was far lesser than in Gaza, not at all negligible. Saying "Israel had Iron Dome which intercepted (or ignored) 97% of the rockets, therefore the rockets where harmless" is also a fallacy - 3% of the rockets were able to cause 3000 cases of property damage and civilian deaths/injuries which is a proof to the deadliness of the rockets. They were designed as a weapon of intimidation and terror and not for precision military strikes, and it is exactly what they did. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why I used the word relative. The simple fact is, aside from some property damage, the rockets fired at Israel by Hamas, in terms of human and economic devastation, were orders of magnitude less egregious than the assault on Gaza by Israel. The terror inflicted on the people of Gaza this summer, and the terror being inflicted on the Palestinian people daily by the Israeli Occupation (can you imagine what it's like for a child to walk to school with a soldier pointing a gun at their face or settlers beating them? And then you wonder why they're anti-Semetic) is, again, simply incomparable to the inconvenience of some thousands of dollars worth of property damage and the inconvenience of having to go to a 'rocket' shelter. JDiala (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One again, please stick to facts. I am not aware of any soldiers "pointing guns" or settlers "beating" anyone in Gaza. There was no Israeli presence in Gaza since 2005 outside of the self-defense operations. Hamas inflicted terror on civilians on both sides by firing rockets, including on their own civilians. Israel was ready to cease the fire from the very first day of the operation, Gaza government wanted to continue so more of their civilians would suffer; they could easily avoid all the suffering on both sides, and especially on their own where it was certainly far greater. Saying "terror [was] inflicted on the people of Gaza" without saying by whom implies Israel is responsible which is evidently not the case. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an unnecessary digression. Just note that legally and in terms of national identity, the Gaza and the West Bank are a single territorial unit, albeit not governmentally[though, considering the unity government, this point is disputable]. As noted in the article, the region is occupied. Israel never 'left'. Back to the images, the issue is relative damage. Is it honest to have half of the article's images being related to rockets? I can understand that it's necessary to include them, and, obviously, to have a neutral image body, but there is balance, and then there is creating a false balance. That is precisely what Ashurbanippal is pushing for. JDiala (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hamas rockets threatened and disrupted lives of over 5 millions in Israel, nearly 3 times the whole population of Gaza. Israel successfully defended against the rockets reducing the damages and casualties significantly, while Hamas leaders hid under hospitals and other civilian installation, maximizing the damages and casualties to their civilians. Presenting Gaza as a victim of Israel's baseless aggression instead of the actual facts creates false disbalance. Damages in Gaza shouldn't be hidden, but so shouldn't be damages in Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the rocket-related images per se. There is a difference between having a fair number, the amount of which we have previously agreed upon, and having a blatantly disproportionate number, which is evidently what Ashurbanippal is going for. JDiala (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. "1500 Palestinian civilians were killed" - not necessarily true. The real value is somewhere between ~1000 and ~1600 and the most up-to-date number is ~1035, why do you use present an outdated estimate as a fact? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? Note that both Israeli and Palestinian sources are partisan and thus unreliable. JDiala (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All the available sources are in the article. There are no neutral ("reliable") sources, supposedly non-partisan sources such as UN based their numbers on Hamas's data. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1,523 is the number, according to the article, from the OCHA. It's evidently lower than that of other groups, so it has a different methodology[which, in the note, is explained]. JDiala (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * JDiala edits are well cited and reflect a NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "pound": From Israel:  From Operation Pillar of Defense:  

Reference named "UNHCR": From Operation Pillar of Defense:  From History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict:  From Bedouin: [http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,MRGI,,JOR,4954ce4ec,0.html World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Jordan : Overview. Peoples], UNHCR report, 2007 From Palestinian National Authority:  From Somalia: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

'Immediate Events' sub-division
This Talk section is a response to a notice that the section is too long and should be split into sub-sections. Based on the content I propose:
 * Teenager deaths
 * Operation Brother’s Keeper
 * Initial Gaza actions
 * The Launching of Operation Protective Edge

I also propose that the next section be renamed “Operation Protective Edge - Timeline” so as not to create confusion with Operation Brother's Keeper. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment there is no article on Operation Brother's Keeper, it's a redirect to 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers with the actual information on that operation split between these two articles.
 * I like the idea to break into sub-section, but their names and exact content should be well-defined. Teenagers didn't just die, they were kidnapped and murdered. It was followed by kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, which seems to belong logically in the same section. What exactly do you mean by Initial Gaza Action vs the launch of the operation, perhaps aerial strikes vs the ground offensive ? Currently I don't see these events under "Immediate Events".
 * I see no need to rename the timeline - it seems obvious that "timeline" refers to timeline of this operation and not another one. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Human Shields
I understand user:Warkosign's wish to bring balance to the text, but I have a problem with it. In the Haaretz article the IDF provides no evidence refuting the NGO's claim of Human Shield usage by the Israeli forces. So in fact what is being provided in just an IDF claim that the report is unbalanced. Is this not simply a POV, and as such, no matter who makes the POV statement, should it be viewed as being not WP:RS? To keep the playing field level, would we accept into text as NPOV; WP:RS, a Hamas 'balancing' statement that an Israeli report contained "sweeping conclusions and the problematic methodology it uses cast a heavy shadow over its contents and credibility", especially if it didn't address the actual topic? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * recently added another reference to what seems to be the same report, since it's from the same organization and time and had an identical reaction by the IDF. I think both mentions of the report should have balancing statements, but I don't want to copy the same reaction twice.
 * Currently the article uses Hamas rhetoric as counter-argument, for example "Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri dismissed the document as a "forgery...aimed at justifying the mass killings of Palestinian civilians" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Physicians for Human Rights provided a detailed study of the case of Ramadan Qdeih and his family pp.89-92, and noted an ambulance crew's testimony of a similar things,(p.93) and followed it up with a legal note.
 * People are named, the dates are given, the interviews provided. That the IDF just lobbed in an immediate response denying the fact, when its own, and other investigations are not completed, has zero weight. The most that can be said in reporting the case is that the IDF claimed it was unbalanced. If you want 'balance', and not mechanical political disavowals without substance, then wait for the IDF specific response to the paper. As it stands, political declarations do not have equal weight with detailed documented claims. We don'0t do 'political correctness' here, but NPOV per WP:Due, and until the IDF comes up with a focused serious reply, its position is worth a few words in a clause describing what the PHR case set forth.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excised.
A Palestinian Interior Ministry bomb disposal expert said that by 22 August, 20,000 tons of explosives had been dropped on Gaza.
 * I don't think this is authoritative enough to merit inclusion into the lead. It may be true, but one should await an independent, and authoritative source for such a calculation.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There also was a comparison to 6 nuclear bombs which violates common sense. 20 kilotons is comparable to the yield of Fat Man or Little Boy, that is a single bomb. A typical modern tactical nuclear weapon has a far higher yield. Of course there is an enormous difference between a single blast and thousands of blasts spread over time and space.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Background - Immediate Events
A "Section Long" flag was attached - correctly so in my view. This sub-section text consists for 2/3rds of the Israeli Teenager murder issue, while the immolation of a Palestinian teenager gets one sentence. The Nakba Day killings aren't even mentioned. The actual official Israeli version - that the trigger was rocket fire from Gaza - occupies a short paragraph, while the final paragraph makes for difficult reading and provides no comfortably assimilated understanding of the rise to boiling point. There is no mention as to who poked whom and why. Something definitely needs to be done. For a start, I propose the following content as sub-sub-sections (re the flag): 1) A concise paragraph on the issue of "Teenagers", not so heavy-handedly weighted towards the Israeli perception. 2) Operation Brother's Keeper and its effects and consequences 3) Who fired when at whom in Gaza prior to 7 July, and preferably why, which, after all, is the essence of the trigger phase. Erictheenquirer (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the murder of teenagers on both sides is equally despicable and equally important by itself. However, the murder of Israeli teenagers had more consequences - namely it caused (or was an excuse for) Operation Brother's keeper ("the crackdown"), which in turn caused Hamas to increase/begin rocket fire which was the direct cause for OPE. There are also controversy regarding Hamas knowledge and involvement in the kidnapping/murder.
 * I added previously that suspected murderers of Abi Khdeir were arrested and brought to trial, at least one of them seemingly preparing to plea insanity. This content was removed as being too pro-Israeli - apparently this quick arrest and trial contrasts with Khaled Meshal's congratulating the abductors/murderers.
 * We can separate operation Brother's Keeper to a separate paragraph, but the two murders can't be in a single paragraph - one happened before OBK, the other during/after. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the Nakba Day killings - is there any source connecting them to OPE ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'the murder of Israeli teenagers had more consequences - namely it cased (sic)'.
 * We simply don't know that. For all we know, the Beitanya killings may have played a constituent part in the killings of the three teenagers.
 * Abu Khdeir's murderers were brought to trial, with methods different from those used to find the murderers of the 3 teenagers. In one police work was used, in the other military means involving the mass arrest of mostly wholly unrelated people, including parliamentarians. Once you look at it from both sides, you can't add that the police were quick to arrest Abu Khdeir's killers (while ignoring the way the other case was handled, the way Abu Khdeir's family was insistently harassed, extended members beaten up, etc.etc.etc. Sources arguing that there was a connection with the OPE are abundant, and used to be in this text. This cannot be an Israelocentric presentation of the facts. Both POVs must balance each other.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (sic) is usually used to highlight an existing typo in a quote, not to introduce a new one.
 * Plenty of sources say that Operation Brother's Keeper was a direct result of the kidnapping. Once again, are there sources connecting the Nakba day/Beitanya killing to the kidnapping ?
 * There is little doubt that OBK was the reason/excuse for the rockets fired from Gaza, which in turn cased (sic) OPE. You are actually supporting my point - kidnapping of the Israeli teenagers had more significant consequences, this is what makes it more noteworthy than the murder of Abu Khdeir.
 * Is there evidence of any attempt or at least intention by the Palestinian authorities to find and arrest the kidnappers of the teenagers ? If there was such an attempt and yet IDF came and arrested them in excess force, your accusation would be far more appropriate. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (sic) What's your problem? You made a typo. I noted it only because the typo makes for a different verb (cause/case). You're only telling me what I indicated I knew by correcting the error you missed. Worse still, you repeat the error above.
 * What you are saying is Israel's narrative, and Israeli deaths, esp. of youths, count more as historical causative factors, than anything similar occurring to Palestinians, though they have an extremely higher casualty, and death-toll. It won't wash. It violates NPOV. One should just give the series of events that serious commentators refer to in dealing with the near and far reasons for the conflict.
 * Plenty of sources just means that most American and English language newspapers adopt that thesis. Plenty of sources are emerging that are more analytic: no one in the serious world believes that any state goes to war to retaliate for a few murders - they form the pretext. Just as 'Bring Home Our Boys' was a pretext (since they were known almost certainly to be dead) for destroying Hamas in the West Bank. This is understood everywhere. As to the alternative views, if 3 teenagers (Israeli), then why not 2 teenagers (Palestinian) that's in the Aftermath section of the Beitunia killings. With Abu Khdeir it was 3 Israeli youths for three Palestinian youths, all innocent. These wars are the direct result of Sharon's strangulation policy ('The Guardian view on the causes of the fighting in Gaza,' The Guardian 25 July 2014)
 * The kidnapping had more 'serious consequences' for Israel. That is obvious. The consistent policy of murdering teenagers, or subjecting a captive population to starvation and ethnocide, has more 'serious consequences' for Palestinians. For Hamas, again, the fall of Morsi, the rise of Sisi, the destruction of the unity government, the ongoing Israeli policy of economic strangulation, Egypt's closure of the tunnels, etc.etc., were of more 'serious consequence'.
 * 'There is little doubt that OBK was the reason/excuse for the rockets fired from Gaza,'
 * Reason is quite distinct from pretext. The reasons to go for war are quite distinct, and often in revealed hindsight, almost diametrically opposed to the given pretexts for going to war.
 * From Israel's perspective, Abu Khdeir's murder is just trivia in the big picture. So what? Wikipedia is not dedicated to one nation's sense of what is important to its agenda.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sic - my bad, I looked at my text and didn't see the typo (because you fixed it), so I didn't understand where this sic came from. You are right, I need to be more careful about this specific typo since I seem to repeat it often.
 * The kidnapping of Israeli teenagers triggered the conflict which had serious consequences for both sides, this article says consequences to Gazans were far more serious both in physical damage and in human lives. I did not say that death of Abu Khdeir is trivial, but I do not think there are sources saying that it had more consequences than any other hate crime. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - The issue of a link between the Beitunia killings, the Israeli teenager killings and the 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict (OPE) was subject to extensive debate in Talk page of the Beitunia Killings - particularly regarding the subsection "Aftermath". It was shown that various reporters and analysts cite the Beitunia killings as an alternative and earlier trigger to the subsequent events, with Leuenberger discussing the issue of differing views on relevance; the various possible alternatives to triggers to the chain of events; and specifically pointing to the view of many Israelis that the most proximate cause for the flare-up in the latest cycle of violence was the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens, while Palestinians point to a different trigger – the killing of two Palestinian teenagers during the Nakba commemoration day on May 15 at Beitunia. Historian Ilan Pappe discusses the acceptance and rejection of the Israeli narrative regarding the crisis in Gaza' and points to the murders of the Israeli teenagers as being a reprisal for the prior (Beitunia) killings in May of Palestinian teenagers. So the short answer to your question is: "Yes. Many". Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case the killings should be connected. The problem is how to decide what's the starting point - arguably Beitunia killings were caused by rioting during Nakba Day, which in turn can be said to be caused by 1948 Palestinian exodus. Do we put the complete history of Israel-Palestine conflict into this article ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no 'starting point'. There is a sequence of events, which was duly covered in the article (haven't looked since). As editors we are obliged to provide the important elements in that sequence from the long term (Gaza's situation. Brief) to the specific prelude, what happened when the U.S. sponsored talks broke down, the unity government, etc (things Thrall et al deal with), and the most specific antecedents, which include the Beitunia killings, the 3 teenagers, Abu Khdeir. I agree with Eric that the 3 teenagers passage is too long. I concur with Kosign that, in Israeli thinking that incident played a major role in justifying the war. Not for that reason however should it be dominate. One needs to touch on each significant element concisely, without undue bias.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - WarKosign raises a valid point - addressed in the Leuenberger piece - where do we start? Kingsindian also addressed this issue about a year ago, and his view seemed to receive general support. He used periods of relative calm to separate conflict periods. After the 2012 ceasefire, there was indeed relative calm; 2013 being noteworthy in this regard. Then, when the issue of Hamas-Fatah reconciliation became evident, the heat rose. That is why Kingsindian insisted that this topic be included. After late-April things calmed down again - for many weeks (6 June Ocha report). This is a "KingsIndian break". Then in June the heat was on again. On 1 June the IDF twice crosses into Gaza territory. On 2 June there are IDF airstrikes. On 9 June the IDF fires into Gaza and the Beitunia autopsy report comes out. The Israeli teens are kidnapped on 11 June and that same day the IDF executes a Hamas police officer in Gaza. And from then on it all goes pear-shaped, all according to OCHA weekly reports. So Nishadani is correct. No one event starts the slide to conflict; but the "hockey-stick" surge in violence certainly started well before 7 July, so I am revising my strategy and suggesting that it is that 1 June to 7 July period that should be covered by the "Immediate Events". Exactly how we subdivide/categorize it is still up for grabs. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And since we are on the topic of background, I have further criticisms of "Background". 1) Why is that Background summary section so bloated? A reader of this Wiki article will get bored long before they get to the real lead-up to OPE. The essence contained in the current text can be summarised into a few lines, with the details being left to the main article - "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". 2) Why is there a subsection "First Hamas–Fatah reconciliation (2011)" at all; it is irrelevant to this 2014 article. And, 3) the same applied to Operation Pillar of Defense. Why is there a need to explain in detail why Israel thought it started, yet not reflect what the mainstream media view was? Keep that for the OPD main article. What REALLY IS important is the 2012 Ceasefire compliance, especially the Thrall citation, and that is VERY poorly reflected in the current text. There are far too many quotes that reflect POV remarks from Hamas/Israeli officials and not nearly enough secondary analysis by NPOV parties, or summaries by data collating institutions. I am thoroughly underwhelmend by the entire background section as an encyclopaedic source for information as to why tensions built, and what the chain of events was leading to OPE. I intend to offer drafts here on "Talk" aimed at addressing the unnecessary and even irrelevant padding. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree in good part (though the background could certainly be précised). The most mediocre part of this page refers to the details of the conflict (and the subpages). Mostly, the actual war has been thoroughly laundered, as are the subpages, to make some impression of parity, when it was, as usual, a daily tossing of bombs into a fishbowl: bombing runs, massive casualties, and mortar/rocket fire, of course. The one thing that has been worked intensely is the information on the background, precisely the section you dislike, as to the respective views of the casus belli, and we have this. If you haven't read it, read closely James Marc Leas, 'Attack First, Kill First and Claim Self-Defense: Palestine Subcommittee Submission to UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict,'  Council for the National Interest 21 January 2015. This is an important source because written by a legal mind, assays the claims in newspapers at the time, points out contradictions, and argues for certain conclusions, which one may or may not accept. Eventually, all this newspaper junk should be tossed out and replaced by narratives from Thrall, Leas and comparable figures arguing for the Israeli narrative.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, offering redrafts on the talk page, esp. if you can come up with a more laconic presentation of the relevant details, would be much appreciated.


 * I must agree with WarKosign. Though the Nakba day shootings, along with the murder of the Palestinian teenager in June, were, of course, despicable acts which happened during that time frame, and thus should be mentioned, they're not directly related to the war. The kidnappings of the Israeli teens, however, were; releasing them was the stated aim of Operation Brother's Keeper, which provoked rocket fire. The argument presented by Nishidani, that the Nakba day killings may have provoked the kidnapping, is unconvincing; no sources are provided to substantiate that assertion. Pappe does not provide evidence either. Indeed, considering the myriad crimes the IDF and Israeli settlers commit against Palestinians, and the general moral turpitude of the occupation, any Israeli action in the occupied territories could be construed as a provocation. Though the historical context of the war, namely the years of occupation and human rights violations, should certainly be discussed, these particular events do not seem, at least in any obvious way, particularly exceptional or notable, nor is there any evidence that they have casual significance. JDiala (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern regarding EU funding of Hamas
this edit, the distraction of 2% of EU funds, is relevant. The speculation you add, "It could mean that €11.7m might have gone towards arming Hamas instead of the intended goal. Arne Gericke, a member of the European Parliament said 'It would sicken most [European] taxpayers to know that the EU itself could be directly contributing to the tragic cycle of violence”." is totally incompatible with wiki. One man's speculation (by the way the normal 'distraction' of aid to third world countries usually runs into 20-50% unaccounted for, and this area alone has stringent accountancy) is neither here nor there, and gauged to get over a propaganda message. The same can be done for the opposite opinion, i.e. getting comments that it would sicken American taxpayers if they knew how their dollars are subsidizing the destruction of Palestinian lives and the wars Israel wages in Gaza. That is often said, by notable figures and institutions (cf. here, here, here) or throughout Walt and Mearsheimer's classic exposé The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which finds this use of their taxmoney deplorable. So remove it or someone else will.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The speculation is not mine, it comes from the article. I was not sure if it should be included, but I couldn't think of a good way to phrase the MEP's concerns without mentioning the background. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the speculation. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this article ? It gives several relevant facts, I'm not sure which of them, and how, to integrate into the paragraph:
 * Materials are delivered slowly
 * Less material was entering the coastal strip in November than before the war
 * At this rate, reconstruction and development could take decades
 * UN-designed mechanism to control the supply of building materials has been widely corrupted
 * Some within the UN and international aid groups had privately expressed fears that the mechanism was vulnerable to corruption
 * Cement delivered by the mechanism is being resold at inflated price right outside the warehouse
 * Anything else ?&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Title of the article
Hi. Can i know what is the basis of naming of this article? Like, why is it "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict" instead of "2014 Invasion of Gaza"? Thank you.Sohebbasharat (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the same reason it's not called, say, "2014 rocket attack on Israel". Please see previous discussions of the article's title. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if consensus has been reached then i can't say anything. ALthough IMO it is fairly biased. It tries to give a "symmetric" picture to the conflict although even by various Israeli sources, IDF engages in "asymmetric" warfare. And so the title should be more angled towards the asymmetric nature of the conflict. Also, IMO, the title should be reflective of the fact that one party is the "occupier" and the other "occupied" according to International consensus. And so the use of violence by the "occupier" can never be equalized to that carried out by those who are "occupied". (as is fairly clear from International law).Sohebbasharat (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A consensus can be changed and when it can't you can respectfully disagree.
 * Gaza is not considered occupied by Israel or by Hamas.
 * "Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly". While it's certainly the case here, it does not mean that wikipedia's should pick a side, and certainly not automatically side with those who suffered heavier losses. Many people, including President Abbas blame Hamas for this conflict, so it's not as clean-cut as you imagine. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Its no point debating what is right, here. As the issue has already been settled (consensus reached), so whatever i think has'nt really got much bearing on this wiki page. And, i will agree with you it is not clear-cut, it is the most complicated issue at least in the middle east. So, i am under no illusion that it is 100% clear cut, but i do think that it is clearer than many people would like to argue. There is an occupation going on; of course the "occupied" would resort to violent means; means that i myself might not agree with! means that might not be helping in their struggle! But, and it is a very important but, it does not change the basic fact that the "occupied" have a right to use arms in their struggle under International law. The violence committed by an "occupied people" for their struggle of independence can never be equated with the violence the "occupier" commits to maintain the occupation. Many people forget this basic fact while reviewing the situation; as IMHO, has happened on this very page. It leads to an artificial symmetry or balance in the debate and sort of nullifies the basic cause of the violence done by the two sides i.e to gain freedom vs to maintain occupation.Sohebbasharat (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Collegeisreallycool
registered two days ago, a feint, and then major additions to an I/P article, that are totally disproportionate. The Israel-gaza war at 280,000 kb is already 100,000 over the usual upper limit. The mechanical documentation of predictable mouthings by the usual congressmen has no meaning here. One could make a huge section on this precedent of statements by political figures from the EU's 28 countries, This is a global encyclopedia. It does not attribute unusual, or exceptional importance, to electoral statements by US politicians regarding Israel, which are so predictable they are devoid of meaningful content. I have a list of 20 odd outrageous statements by major figures on the war, but I don't include that. So why include this valid shit? (well sure. You just happened on this among 4,600,000 articles on visiting Wikipedia for the first time and was shocked by the glaring lacuna of having no details about what nobs in Congress stated, . . . .)Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

US political reactions
I undid User:Nishidani's removal of some content I added on political reactions in the United States to the conflict. Nishidani stated in his summary that he "Excised massive violation oif WP:Undue. More here on the US political spin, than on key facts re the war)" but, as I stated in my summary, I don't think it is undue in a ~16,000 word article about a conflict in which United States domestic opinion is a major strategic factor to devote a few paragraphs on reactions in the United States. If anything, this section could be built out and eventually made into its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeisreallycool (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Nishidani has a good point - US support was important, but this section was far too long. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be tightened, but I think the statements of key U.S. leaders is important in understanding the conflict when U.S. support is critical for Israel. I disagree with completely removing it but I don't object to shortening it (I tried to start just now). I also think US public response could also probably be added instead of just comments from political leaders (which, based on statement below, Nishidani does not hold in high accord (ごめんなさい). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.148.230 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a main article for reactions: Reactions to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My removal of it was reverted by the newby, referring to the talk page. I can't see any support from productive editors for this revert.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I get it, you don't like new people and you want the whole thing removed. WarKosign agreed that US support was important but that the section was too long, it has been significantly shortened since. An IP also thought it should be shortened but also disagreed with completely removing it. Someone linked to another article. I think that the shortening is okay and disagree with you removing the entire thing. Also, I don't appreciate you suggesting that I am not a "productive editor". Capish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeisreallycool (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That detail is wholly unnecessary here, and is certainly undue weight. The original is fine, and per WP:BRD once reverted it should not be returned absent a consensus for it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Collegeisreallycool: You really wanna tell us the IP is not you (or at least some heavy meat)?TMCk (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Removals and OR
, the numbers are reported by newspapers etc. As you also can see in the following articles, many just use the sum $5.4 billion. Secondly, it's acceptable to use sources other than English here on English Wikipedia but this is not some odd claim by the newspaper. The claims can be seen in other sources such as http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4605549,00.html, http://www.maannews.com/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?id=752684, http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/23406, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4619715,00.html and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613477,00.html.

This and this edit is just original research. Refrain from doing such things, especially as the second part has been discussed at great length on how to write it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell no source explicitly connects the freezing to death to the buildings being damaged in the fighting. They mention the damage and that some families remained homeless so is a very reasonable conclusion that a reader can draw, but I don't think it was ever stated explicitly that "an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict". They even mention infants dying in Lebanon, certainly it was not connected to the conflict.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * UNRWA’s Director in Gaza makes the connection: "This is a tremendous achievement; it is also wholly insufficient. It is easy to look at these numbers and lose sight of the fact that we are talking about thousands of families who continue to suffer through this cold winter with inadequate shelter. People are literally sleeping amongst the rubble, children have died of hypothermia," Turner added. as dos the original source used in the edit: "The other day announced UNRWA, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, that the money for the reconstruction of the war-torn Gaza Strip has now ended. Of the $ 2.7 billion that the world promised to assist with just 135 million paid so far. This means that tens of thousands of Gazans remain homeless, and at least four people, including three infants, have frozen to death in the last month the winter cold." - (machine-translated) TMCk (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's correct. This part was one of several one that got removed. Yesterday, Al Jazeera wrote about the aid to Gaza, which barely has been paid out: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gaza-donations-fall-short-pledges-150218060136423.html. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither of those quotes says what WarKosign has pointed out ("an infant died of cold after their house was damaged/destroyed in the recent conflict") so it's still OR. Also, as a rule, English Wikipedia always uses English sources when they are available.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, they point out that children have died in the cold because of losing their homes in the conflict. This is precisely what they say.


 * Even if there are articles on English on this, it doesn't mean you remove that section but instead add an English sources to back up the claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What consensus are you talking about, Monopoly31121993? You can't leave the talk page and then just think it's finished and the thing will continue to be removed. A source in another language than English is acceptable and all claims have been proven to be backed up by other sources. As you are not doing something to solve this issue but instead keeps reverting, I will go forward with this and see where this can be solved. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I read today another article today about the topic, written by Chris Gunness from UNRWA in The Guardian: The world has broken its promises about rebuilding Gaza – and the children will suffer --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As expected there was no no reply,while Monopoly31121993 keeps editing other articles. It shows he is just interested in removing the info and reverting. Because of that, I will now proceed with next step to solve the issue. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, the sources do not explicitly say that destruction of the homes caused the death of hypothermia, it is implied by clustering of two potentially unrelated statements together. We can imply the same conclusion in the article without explicitly stating it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's good you responded so hopefully this could be resolved. I was just finishing writing regarding the next step. As I was going to write, I really don't know what is the issue now. If it's about the 5.4 billion, babies dying in the cold or both. You have talked about the cold so I guess you are only disputing this one.


 * Okay, the wording I used was "At least four people (including three babies) were frozen to death in the cold" after saying "leaving tens of thousands of Gazans still homeless". It does not say the destruction itself caused the deaths of hypothermia but that the homelessness, caused by the destruction, did it. Is it something I have misunderstood? Because I don't think the claim that they were homeless is disputed (there are full of reports of that, including an article from some days ago by Reuters). This is an article from today: Babies die in Gaza due to the resource siege, from Al Jazeera. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See this for example: "I see it's raining outside. I will stay home for now."
 * Did I just explicitly say that I'm staying home because it's raining outside ? No. It is however implied by clustering of two sentences. Even if it was "I see it's raining, I'll stay home" or "I see it's raining and I'll say home" - the connection is still implicit, unless I wrote something like "I see it's raining therefore/so/hence I'll stay home".
 * Same is true regarding homelessness and hypothermia in all the sources so far: they mention them in close proximity, so the causal connection is implied. As far as I know, no source connected the two parts with "hence", "therefore", "because", etc. As I wrote, I do not object to keeping the same implied connection in WP article, as long as it does not add explicit "because" or "therefore" that was not present in the sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean like: "It's raining outside. This means I'll stay home" -- like the above source states?TMCk (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that "this means" is used to connect destruction of homes to homelessness, but the connection of homelessness to hypothermia is implied, not stated. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The source says "This means X and Y". This is becoming a more and more an unreasonable and ridiculous argument to leave this content out. There is no synth what-so-ever in those 2 sources I linked above. If there is, synth must have been completely re-written since I last checked. Honestly, I'm starting to see a POV pattern in this conversation.TMCk (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Add. You don't follow your own criteria here.TMCk (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. I wrote "I do not object to keeping the same implied connection in WP article" - this is not an argument to keep the content out but mere nitpicking of explicit vs implicit casual connection.
 * 2. Note that we are trying to discern meaning of machine-generated text
 * 3. "A means X and Y" can be interpreted as "A means (X and Y) or it could be interpreted as "(A means X) and Y". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We're not talking math equations here but plain English language. You say you don't object, yet you're making a case against it. If you have a sudden doubt about the accuracy of the Swedish source translation [first mention you made just now] you could ask a native Swedish editor for verification. Tho not Swedish speaking, other languages I speak are helping me understanding the text in question quite well, including the context. Otherwise I wouldn't had pointed it out in the first place. It's called "homework".TMCk (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW: They're not pulling a Monty Python either.TMCk (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with TMCk. The source does says so. I speak Swedish and I can say that the machine translation is correct. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My only objection is to insertion of explicit causality from sources that only have implicit causality. The version that was in the article used implicit causality. I have no problem with it. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim of "implicit causality" is pretty much baseless. IRISZOOM. I have no time for that nonsense but if you want to pursue the synth allegation further I suggest bringing it up at the OR noticeboard stating in short the edit and source(s) in question with a link to this discussion here. Maybe something fruitful comes out of it even so the board is a bit neglected at times. The original reverter's "argument" is basically just "no"; didn't even check the original source to see that the numbers are correct thus is a non-starter. WarKosign to my surprise doesn't follow his own rationale and keeps repeating their (unconvincing) synth claim thus this conversation is stuck and needs a fresh pair of eyes.TMCk (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not make any claim of synth. Each of the sources places several statements in a sequence, so did the WP version paraphrased from these sources, I see no problem with it. If these statements did not appear in this sequence in any of the sources, then it would've been synth to put them together to imply a connection not present in the sources. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like the right venue, TMCk. I will write there soon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is now consensus that the original content can be included (which I just did). Link to OR-noticeboard discussion here +     permalink TMCk (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Khan Yunnis Incident
Thrall quite clearly wrote "...in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants". One BBC source says "On 7 July, Hamas claimed responsibility for firing rockets for the first time in 20 months, after a series of Israeli air strikes in which several members of its armed wing were killed." and the second says "A Hamas spokesman had earlier accused Israel of killing the five militants during air strikes on Sunday and called it a "grave escalation".

He promised Israel would "pay a tremendous price".

But Israeli military spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner denied the claims, saying the men had died on Sunday in a tunnel that had been bombarded by Israel on Thursday.

He said the militants went into the tunnel to assess the damage from the air strike and meddled with some explosives, which were apparently detonated accidentally." We can't say that BBC supports Hamas' version if it contradicts it as well.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought it was okay to add that Thrall said so and BBC too because while they in the second article tell us the positions given by Hamas and Israel, they said it was because of Israeli bombing in the other article so they don't contradict each other. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It only said per Hamas before it was changed by IRISZOOM a week ago. It should be changed back to kept at the status quo ante. Btw, adding an editorial by some analyst who write it during the conflict from outside Gaza is not the kind of thing we put in the introduction as a summary of the article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it only said Hamas despite other sources saying otherwise and I brought that up months ago. Therefore it is wrong to say it was only Hamas who made that claim. There is no reason to say so when we have at least two, certainly Nathan Thrall, who blame Israel for the bombing. An analysis can be used in the lead and so what if he was not there? I doubt more than few were in that specific place. If we are in some way going to exclude it from the lead, then we are not telling the whole story because we are pretending like it's only Hamas who claimed that when it was not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood me. We don't include new information in the introduction (per WP:lead. It's supposed to be a summary of what's already mentioned in the article. You can make a list of as many people as you want who agree with Hamas' version of the story but it's not appropriate to place them in the introduction.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we simply remove the text about the different versions of who did what to who and stick with the fact (ie. that an explosion killed several members of Hamas and afterwards they claimed responsibility for all of the rocket attacks). Going into details about disputed claims of who did what when should be in the article itself not in the introduction (which is a summary of what's already in the article, as I said above).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Writing:'several Hamas members were killed in a tunnel explosion, and Hamas reacted by claiming responsibility for rocket attacks' would be comically obscure. It is quite possible to formulate a sentence that neatly encapsulates all elements. We once did, and it was edit warred out.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, it was already in the article but was not correctly described per the reason I stated. I think it's relevant to state who may have caused the bombing, as some think this was the main reason the conflict started. Others have supported this view too, including Noam Chomsky, which I also said some months ago.


 * Nishidani, what do you mean is missing now? --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reduction of Background
Herewith my draft, attempting to decrease the verbiage in the current version but retain the thread of conflict over 10 years as contained in the current version:

2005 Ceasefire and Gaza withdrawal
In February 2005, the PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a ceasefire which effectively ended the Second Intifada. Following the critical Sasson report (March 2005), which revealed that the Israeli government had funded the establishment of illegal outposts and had appropriated private Palestinian land, new approvals for the building of settlements in the occupied West Bank territory continued, countering the planned withdrawal from Gaza. Under the direction of Sharon, Israel completed withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005.

2006 Hamas election victory and consequences
To international surprize, Hamas won the Palestinian elections in January 2006, which were declared democratic by observers. . Tension built further when, based on its election victory, Hamas formed the new Palestinian government on 29 March 2006, in which Fatah refused to participate. Hamas was prevented from effectively governing by joint actions of Fatah, Israel and the USA. The 'Quartet' demanded that Hamas renounce violence, recognize Israel, and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements, which Hamas refused to do, resulting in aid being withheld. Israel imposed a blockade and sanctions on Gaza, and illegally withheld customs revenue. In Fatah-controlled Gaza, Hamas continued to uphold the 2005 ceasefire by not firing rockets at Israel. The formation of the Hamas PA government was followed by a five-fold increase in Israeli artillery fire on Gaza and increased targeted killings. Hamas continued to institute its self-imposed halt on rocket fire, but other militant groups responded with launchings. Gaza deaths and injuries from IDF attacks increased markedly since the Hamas election victory.

Ceasefire collapse and lead-up to Operation Summer Rains
On 8 June 2006, Jamal Abu Samhadna, Hamas’ Inspector General in the Ministry of the Interior, was assassinated in an IAF air-strike on the Salah al-Dein Brigades training camp in Gaza, in revenge for a 2003 attack. This assassination by the IDF triggered a ‘chronology of crisis’. Samhadna’s supporters threatened to revenge his death. The next day rockets were fired at Israel from Fatah-controlled Gaza, and a few hours later an IDF bombardment of reported launch sites on a Gaza beach all but wiped out a civilian Gaza family. In response, Hamas announced that it was going to recommence rocket attacks. On 15 June Hamas offered to reinstate the ceasefire, but Israel refused. This led to more Israeli counter-measures, the kidnapping of Gaza citizens and subsequently of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit on 25 June 2006, and Israel’s subsequent Operation Summer Rains in late-June. Hamas wrested control of Gaza from Fatah in 2007, after which Israel tightened the Gaza blockade even further. From September 2005 through May 2007, the IDF fired 14,617 artillery shells into Gaza, killing 59 and injuring 270, while over the same period Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 rockets into Israel, killing 4 and injuring 84. A ceasefire was reached in June 2008.

More ceasefire collapses and Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense
Israel broke the June 2008 ceasefire on 4 November with a cross-border raid. Gaza responded with a barrage of rockets, which in turn gave rise to the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, in which ~1400 Palestinians died compared to 3 Israelis. From mid-2012 mutual attacks became common with the IDF firing on Palestinians in Gaza and militants launching rockets at Israel. A peak occurred in November 2012 when, during a temporary ceasefire, Israel assassinated Ahmed Jabari. The resultant rocket fire from Gaza led to the IDF’s Operation Pillar of Defense, ended by another ceasefire. Thereafter Hamas largely continued to maintain the ceasefire to Israel’s satisfaction, with fewer rockets fired from Gaza than in any year since 2003, and Hamas arresting violators. Yet the stipulated end of the blockade by Israel never came. Crossing were repeatedly shut, while the IDF made regular cross-border incursions into Gaza, and strafed fishing and border zones in Gaza territory, all in contravention of the 2012 ceasefire agreement. Rocket fire from Gaza was the almost inevitable response, especially where consequences were fatal.

Unity Government and Israeli opposition
[Retained at the wish of Nishadani, but expanded to include 2014 with appropriate title change. I have retained the +972 citation based on discussions on Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182 that +972 is a reliable source for translated Hebrew publications; changed 'declared' for the more accurate 'gave his opinion']

Influenced in the Arab Spring and by demonstrations in Ramallah and Gaza, the gap between Hamas and Fatah was bridged in 2011. After the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas declared his willingness to travel to Gaza and sign an agreement, the IDF killed two Hamas activists in Gaza; the IDF stated the killings were in response to the launching of a single Qassam rocket, which hit no one, but Yedioth Ahronoth's Alex Fishman argued they were a "premeditated escalation" by Israel. In an interview with CNN, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his opinion that the reconciliation talks were calls for Israel's destruction, and strongly opposed the idea of a unity government.

On 23 April 2014 Fatah and Hamas unveiled their second attempt at a reconciliation deal and a new PA government was sworn in on 2 June 2014, without a single Hamas member, pledging to comply with the three Quartet demands. Israel denounced the agreement and prevented salary donations from reaching Gaza, seeing any small step toward Palestinian unity as a threat. . On the same day, after five weeks of no Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, the IAF resumed attacks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 hostility build-up
The Israeli blockade on Gaza entered its 8th year in June 2014 and continued to have a devastating effect on the territory. In the 2014 period up to end-May, such conflicts resulted in 1 Israeli death versus 22 Palestinians killed, and 11 Israeli versus 1126 Palestinian injuries. Following April 2014 altercations there were 5 weeks of relative calm between Israel and Gaza, after which a series of events occurred, which led to a build-up of tensions:
 * On two occasions on 1 June 2014, IDF crossed the border penetrating 200 meters into Gaza with bulldozers, military vehicles (jeeps), tanks, and helicopters, to level terrain. The next day rockets were launched at Israel from Gaza. This was followed by Israeli airstrikes on Gaza military training sites.
 * On 2 June the Palestinian Authority announced a transitional government based on a pre-existing unity agreement reached with Hamas. Hamas endorsed the new government. PA President Abbas proclaimed that the government accepted the Middle East Quartet’s demands: ‘that it recognise Israel, renounce violence and adhere to past agreements’. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the reconciliation agreement as “a great setback to peace”.
 * On 11 June Mohammed Ahmed Alarur (Awwar), a Hamas police officer, was assassinated in the first extrajudicial execution operation by the IDF in the occupied Gaza Strip since early March. The justification for the IAF airstrike is variously ascribed to a qassam rocket which had landed harmlessly in an open area earlier in the day and to claims that Alarur had been involved in April 21 rocket attacks by an extremist Salafist cell, These rocket attacks had followed clashes outside the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem between worshippers and police firing stun grenades and rubber bullets on 16 April.
 * Following the 11 June assassination air strike of Alarur in Gaza, rockets were fired at Israel on 12 June, continuing through the rest of the week. In response, the Israeli military launched a series of air strikes targeting alleged military installations in Gaza.

Various teenager deaths and Operation Brother’s Keeper

 * In the West Bank the main post-April flare-up involved the Beitunia killings in which two Palestinian teenagers were shot on 15 May, with subsequent demonstrations and riots.
 * On 11 June, results of a multinational autopsy on one of the slain Palestinian teenagers were made known, revealing that live ammunition had been the cause of death. This, together with video evidence and forensic analysis thereof,, disproved the IDF claim that its forces had only fired teargas and rubber bullets. Christine Leuenberger reported that Palestinians view these killings as the trigger to the subsequent conflicts in July 2014 leading up to Operation Protective Edge.
 * The next day, on 12 June, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped in the West Bank. The IDF began a massive, 18-day search-and-rescue operation, named Operation Brother’s Keeper, entering thousands of homes, interrogating and arresting hundreds of individuals, and closing down West Bank organizations affiliated with Hamas. In its search for the suspected murderers, Israel carried out its largest West Bank campaign against Hamas since the Second Intifada, closing its offices and arresting hundreds of members at all levels.
 * On 1 July the teenagers’ bodies were found. In contrast to Palestinians, most Israelis and mainstream western media outlets consider these kidnappings and murders to be the trigger for Israel’s  subsequent Operation Protective Edge.
 * Once the gag-order had been lifted, it became evident that the Israeli government had known almost from the beginning that the boys were dead. It maintained the fiction that it hoped to find them alive as a pretext to dismantle Hamas’ West Bank operations via *Operation Brother’s Keeper., a reflection of the “political objective – to dismantle internal Palestinian unity based on the reconciliation agreement, and a military objective – to deal a hard blow at Hamas and its infrastructures, at least in the West Bank”.
 * On 2 July a Palestinian teenager was kidnapped and, while still alive, set alight, in an apparent revenge killing for the three Israeli teenagers’ deaths.

Immediate precursor events
[Work-in-progress]

Any constructive criticism and improvements are welcome. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a very large scale change, so I think it is best addressed piecemeal. So, starting from, your suggested section "2005 Ceasefire and Gaza withdrawal" is unacceptable as a serious violation of NPOV and distortion of sources. It uses the JTA source to describe a timeline of "Ceasefire agreed - Israel violates it through assassinations - but the Palestinians still hold their fire" . In fact, the source clearly states that the Israeli assassination was in response to "Hamas claiming responsibility for launching missiles from the Gaza Strip, killing an Israeli woman that day before. ". i wonder how you missed that - it is in the same paragraph. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a substantial piece of work, and has some useful elements. But generally I think it reads throughout as a defense of Hamas, and violates NPOV. I say this even though I myself privately share much of the POV there. I'm afraid it looks less balanced than the text we have. I think what we have, though intricate, flows smoothly, is comprehensive and looks at both sides, and manages a fair balance. Still, it's a good thing to try and simplify (I think our sourcing is the main thing to be simplified and pared down). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the structure can work, but will require a lot of work to represent all the key facts neutrally and succinctly. For instance a few issues that I noticed immediately:
 * Israeli disengagement from Gaza is called "Gaza withdrawal" and not wikilinked
 * There is no mention of rocket fire prior to the blockade
 * "Israel broke the June 2008 ceasefire" ignores the rocket fire.
 * "The Israeli blockade on Gaza entered its 8th year" ignores that the rocket fire from Gaza entered its 13th year.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , my current interest is the half-dozen major flare-ups since the February 2005 ceasefire, and what triggered and promoted them. You questions fit in perfectly.
 * Israeli disengagement from Gaza is called "Gaza withdrawal" and not wikilinked
 * Eric: I view this as minor semantics and am quite willing to change the wording and supply th Wikilink.
 * There is no mention of rocket fire prior to the blockade
 * Eric: I would suggest that a) such detail belongs in the 2006 Gaza war timeline and not here; plus b) the referred Wiki page must be the most astonishing case of Wiki imbalance imaginable, because it completely ignors Israel's numerous land and air incursions into Gaza, and more importantly, pretends that there were not twice as many significantly more powerful 155mm artillery shells going the other way. It has been an astoundingly successful program of Israeli propaganda to burn the image of "ongoing rockets raining down on Israel" onto the Western memory, yet to manage to avoid recognition that a far more destructive aerial barrage was taking place in the other direction. I do not intend to be a promoter of that imbalance .... on the contrary.
 * Israel broke the June 2008 ceasefire" ignores the rocket fire
 * Eric: What post-June 2008 rocket fire? Check the bar-charts. There was a massive decrease. Even the Spokesman for the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister was forced to acknowledge it as fact.
 * "The Israeli blockade on Gaza entered its 8th year" ignores that the rocket fire from Gaza entered its 13th year."
 * Eric: See above re the two-way stream. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your preference for 'disengagement' as opposed to 'withdrawal' has been addressed - see the Talk sub-section [Reduction of Background Part II] below - thanks to Brad's proposal.
 * Regarding your observation that there is no mention of rocket fire, I find 2002 to February 2005 irrelevant, given the ceasefire agreement of early 2005. From then on Hamas did not fire any rockets at Israel until the June 2006 chain of events. The mutual skirmishes in mid-2005 would be undue weight given the purpose of this draft - i.e. a summary of major tension sources, and would in turn require balancing reporting of the various Israeli aggressions (creation of and strafing of the 'buffer zone' within Gaza territory, dictating access and movements of citizens in Gaza, assassinations of opposition officials, military incursions into Gaza, strafing of fishermen, etc), thereby defeating the purpose of this (draft) exercise. If you wish such less-than-major conflicts to be equitably reported, then the Background section to Operation Summer Rains would be more appropriate in my view.
 * Regarding your objection that the rocket fire is ignored, the reason is that between August and 4 November 2008 there were so few rocket attacks [once the Hamas policing of rogue launchings had been addressed - see graphs in the Wikilinked article] that referring to them would not only give undue weight, but would ignore the fact that Israel instead referred to the purported tunnel under the border as motivation for its 4 November attack. If you want, I can refer to this Israeli claim, but, as usual, this would require a balancing text that Hamas and the Carter Foundation disputed that claim. In similar vein to 2006, I view that detail as being more appropriate to the background of Gaza War (2008–09) which we can perhaps address once this article is satisfactory.
 * Regarding your objection that "The Israeli blockade on Gaza entered its 8th year" ignores that the rocket fire from Gaza entered its 13th year", I view this as a generalisation that is so broad as to have limited analytical precision, since it ignores the various ceasefires and the major gaps in the period that you quote during which there was practically no rocket fire at all, whereas the blockade was on-going and unrelenting.
 * Do you have further objections to the (revised) draft being substituted for the current bloated and uneven text? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Brad, I fully agree to a piecemeal approach. It is the only way to maintain an organised discussion.
 * Regarding 2005, I did quite a bit of research of IDF, PCHR/OCHA lists. An escalation of mutual attacks started in early June. By mid-July 4 Gazans had been killed and about a dozen injured - see (just for instance) http://194now.net/Killingfields/month_chrono.php?period=0507. Then came the Nativ Ha’asara death. It therefore seems that in this mid-2005 escalation there were tit-for-tat responses and quoting only the Israeli case would be cherry picking. That is why I left it out. Agreed? However, in the List of Israeli Assassinations it can be seen that after a year of inactivity, 15 July 2005 marked the start of an extended campaign of extra-judicial executions by the IDF, which occurred almost every month until March 2006. I judged that as being vastly more significant that a few weeks of tit-for-tat skirmishes in mid-2005. So, if my version of a more compact rendering of these developments is seen as not being NPOV, I would welcome your alternative suggestion for 2005 to mid-2006.  Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing the POV. However, if my draft sounds like a defense of Hamas, then perhaps we seriously DO need a revision of the perceived NPOV in Wiki for this period, because I sincerely do not believe that I have deliberately skewed the viewpoint. In fact I am currently combing through it to ensure that I am not guilty of what I accuse others of, namely nurturing a sloping playing field. That process is far from complete, but I was hoping for suggestions to improve NPOV, and not outright rejection. As such, I thank User:WarKosign for his constructive contribution which I will most certainly incorporate in my on-going tweaking. Regarding the existing text, I unfortunately have to disagree with you, Nishadani. The massive emphasis on the deaths of the three Israeli teenagers in the Background swamps any claim to balance, and simply edifies a western-media view in what is meant to be an encyclopaedic presentation. Most jarring of all, the current text drops that Shalit kidnapping in, seeingly an event totally unrelated to any prior events; a mere macho whim by Hamas. But the worst of all is the spin that Operation Cast Lead had Hamas rocket attacks as its sole precursor trigger. I find that to violate NPOV in the extreme. So, sorry, I placed the ball of balance on the current text .... and it rapidly rolled right off the edge. I intend to correct that sort of gross skewness, either by the draft that I presented, or by piecemeal adding to or otherwise editing an already bloated 'Background'. Obviously I favor the former. WarKosign, I will respond to your points when I have given them greater attention. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't reject the text. To the contrary. I agree with you that the death of the teenagers is accorded excessive attention. The reason for this was the need felt by some editors to give a justification for Mr Netanyahu's immediate, cosmically omniscient assurance that he knew Hamas was to blame. This is done by detailing all of the bits about the Hamas money connection. It had nothing to do with the reasons for Israel's decision to go to war. It was simply the public pretext, as in most wars. But the rest of the article's background is fairly good. As far as I remember only that passage is WP:Undue, which of course might be contested as being, overwhelmingly, of germinal importance in Israel, and most sources, being written to feed the public mind with the usual pabulum on the eve of war, do happen to assign to it a key role. Historians won't treat it that way (unless of course, some smoking gun of evidence hitherto unknown pins responsibility of Maashal. That said, you'd simply have to negotiate for this particular bias to be whittled down a tad. My own view is that patience is a virtue, and that within a few months or a year or two, we will have strong scholarly sources (one such example is James Marc Leas, 'Attack First, Kill First and Claim Self-Defense: Palestine Subcommittee Submission to UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict,'  Council for the National Interest 21 January 2015, which you don't seem to have used yet, though I added it to the article.) that blow away all of the chaff, and provide a concise analysis, which we, or if I'm not around, you guys can use to make the text more succinct. Such details clearly belong to the relevant subpages, and if you want a technical objection, it is that the article's themes were consistently shifted off this page by forking them out, with the one exception of the teenagers' murder. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel buoyed by your positive prognosis, but somehow at the same time cynical of its realization. You view is that, other than the Israeli Teenage Killings, the rest of the article is good. I respect that, but I am not at all so positive, as stated before because of the shallow and unbalanced treatment of Shalit's kidnapping and of Operation Cast Lead and Operation Pillar of Defense, as being solely due to rocket fire; not a word about Israel's 4 November 2008 breaking of the ceasefire or of the Jabari assassination. They should either be given balance, or not feature at all. The wording of the March 2014 is particularly bad. The trigger for this particular conflict and the chain of events is perfectly clear, but you wouldn't be able to tell that from the current text. Also, what is the added-value of the "First Hamas–Fatah reconciliation (2011)"? Finally, where are the on-going underlying irritations whicch make sporadic rocket fire inevitable - the embargo on Gaza, the ongoing settlement program, and the frustration by Fatah, Israel and the US of Hamas' public right to govern? So, although we may be of the same POV, there are clearly issues on which we differ regarding the current quality and balance. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - many thanks for the James Marc Leas source - brilliant. You are correct; it should feature prominently Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might like to read this as well, though it is not connected to this article. Moign Khawaja, Mark LeVine,      Who will save Israel from itself? Foreign Policy January 19, 2009, esp. the following remark, which holds, I should think, true also for all the rubbish written about rocket fire being the reason Israel was compelled to act:
 * "According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European university study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79% of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada (2000-2008), compared with only 8% for Hamas and other Palestinian factions."
 * That's only one study (worth pursuing itself) but generally reflects what many observers have suggested. One should work slowly in this area, seeking only the best comprehensive studies. As to the first Hamas-fatah reconciliation. It is important because on reading of the area is that it illustrates the 'divide et impera' doctrine of imperial states, i.e., internal consolidation requires the fragmentation of adversaries, real or imagined. Hamas was encouraged by Israel to grow, to undermine the PLO. When the PLO was turned into a Quisling government, it in turn was patted on the head, and Hamas was the object of attack. It is a fundamental whinge of the Israeli government that 'we have no interlocutor, because Palestinian forces disagree among themselves, (which is ideal actually for an occupying power). When Hamas and the PA try, instead, to present a united front, the rhetoric becomes:'Hey, the PA must stop allying itself with terrorists'. It has been fundamental to Israeli policy to fragment both Palestinian society (for cantons and bantustans), and political organizations (so they can claim it's not their fault if talks fail). Of course those articles are disappointing. It is inevitable for them since they are written in the heat of the moment, based on a mother-lode of articles that mainly 'spin' things to get people on one hysterical bandwagon or another.
 * Whatever, to write Wikipedia one must waive or suspend such considerations, and just keep reading the best-informed academic sources emerging until one finds these factors analysed. There is always a lag between what one knows, and what academia eventually puts into print, and one should not try to second guess the probable outcome of serious research by spinning the text towards a justification of one side (or the other) Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You conviction that all will become devoid of spin and that, with time, serious research will win, and become available to Wiki to achieve NPOV balance, is sincerely praiseworthy. However, my limited Wiki experience so far does not bear this out. A prime example for me is Origins of the Six-Day War where scholarly research has been available for almost ten years, yet the Wiki article on that topic is still a skewed concoction. The unbalanced acceptance of the Israeli view that closure of the Straits of Tiran would represent an act of war in the Summary, is unchallenged; Michael Oren's POVs as to justification for Israeli actions are rife, without challenge or balancing opinions, Israeli claims and other manifestations of the pro-Israeli slant are collectively called the "conventional narrative". Particularly appalling is the persistence of the Oren text ""[t]here is an element of truth to Dayan's claim", but that Israeli actions were justified, as "Israel regarded the de-militarized zones in the north as part of their sovereign territory". In the past decade we have had about a dozen scholarly works, mostly by respected Israeli historians, but also by political analysts and experts in international law, not exclusively limited to Shlaim, Segev, Ben-Ami, Gluska, Quigley, Maoz, Pop, Gat and Bar-on, which fully refute Oren's position, yet the unlevel Wiki field persists. This wealth of information that does not always support the "conventional narrative", and in many cases fully contradicts it, somehow remains secondary to Oren. How long do we maintain patience that scholarly research will inevitably win out? Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reduction of background, part II
As a procedural recommendation, please don't go back and modify your original text in response to feedback, as that makes the comments people make with regards to the original text incomprehensible. Instead, start every new draft in its own section.

Now, If I look at the current suggested text - " Following the critical Sasson report (March 2005), which revealed that the Israeli government had funded the establishment of illegal outposts and had appropriated private Palestinian land,[2] new approvals for the building of settlements in the occupied West Bank territory continued, countering the planned withdrawal from Gaza.[3] " - that seems to be unsupported original research. The source used for this does not say that building of settlements in the West Bank territory "countered" the planned withdrawal form Gaza. Further, pulling in the Sasson report is clearly undue weight (actually, totally irrelevant) for the purpose of describing the background to the Israel Gaza conflict. I would be ok with the following: 2005 Ceasefire and Gaza withdrawal

On June 6, 2004, Sharon's government approved an amended disengagement plan from Gaza. In February 2005, the PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a ceasefire which effectively ended the Second Intifada.[1] Under the direction of Sharon, Israel completed withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005.

- Brad Dyer (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the BBC source did not contain the wording "countering the planned withdrawal from Gaza". What the BBC reported was "But now the government has made it clear that while it pulls out part of the Palestinian territories [i.e. Gaza], it plans to step up its presence in another" So it was not original research, but an attempt to reword a clumsy sentence. Be that as it may, you view the Sasson report to be undue weight. What the current draft did was to add the fact that ongoing settlement expansion was happening. Nonetheless I concede to and accept your draft version. However, since the settlements were clearly a source of major on-going discontent amongst Palestinians in the 2005-2014 period, the issue cannot be omitted from the description of conflict sources. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

2005 Ceasefire and Gaza withdrawal (revised)
On June 6, 2004, Sharon's government approved an amended disengagement plan from Gaza. In February 2005, the PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a ceasefire which effectively ended the Second Intifada.[1] Under the direction of Sharon, Israel completed withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictheenquirer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the above edit, there is no longer any reference to settlement activities as a source of conflict. In the section below I remedy that serious omission.

2014 hostility build-up
Although there had been an on-going increase in the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank since the 1970s, considered to be illegal by the international community, the building of new settlements in 2013 demonstrated its fastest growth since 2000, representing a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli blockage on Gaza ..... etc (as per Version 1 of draft proposal). Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

[Insert]
 * On 2 June the Palestinian Authority announced a transitional government based on a pre-existing unity agreement reached with Hamas. Hamas endorsed the new government. PA President Abbas proclaimed that the government accepted the Middle East Quartet’s demands: ‘that it recognise Israel, renounce violence and adhere to past agreements’. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu denounced the reconciliation agreement as “a great setback to peace”. On the same day, after a 5-week period free from Israeli aerial strikes, the IAF resumed attacks.

More ceasefire collapses and Operations Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense
[Revised 13 March 2015] Israel broke the June 2008 ceasefire on 4 November with a cross-border raid. Gaza responded with a barrage of rockets, which in turn gave rise to the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, in which ~1400 Palestinians died compared to 3 Israelis. On 9 March 2012 the assassination of PRC secretary general Zohair al Qaisia by Israeli drones in Gaza, triggered a flurry of mutual attacks. From mid-2012 mutual attacks became common with the IDF firing on Palestinians in Gaza and militants launching rockets at Israel. On 7 October, Israel conducted an air-strike on Gaza which resulted in retaliatory rocket fire on 8 October, followed by further IDF attacks. In early October, during an unofficial ceasefire called by Hamas, Israel conducted further ‘surgical strikes’ expecting that these would result in retaliatory rocket fire. A peak occurred in November 2012 when, during a temporary ceasefire, Israel assassinated Ahmed Jabari. The resultant rocket fire from Gaza led to the IDF’s Operation Pillar of Defense, ended by another ceasefire. Thereafter Hamas largely continued to maintain the ceasefire to Israel’s satisfaction, with fewer rockets fired from Gaza than in any year since 2003, and Hamas arresting violators. Yet the stipulated end of the blockade by Israel never came. Crossing were repeatedly shut, while the IDF made regular cross-border incursions into Gaza, and strafed fishing and border zones in Gaza territory, all in contravention of the 2012 ceasefire agreement. Rocket fire from Gaza was the almost inevitable response, especially where IDF attacks resulted in fatalities. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The draft revision has been accused of being "an apology for Hamas". I have been combing through the timeline to find other flare-ups, especially where triggered by rocketfire from Gaza. I found two more, one in March and one in October 2012 (as edited above). However, in both cases the triggers to the outbreaks proved to be Israeli extra-judicial assassinations, as was the major case on November 2012. My apologies for not being able to find major flare-ups initiated by Gaza. Nonetheless, I will persist. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been using the chart from http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2014/07/gaza-cease-fire-dynamics-explained-what.html to pick out the more significant conflicts since the end of Operation Cast lead. Two remain. One, the August 2011 outbreak is catered for in the edit below:

[Revised 15 March 2015 - italics] Following a marked reduction in rocket attacks on Israel between 19 June and 4 November 2008,  Israel broke the June 2008 ceasefire on 4 November with a cross-border raid. Gaza responded with a barrage of rockets, which in turn gave rise to the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, in which ~1400 Palestinians died compared to 3 Israelis. ''A series of 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks occurred near Eilat in August, originating from Egypt, in which 8 Israelis were killed. Ansar Jerusalem claimed responsibility. Nonetheless Israel blamed the Popular Resistance Committees, denied by the PRC, and launched attacks on Gaza killing over a dozen PRC fighters plus civilians.'' On 9 March 2012 the assassination of PRC secretary general Zohair al Qaisia by Israeli drones in Gaza, triggered a flurry of mutual attacks. From mid-2012 mutual attacks became common with the IDF firing on Palestinians in Gaza and militants launching rockets at Israel. On 7 October, Israel conducted an air-strike on Gaza which resulted in retaliatory rocket fire on 8 October, followed by further IDF attacks. In early October, during an unofficial ceasefire called by Hamas, Israel conducted further ‘surgical strikes’ expecting that these would result in retaliatory rocket fire. A peak occurred in November 2012 when, during a temporary ceasefire, Israel assassinated Ahmed Jabari. The resultant rocket fire from Gaza led to the IDF’s Operation Pillar of Defense, ended by another ceasefire. Thereafter Hamas largely continued to maintain the ceasefire to Israel’s satisfaction, with fewer rockets fired from Gaza than in any year since 2003, and Hamas arresting violators. Yet the stipulated end of the blockade by Israel never came. Crossing were repeatedly shut, while the IDF made regular cross-border incursions into Gaza, and strafed fishing and border zones in Gaza territory, all in contravention of the 2012 ceasefire agreement. Rocket fire from Gaza was the almost inevitable response, especially where IDF attacks resulted in fatalities. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for this article!
I think that in section 2.3 of this article, there is no date, this means that readers will not know when that happened, was it 2014 or 2015? Please find that out and add it in. I would but I don't know how to use HTML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.108.252 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article's title is "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict" and 2.3 is part of the "Operation timeline" with a link to the Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict main. It seems to me pretty clear that, unless otherwise noted, all dates refer to 2014. Maybe if you re-read you see it the same way.--TMCk (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing the title; rediscussion Suggestion
I propose the title to be changed from "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict" to "2014 Gaza war". Google trends shows that the latter is more searched term than the former. Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not Supported - my first reason is that such a change could be used to justify a series of salami-like future deletions focussed on the build-up to the conflict, and thereby leave Wiki bereft of the dynamics in the period preceding the Gaza invasion. There is nowhere else on Wiki where the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation; the Israeli resistance to it; the Beitunia killings; the Israeli teenager deaths; Operation Brother's Keeper; and the actual sequence of the switch of attacks from the West Bank to Gaza can be outlined, if only the Gaza War were the focus. Secondly, a similar suggestion was made last year and defeated. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You said that future deletions might occur, that is not a valid argument. We are not talking about any "hypothetical" future actions. You would be fully independent to contest each case when it is raised (if any). Secondly, You are saying that there is no place where all the background can be outlined. I am not asking to remove background from this article. But it will always be a question how far you wanna go in Israeli-Palesine conflicts because there is always a background to everything. If you know what i mean :-). Yes, i know a similar suggestion was not accepted previously, but i am presenting the data, that people are more likely to search by "2014 Gaza war", so why not use that instead of the present title? WHat are the arguments to favor this title over the other which is more searched for? Sohebbasharat (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the rename. My problem with the current title is that it doesn't define the timeframe clearly. The article focuses on 49 days of fighting in July and August that Israel called "operation protective edge", yet the name could be applied to any form of less-than-perfect harmony between Israel and Gaza in 2014. Both "2014 Gaza War" and current title are neutral, both have the disadvantage of not being a specific name clearly preferred by the media - but there doesn't seem to be such a name. I disagree with that it would justify series of deletions of background, since no matter how you call the subject of the article it needs to have background, the discussion is only about a rename and not about a change of the article scope, so why does it matter ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

- predicated on those assurances from you and, I am now neutral to the change. Many thanks. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We should wait for some other editors to contribute their suggestions. Then we can Request a move. Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Not supported The most popular name is not necessarily the most encyclopedic one. The issues with your proposal are that, firstly, it doesn't specify in the title that Israel was a belligerent, and secondly whether or not this assymeterical onslaught of a civilian population constitutes a 'war' is questionable. 'Conflict' sounds more objective. I see no problem with the current title. The complaints other editors have, for example with regard to the time frame, are in my view trivial and nitpicky. "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict" is fairly unambiguous. It's obvious what it's referring to. JDiala (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)The problem with "Gaza war 2014" is that it does not specify Israel as a belligerent? Well, that's the same with Israel-Gaza conflict, it also does not apportion who was or was not the belligerent. 2) Yes, i sort of agree, that war is more of a symmetric affair (perhaps, not sure), but I think that the present title also does not explain the symmetric/or asymmetric nature of the conflict. 3) Apart from the popularity, another thing that WarKosign stated is also true. That Israel-Gaza conflict was there in 2010/2011/2012 etc etc, its basically always there. So, 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict does not tell that this was more than the "regular" "conflict" between the two sides. But I agree both titles have there shortcomings. In that case why not go with the more popular one? Or, we can think of another name. How is 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza? "To invade" is defined by Oxford as "(Of an armed force) to enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it". I think this best describes the situation. Because Israeli army did not invade Gaza for example in 2013. But it did invade in 2014 (in the ground assault). And it was to "subjugate" Hamas. So, it fits the definition very well indeed. What do you guys think of this? Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza is as bad as 2014 Gaza rocket assault on Israel - partial and POV. There were thousands of missiles (rockets and mortar shells) fired from Gaza, and if not for the Iron Dome hundreds of civilians would be killed on Israeli side, so an "onslaught of a civilian population" was attempted against Israeli population, while the strikes in Gaza were always targeted towards military targets which Hamas hid between civilians. Now, after correcting the facts that JDiala got wrong, to the title - would "2014 Israel-Gaza War" work for you ? I do not believe there is anything more sympathetic in a "war" than in a "conflict", toward whom is this supposed sympathy targeted anyway ? A war is just a more violent form of conflict. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong on multiple counts. 1) First of all there already is a separate article for the 2014 Gaza rocket assaults on Israel, check List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014. So, it would not be POV to have another article named 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza 2) Secondly, your Iron Dome advocacy, which although has nothing to do with the proposition, is a fluke. According to the MIT missile defense expert Theodore Postol, fewer than ten percent of Iron Dome’s intercepts were successful. This Iron Dome talk is BS. Its the primitive nature of the missiles (better called "fireworks") and NOT the Iron Dome that leads to minimal loss of life and property on Israeli side. But, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The fact is that this article does not deal with all the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2014, for which there is already a separate article present, this article also does not deal with the year 2014 in Israel-Gaza conflict (the current title), this article deals mainly with the "Operation Protective Edge" part of the conflict, which included Invasion of Gaza by IDF, the background of Hamas rocket attacks or kidnappings can and should be present in the article but the naming of the article should be on what the article is about i.e 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza. And as I have already described, invasion is "(Of an armed force) to enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it". According to Israeli perspective, we can say that IDF invaded Gaza to subjugate Hamas (or their rocket attacks, whatever); but the name is wholly accurate, IMHO. Sohebbasharat (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Postol's analysis was criticized as based largely on examination of amateur videos, instead of real data. The fact is that during this war/conflict thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza, and it was Hamas's main form of attack. There are two articles focusing on each of the sides (List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014) while this article covers the conflict/war as whole, which consists of two sides attacking each other, and therefore the title of the article can't describe only one side's attack ignoring the attack coming from the other side. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because someone criticized doesn't make it invalid. Postol is an MIT professor. Mr. Shapir, with all due respect, is a B.Sc. in Physics and Chemistry writing for an Israeli institute headed by the former IDF Military intelligence chief. Not exactly unbiased, eh :-) Secondly, please delineate which Gaza rocket fire are you talking about. There were 52 rocket attacks in Israel in 2013. Was there any Israeli invasion in result? No. Does this article deal with that? No. There were 22 rocket attacks in January, 2014. There was no Israeli invasion in result and is not included in this very article. Similarly 9, 65, 19, 4 and 62 rocket attacks in Feb, Mar, Apri, May, and June respectively. Was there any Israeli invasion in that period? No. Does this article deal with those? No. This article deals with a specific event that was called Op Protective edge by Israel. Whatever the background i.e rocket attacks (which is important to mention) has no bearing on the title because it is not dealing with those (other than as a background), otherwise it should have mentioned all the rocket attacks in previous months, heck even previous year. This article is about a specific event in July,August, that was 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza. I don't think you can argue this fact. There has to be stronger argument other than there were also rocket attacks from Gaza bcz rocket attacks were there even before this operation and hence no new development and so not the subject of this very article (covered well enough in other article). Lets conduct a thought experiment. If there had been no Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014 and rockets continued to fall on Israeli, would there be this article? No, the other article would have been enough. The defining feature of this article is the Israeli attack/invasion of Gaza (whatever the background) and the name should be based on the main topic not on any background. Sohebbasharat (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article deals with the military operation launched by Israel, including its background and all the relevant events. The operation itself consisted mainly of airstrikes, artillery bombardment and ground invasion. The military offence by Gaza government, which arguably was the reason for the operation, consisted of thousands of rocket attacks (compared to 52 rockets in 2013), as well as infiltration via attack tunnels and some other minor attempts. This article deals with the whole conflict/war and not only with the ground invasion which was only a part of it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Background is/and should be included but background does not describe article title. Invasion can be aerial as well as ground. The whole conflict that is described in the article was the aerial&ground invasions by IDF. Secondly, I think you are coming from a POV, that is why you are misrepresenting the facts. Which thousands of rockets were the reason of the operation? Before July 8th a total of 383 "rockets" were fired. Get your facts and POV straight. In 2013, 52 rockets, In 2012, 487 (except the month of November; when Operation pillar of defene was taking place), In 2011, 680, In 2010, 150, and In 2009, 569 rocket attacks took place. So, if you want to name the article because of the "background" of the rocket attacks, either you have to go all the way back to 2008 (last invasion) or accept that the rocket attacks are not the main issue being discussed in this article (as they have continued up and down since 2008). Infiltration via attack tunnels were only brought up later on after the operation had begun. Whatever, it is already discussed in the article. Yes, i agree this article consists of the whole war/conflict that was carried out by Israel (whatever the background) hence the name 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza; ground and air both invasions took place. I think I have clarified my argument fairly well. You can have your own view, lets wait for others' opinions. In short, this article solely discusses the 2014 Israeli invasion/attack on Gaza, the Gaza rocket attacks are only a background because they have waxed and waned since the last many years and not anything new, and hence are not the main subject of this very article. To give you another example, the article 2013 invasion of Iraq is not titled 2013 Iraq-US conflict, although there is a background, that US thought that Iraq was preparing WMDs and hence was a threat to its national security. But the article is named on the main topic of the article, not on any particular background. Although it is OTHERSTUFF, but just giving this to explain what i am trying to say. Sohebbasharat (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Count of rockets - I stand corrected, "only" 353 rockets were fired before Israel launched an operation to stop them. Since the operation - 2 rockets so far.
 * I assume you meant 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is not a good example, as far as I know Iraq did not attack US in any form before the invasion nor during it. In our case, Hamas made demands, refused ceasefires and eventually even announced the operation/war/conflict was a success for them - clearly even Hamas claimed to be a side to the conflict and not just a victim of an invasion. In short, I support a two-sided term such as war/conflict, but reject any single-sided term like invasion/assault/massacre/attack.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I supported changing the name to this article long ago. See this for a move review discussion I opened, suggesting this exact title (2014 Gaza War). This was discussed extensively about a year ago, but there was a 3-month moratorium on moves, so nothing happened. I don't know what happened after that.

This article is clearly about the events of July-August 2014, not before and not after. Of course a war has a background, which can and should include stuff like the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, blockade, rocket attacks and so on. I think that the term "2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza" is proper, however, I don't think it would be accepted widely, as has already shown. I prefer 2014 Gaza War, or Gaza War (2014). Wars are often named after the place they took place in, without reference to who carried out what. Like the Gulf War and so on. It is hardly a secret who carried out the war. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We discussed it once the moratorium expired, and then once again. No consensus for a change was reached. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think this is an urgent issue, or too important. At the time I was discussing this, it was indeed an urgent issue because the article was not stable and people were adding stuff to the background and lead all the time. Now the article is more or less stable, so I don't feel the title change is really necessary. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Supported - As others comments. --Ant a n O 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The title is an evident misnomer. WarKoSign's links show brief, exchanges. You'd probably need a wider community input. I don't think there is any way in the world that RS are going to reflect the provisory title, which is misleading. It was a war with a beginning and an end, within a chronic low level conflict. My suggestion therefore is to ask for wider community review of the issue of the title, and an undertaking for all editors who have worked the page and stand aside, as outsiders discuss the merits.Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and others. It is called a war and one thing often heard is that "there have been three wars in six years in Gaza" or something similiar. So that also includes Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012. However, the conflict in last summer is obviously called "war" more often because of the length, death toll etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Massacre"
Hi to all,

I realize that this is a very sensitive topic and issue. Thus, I am not making any edits whatsoever in order to demonstrate my good faith. However, I question the use of "2014 Gaza Massacre" as a bolded title. Of course, I understand that it was probably included to counterbalance the inclusion of the Israeli operation name, but it still seems like something that could be jumped on as unbalanced. Once again, I am not here to stir up trouble, edit war, push POV or make a WP:POINT. My apologies if this issue has been discussed.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This term gives me 4,770 results, as far as I can tell they are all referring to this conflict. While it's about 100 times less used than the Israeli operation name, I don't see a reason to disqualify it.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How could it be massacre since both parties engaged in "fight"? --Ant a n O 03:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLDTITLE, "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Note that MoS says nothing about correctness of the name. It is a name that some people used for the conflict, the question is whether it's "common".&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 03:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, "the question is whether it's 'common'." GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This article has been linked to at Template:Massacres against Palestinians. If you have an opinion about it, please participate in the discussion.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now the last mention of the word "massacre" has been removed. Notice that there were more sources for that two weeks ago before it was removed as one editor though it was too much citations in the lead and infobox. Thay may be true, however, I don't think he expected that other editors would later remove it because they think the sources were too few. A note could be used instead to put the refs there, like the first note there to the long name and explanation of it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In my view 'massacre' is simply too POV and unencyclopedic to include in the lead (indeed, possibly offensive to Israelis). As an analogy, one can possibly find reliable sources which describe Islam as fascistic, yet we simply would not include that description in the lead, as it is highly inappropriate. JDiala (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In a way, the Israeli name is POV. We could leave it out from the lead but perhaps mention it another section as I think the term and similiar (like slaughter) has gotten significant coverage. Just as there is a view that the problem is the Palestinian rocket attacks, others don't see it like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The wording about Amnesty
, I was just going to mention, like did, that the wording is better per WP:SAY. Also notice that by having the sentence in quotation marks, it is attributed to Amnesty and not stated as a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, i'll try to add some additional info instead. --Elysans (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)