Talk:Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City

NPOV Issues/Not Disputed
It's clear that IDF is not denying they were responsible, there's also video footage and many corroborating reports with little dispute over this matter. We should go ahead and include that in the header with citations. As per WP:DUE, if the opposing viewpoint is a very small minority then we don't have to give it much weight. There is little to no evidence of IED as cause. In addition, the source (citation 4) for IDF blaming Hamas does not appear to state that IDF blames Hamas for the attacks. The article states "Israel directly accused Hamas of blocking Palestinian evacuation, in order to use them as "human shields"", which is not the same as blaming Hamas for attacking the evacuees. This is a serious NPOV issue as well.Ashvio (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

All sources that attributed responsibility to Israel are historically hostile to Israel. Any other sources?
I just landed here from a Google search, but I was surprised to see that at least 2 of the parties blaming Israel - the Financial Times and Chris Cobb-Smith - are those who Israel claims to have malicious intent repeatedly.

Financial Times has been criticised by Israel supporters (probably more than any other "apolitical" media in the UK) since the 2000s (calling Tel Aviv the capital of Israel, blaming settlements alone as the main impediment to peace (and more recently calling for settlement boycotts), Israel being the main cause of problems in the Middle East and much more since then).

Chris Cobb-Smith is a household name in challengers of Israel, for anyone that has been following through the years. He is associated with Al Haq/Forensic Architecture (the few parties that claimed the hospital could have been hit by an Israel airstrike), which refer to the IDF as the IOF. Most famously, he accused Israel of using white phosphorus "in an illegal manner" and other war crimes when he worked for HRW/Amnesty, so is obviously not a fan of Israel and vice versa.

This isn't saying they are necessarily wrong, since a repeated or biased accuser can still be right. But it's strange to list those 2 (and of course Desmond Travers, who is also openly no fan of Israel, well after The Goldstone Report was published) as the main sources accusing Israel. Are there any other sources without a history of either expressly supporting or going against Israel?

It could be argued that no one seemingly impartial had accused Israel or the Palestinians of the explosion since they didn't want to jeopardise their jobs by angering people for and against either side. But the Responsibility and Responses sections seem a bit amateurish for anyone familiar with the politics of the area. 1.129.104.100 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:RS/P considers the Financial Times to be a reliable source. If you have an issue with this, start a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what people have to say. XTheBedrockX (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The title is incompatible with an event of unknown cause and intent
An "attack" implies we know the cause of the event, implying Hamas, Israel or another third party had intent to cause injury to the convoy as described.

You wouldn't automatically describe a deadly gas explosion, bushfire or earthquake as an "attack". Nor would we even describe a fatal car accident due to negligent driving as an "attack".

Assuming the number of deaths have been verified to be 70 or in that vicinity, then the more appropriate term could be a "mass casualty incident" or "mass fatality event".

If one was being fastidious, the number of fatalities could be questioned, as could the purpose of the convoy (were they all "evacuating" and then if yes, all evacuating "Gaza City"?). The phrase "mass casualty incident" might be too broad during war, since hospital systems may be under strain, such that even singular large-scale events that may only injure 1 person could still be described as such due to the displacement of already limited health system resources.

If we start going down the rabbit hole, we end up with conspiracies such as a Hamas false flag event, but this would obviously not be investigated by Hamas anyway, even if evidence was collected for analysis. This would leave us with only one word in the title that we're sure of, "Palestinians", but then one could theorize that the convoy was "a group of Iranian advisors to Hamas targeted by Israel", and so on.

Well I hope you get my point. 202.130.220.167 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and Hamas are your source?
No citation form independent sources, no IDF spokesman, no official reaction form Israel. You deliberately chose to believe to Hamas and Al Jazeera (who are known for favourable coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups). Hamas, the same organization that reported that Israel killed 500 people in Al-Shifa Hospital and that they kidnapped Nimrod Aloni. You trust terror organization as reliable source? Corvus (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you got a specific edit that needs making? You mean al-Ahli Hospital, fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation as sources
References 9 and 10 are debunked misinformation - one is a tweet from some guy who has spread a lot of other debunked theories, and the other is from an audio file from Israel - many news sources saying these audio files are clearly fabricated. This should at least be mentioned if this source is being used as a reference. 121.200.4.64 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I added further clarity by including where these claims are sourced from. Could you please provide any sources that could be added under that topic? B3251 (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Material on Hamas attacks
The Ynet article cited says "A disturbing video posted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) supposedly depicts a street in Gaza with at least 12 Palestinian civilians lying dead on the ground after Hamas opened fire at them for trying to flee from their homes in the northern Strip, the New York Post reported Friday.". The New York Post itself is unreliable, and the Ynet piece only says that this "supposedly depicts" such a thing. The second cited source attributes a claim to the IDF, that some Gazan said that Hamas was preventing people from leaving. Neither of these reach the level of saying in Wikipedia's voice that such a thing was reported, the first should be discarded entirely and the second can only be presented as a claim by the IDF.  nableezy  - 19:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that claims presented by the IDF should be described as such. I have found more sources on this topic, including one through Al Araby that the IDF was not firing at civilians, rather at Hamas militants. The Jerusalem Post also presents the original claim by Amjad Taha, with their own analysis. There are also further reports (via the IDF) of Hamas blocking the path for Gazans, so that they can't escape . The sum total of this is that it can be - at a minimum - presented as "there have been reports of Hamas targeting civilians" TimeEngineer (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)