Talk:March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes

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


Can someone confirm whether this is the most serious violence since the Gaza War?--Reader1987 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the biggest escalation of violence since then.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources refer to it being the biggest escalation in a year/since August. Sources also refer to quotes saying that this will end shortly. Should be easy enough to add to the article if someone has the patience. Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now say "months" and even "the worst violence there in three years". But is quieter now (for better or worse).[1][2] Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Disputed section - while I can understand how the first incident can be regarded as disputed, the second incident cited is not disputed by anyone as being an outright lie. Why is it in a disputed section? why isn't there a "False accusations" section which can contain any clearly verifiable false accusations by either side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.19.253 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo under "iron dome"[edit]

"About 300 rockets were fired...."

I know it's not the article's most pressing issue, but can someone please fix this? The page is protected so I can't. Thanks! Bravemidwesterner (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes[edit]

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 March 2012 Gaza-Israel clashes'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 "jpost1":

  • From 2010 Israel–Lebanon border clash: "'At least four Lebanese killed in border clashes'". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
  • From Gaza beach explosion (2006): Gaza beach blast victim wakes, Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2006
  • From Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid: "Court dismisses flotilla petitions". Jpost.com. Retrieved June 8, 2010.
  • From 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy: Abu Toameh, Khaled (24 August 2009 Updated 25 August 2009). "Palestinian family: We didn't say organs taken". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-08-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From Egged: Izenberg, Dan; Mandel, Jonah (January 6, 2011). "Court scraps 'mehadrin' buses". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2011-03-08.
  • From Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007: JPost staff and AP (May 19, 2007). "IAF airstrike kills three in Gaza City". Jerusalem Post.[dead link]
  • From Gaza flotilla raid: Keinon, Herb. "'Palmer report: Gaza blockade legal, IDF force excessive'". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
  • From List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011: "Additional shooting attack north of Eilat, one injured". The Jerusalem Post. August 18, 2011. Retrieved August 18, 2011.

Reference named "haaretz1":

Reference named "jpost3":

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⚡ 17:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

Currently this article contains a large amount of material dedicated to Palestinian attacks. Some of these are really minor "two mortar shells were fired into Israel." I also note that there is List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012 that details these attacks. So I don't see the reason for giving a very large amount of space to Palestinian attacks, as compared to Israeli attacks (esp. given that all of those killed, including dead civilians) were on the Palestinian side.

I propose summarizing the attacks by both sides, so they are given roughly equal space. What does everyone else think?VR talk 13:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

each single rocket attack incident is a seperate operation, removing the content of a daily attack would remove the context of the clashes ,without that information person would get the impression that the clashes was only a small and seperate clash, ignoring the the pre and post events. one very important thing is that the minor "attacks" made close to milion and half people take refuge in shelters. and the most important thing that the minor attacks had been mostly against civilian targets. 109.226.6.24 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with VR we should only note about the 15,000 PTSDs and sderot and other cities (didn't find the amount in different cities), also add the migration of 15% of sderot (see sapir resarch) 10% of population migration in the negev, the 70K USD cost of each anti - rocket. add the over 170 million cost to the area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.6.106 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't read the talk page before posting the below in a separate section. VR is obviopusly correct.
Because it gives huge details of Palestinian rocket fire, and nothing of the successive IDF strikes, except for a synthetic remark. As all sources admit, the clashes began with a unilateral strike by the IDF on Gaza. What followed was retaliation, and IDF counter-retaliation. Neutrality requires that the IDF attacks interleave the Gazan rocket launches, since both sides were involved in a logic of escalation (started by Israel). And 'rockets' don't hit 'regional councils'. In English a council is an institution. Rockets hit the territory governed by regional councils.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to 109.226.6.106's points (a) I've lived precisely in this area, which is mostly desert, which is what most 'rockets' hit. If you check the articles, several refer to civilian casualties as resulting from car crashes when sirens went off, which should be specified. Thirdly, the 'minor attacks' are not against civilian targets, since this primitive rocket doesn't, unlike Israeli technology, single out a target. The 1 million and a half people forced to take shelter in Israel is equal to the 1 and a half million in Gaza, who can't take shelter. The article violates most criteria for WP:NPOV, reading like a screed of unilateral victimism.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Israeli and Gazan rocket fire is that, given no RS or other references, the Gazan rocket fire is overwhelmingly targeting Israeli civilian localities and not the empty desert. (why would the Gazans risk their lives to fire at empty desert?). Given that, indirect casualties are still related casualties, so please update the instances where this is the case. You are also welcome to add more information. About the firings at the local councils, I'd be tolerant about that, since it is not only an institution and/or elected body but the actual legal name of the territory. For instance, rockets were fired at Beersheba, but we don't have to say fired at the city of Beersheba. A local council is in fact a town not yet large enough for city status. A regional council is a territory consisting of many villages. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have RS from both sides that concur that the diff is that Israeli and Gazan rocket fire is so distinguished, by all means edit them in. Look, Shuki, I know that area as well as you, and I read newspapers closely. Most of the rockets are not endowed with sophisticated targeting systems. They go up and down, and very few hit 'civilian centres'. Why do some Gazans risk their lives? For the same reason people did in the Warsaw ghetto.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani do you mean that any area in Israel is not 'civilian centres' ? or do you say that the towns and the villages in eshkol are not civilians ? what about the city of Ashdod and Ashkelon ? this is becoming interesting, you mention that "Why do some Gazans risk their lives? For the same reason people did in the Warsaw ghetto" so do you mean that the Palestinians are facing execution by going to death camps or that the Palestinians are the ones that wish to take people to the death camps ? 109.226.51.252 (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of Nishidani note I must wonder where he lived and what is his motives: exactly as Shuki said there is no reason to shoot uninhabited areas but taking the map into the hands I found for example that areas are under mortars attack and classified as (open areas) are agricultural and outskirts of the city (*) and while not vastly but still populated mostly Moshavim ,kibbutzim regional educational facilities etc.

also about Nishidani note "the 'minor attacks' are not against civilian targets," is just ain't truth - there are two types of targets civilian and military:

  • if an attack is against targeted school ,farm or town, city it is defined as a civilian.
  • if an attack is against military personal or facility.

contrary to Nishidani another note using non signeling-out targets doesn't make the attack non against civilians, it just fells under the wikipedia's definition of terrorism. forth there is no relation between actively shooting and lunching rocket and mortar attacks against vast variety of cities to what he defined as "and a half million in Gaza, who can't take shelter.": it is again ain't true as the Gazan population as a whole ain't under direct mortar , rocket or missile fire attacks (there isn't even a military maneuvers in gaza or aircraft attacks in the populated areas at least not as mention on popular media sites). and as had been noted on several sources the aircraft attacks had been done in close proxyimity to a rocket / mortar launch site or facility. talk

'uninhibited areas'? I guess you mean areas where the fourth military power in the world feels uninhibited.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, yet another spelling error , but I think you understand that I meant uninhabited 109.226.6.106 (and yes there are many other spelling and grammar errors).

retaliated by launching vs step-up lunching rocket (phrase)[edit]

using the term retaliated by launching make the impression that prior to that there were no mortar or grad attacks (the average amount of Qassam lunched didn't change at all, only the grad average attack changed).109.226.51.252 (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This and related pages have ample documentary evidence, the narratives agree, that the taking out of Al-Qaisi was not in response to 'mortar or grad attacks' (name a grad attack in the days before the strikes), but a strategic decision made to thwart an ostensible (never proven) imminent terrorist assault on Israel. In the IDF reports, the motivation for the extrajudicial assassination was to prevent an imminent crime. Once the strikes hit, a response, a barrage of rockets came out of Gaza. The BBC , the Guardian, and many other sources speak of the 40 odd rockets that followed the Israeli attack as 'retaliation'. Please do not use generic arguments when you revert. Give RS evidence, here for example, by providing articles that describe the IDF assault as a response to mortar and grad rockets as you mischievously asserted. I can find no evidence for that.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the source for the attack was 'mortar or grad attacks' rather then lacking the point that the rocket average changed and not responded out of the blue makes the change look POV.(I didn't find for at least few months there haven't been grad on all the cities in the area (last I found are from Oct-Nov 2011). 109.226.51.252 (talk)
found grad attack few weeks before the conflict http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4191301,00.html and a long range rocket on the 28'th of Feb http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=259791 (qassams 1 and 2 don't fly up to this range [1])109.226.51.252 (talk)
And you are presuming that these attacks took place without any Israeli military activity over and in the Gaza Strip for the same period? The point is that Israeli initiated these particular clashes in most reports. The Debka file even writes:

'Palestinian terrorist organizations shot more than 80 Grad and Qassam missiles into a dozen southern Israeli towns and villages in a non-stop barrage Friday night and Saturday morning (March-9-10) in reprisal for the death of Zuheir al-Qaisi, head of the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza.'[2]

nice to know DEBKAfile qualifies as something that can be cited on wikipedia :D, You requested that I would name a Grad or rocket attacks prior to the indecent so I provided that, I don't know what was the reason for the rocket attacks on civilian cities as I don't know the reason for the sniper shooting this week. for the last 11 years there are attacks on an average of at least 1 mortar/rocket attack on a daily basis it is even the source of at least one war and the official reason for the Gaza blockade. In order to bring you (and any other people not familiar to the context of the events) to the common ground I would recommend to read and see List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (don't know if you can read Arabic so that is the best I can add).109.226.51.252 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't qualify, as you might have intuited from my use of the word even. Admittedly, I must own up to a slight stylistic lapsus which would have made my innuendo clearer: 'Even the Debka file', was what was required. Even that wholly unreliable source of disinformatsiya has no problem with admitting the obvious. As to the rest, you can look at this in terms of unilateral victimhood, if you like. The kill rate is 10 Palestinians to 1 Israeli over the decade, in the latest onslaught no Israelis died, and 28 Palestinians did. Israel has never been reactive in shooting into the concentration camp that is Gaza. Read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not about writing one side of the story. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again the talk swifts for a far a way point, the request not talking about victimizing or taking a point but rather of a removel of a fact (we don't know the reasons for that fact) from the page. without that fact the page losses context and important information. 81.218.101.250 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


' 300 Grad missiles, Qassam rockets and mortar shells hitting Israeli territory.'
On day 3 the IDF officially announced:

Since the beginning of the escalation, over 135' rockets have been fired by Gaza Strip terrorists at Israel. 93 of these rockets hit Israeli territory, injuring 22 civilians and causing damage to a house in the cities of Ashdod and Be'er Sheva. http://www.idf.il/1086-15196-EN/Dover.aspx IDF 12 March 2012

Apart from the dreadful syntax, which suggests one house was damaged that simultaneously stood in two distant cities, Ashdod and Be'er Sheva,
If in the IDF figures from 9-12th, 135 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip, and 93 hit Israeli territory. it is wrong to make a total of the number of rockets and mortars fired (300) and write that they all 'hit Israeli territory'. You write 'aimed at' etc. This page is badly written, and rather than squabble we should check all of the sources, and see that we get the page to correspond to those sources, rather than editing or reverting according to personal impressions of what was the case.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/images/hamas-rockets-2008-5.jpg
  2. ^ 'Gaza escalation leaves at least 8 Israelis injured, 12 Palestinians dead,' at DEBKAfile, March 10, 2012.~~~~

Decisive Israeli victory?[edit]

Decisive Israeli victory??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.57.125 (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Flayer (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive Israeli victory?[edit]

ISRAEL fail to take control on Gaza , free people of Gaza stay under Nazi-Zionist attack. free people of Gaza don't surrender to non legal blockade and to the mass mass murder of free people of Gaza... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.57.125 (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life... or write a blog. This is an encyclopedia.--Jabotito48 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza is under Nazi-Arab rule occupation, hardly "free."
Please review WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to write WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and waste everyone's time. Good day. (NOTE: Above comment a line above me that is unsigned was not written by me, feel free to check edit history) --Activism1234 20:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes re 74 people[edit]

I'm not happy with my changes I just committed! - I was trying to correct/inform a subset of a debate about the death of a child (and her picture being used later by the Badawi). But I didn't realise the general context it was used in.

The argument made in the text at the moment says...

"...Another 74 Palestinians were reportedly injured during the conflict, mostly civilians.[1] Some deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians during the escalation, which were reported as casualties of the clashes, were later shown to be unrelated to Israeli actions.[24][25][26], although yet further media reports suggest there was a connection with a nearby Israeli airstrike [27]. In summary, the image was from several years ago, with some argument regarding the culpability of the Israeli strike in the child's death. Whether the same furory would have been generated if the photo had been of a recent causality is debatable. The issue also raises concerns about the political use of images of individual victims..."

I'd like to ask for everything from "Some deaths and injuries..." to be deleted, or at least heavily rephrased as it suggests the value of 74 to be incorrect. But the 74 value would not tally the tweet from Badawi, for example. So using that reference to cast doubt on the value of 74 seems very POV/dodgy. The other references also seem sketchy. I'm also concerned about how NPOV they all are.

I seriously don't want to get into an edit war, and don't have time for this, could someone else sort this out? Thanks. Lionfish0 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the part which you mentioned. The references to part with mistaken identity are just reports of deaths/injuries, with no mention of them being later proved false. There is exactly one reference which deals with this, the maan-news reference. I am deleting the other references. The part after "in summary" is either redundant or irrelevant, not to mention contains loaded language. I am very skeptical as to whether the whole thing even belongs in the introduction, since the fact that there were a couple of mistakes made on social media is not particularly notable. However, I am keeping it there for the time being. Kingsindian (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I got confused by two different things. I have removed the maannews reference from the introduction, because it is totally separate. It is talking about a tweet, which is different from newspaper reports. It is there in a subsequent section. I have also removed the loaded language.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality issues[edit]

Many sections in the attack details begin with the clause, "Despite the ceasefire...". While factual, its repeated use, combined with the extremely detailed listing of Palestinian attacks, impresses upon the reader a pro-Israel stance. In contrast, in the March 12 description, Israel's actions are limited to a single sentence: On March 12, Israel carried out nine raids against military targets. Where's the detail for that? It seems like undue weight is given to Palestinian actions. (Note that I have no dog in this fight. I don't normally edit articles about Israel.) —howcheng {chat} 22:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_2012_Gaza–Israel_clashes&oldid=1208789776"