Talk:Be'eri massacre

Requested move 9 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: procedural close. The article was moved from its original title in an undiscussed move. Rather than start an RM, the article should have been moved back and the editor wanting to move it start an RM. Number 57 21:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Be'eri attack → Be'eri Massacre – This was a massacre of civilians A3811 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - we need reliable sources using that term to describe the event. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support as Be'eri massacre. With the bodies of 100+ civilians already found, the first RS are already calling it a "massacre", and I think it's fair to say there will be far more as news of this barbaric act trickles out: Haaretz, The Messenger, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post However, I'm fine waiting a day or two until more RS more clearly ettle on this language. Longhornsg (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support obviously a massacre. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support this was a massacre of civilians SuperSardus (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This whole article is a lie and baseless. There is no evidence that infants were killed here. A lot more infants are killed by Israeli airstrikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicalguss (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

evidence that infants were killed:

• CNN
• Reuters
• nytimes
• Euronews
• dailymail
• ABC news
• France 24
• the guardian
• 9news
• telegraph
• Yahoo News
• ynet
• Israel hayom
• Ha'aretz
• Walla!
• maariv

דוב (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Checked your first source, CNN: "Children found ‘butchered’ in Israeli kibbutz, IDF says...". Is there any solid evidence? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel released pictures of infant with bullet wounds and charred infants.

Infants were killed. Rexi312321 (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to say that IDF claims should be attributed to IDF. These sort of sources should not be used to wikivoice something. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

These "Claims" are provided and proved with the support of visual sources, there are many pictures available describing the butchering. These claims although made by the IDF are supported with facts, and should therefore be treated as such. DennisSher (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Comparing terrorists intentionally killing babies up close to babies dying in an airstrike aimed at Hamas, following a dud bomb drop with Israeli warnings for residents to evacuate, but Hamas preventing them from leaving is an oversimplified perspective, putting it extremely mildly. 2A01:6500:A10E:BF1D:A77:1228:EF:71AD (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record; all the forged allegations of babies being killed in Israel were found to be totally bogus and unfounded with the CNN reported apologizing [1] for their claim. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You should probably pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between killing and beheading before you try to edit Wikipedia. 2A0D:6FC7:32D:3057:278:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Babies were burned and shot, and there's ton of proof that was both provided to the public and to reporters.

Enough with the denial. 2A06:C701:9DA4:E700:DCC6:5806:CEAA:A09A (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Please change 'Hamas militants' to 'Hamas terrorists' 77.137.73.204 (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see MOS:TERRORIST. Tollens (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

according to the MOS:TERRORIST attached it should be changed to 'Hamas terrorists', similar to September 11 attacks. Sources including in the article already support that definition as well Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Definition of terrorism

• The use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political objectives
• The intentional use of lethal force against civilians, and/or destructive force against civilian areas, buildings or infrastructure.
• Acts reaching more than the immediate target victims and also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society

The points above are proven to describe the current event in Israel and in Be'eri.

For other points that may be made to disprove such act as being an act of "Terror" such as :

• Collateral damage, including the infliction of incidental damage to non-combatant targets during an attack on or attempting to attack legitimate targets in war

ANS: This was not collateral damage, as real intentional killing of civilians was happening in the surrounding kibbutz's and in Be'eri which would classify as a terror attack. civilians are not legitimate combat targets, at the very least unarmed civilians.

• Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality and are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation states.

ANS: The Hamas "Militants" appear in video in sometimes partial uniform, and sometimes no uniform at all.

https://jcpa.org/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-2023-war-with-hamas/

Additionally, Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by many nations such as : Israel, USA, Japan, UK, Switzerland, Australia, and the EU.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/countries-designate-hamas-terrorist-organization

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-11/swiss-government-backs-labeling-hamas-as-terrorist-organization?leadSource=uverify%20wall

This is not a violation of the definition of "terrorism" , as I prove, this is the legitimate use of the term to classify the doings of this act as "Terrorism"

Please do not mark this request as "Answered" until it was rejected by legitimate means. DennisSher (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This request keeps getting marked as answered even though, after clarification it was still not answered. DennisSher (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests should be marked as answered when they're on hold or awaiting consensus or further discussion. NotAGenious (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

'Militants' should be changed to 'Terrorists' with the mention of the parties which recognize them as such, e. g. Hamas Terrorists (as recognized by the government(s) of the US, UK, Israel, EU, Australia, Japan, Switzerland. DennisSher (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. There seems to be a rough consensus on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war page to call Hamas militants, as that is what most RS sources call them (ex. BBC, CNN). Calling them terrorists would require attribution. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Further suggestions, including new sentences, should be made under a new section in a new edit request. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This suggestion relates to terminology, supporting arguments made above by DennisSher:

"Terrorist" to describe Hamas is reasonable for several RS reasons. First, we must recognize John Simpson's piece as the joke he intends it to be. Mr. Simpson frontloads his commentary with his own terrorist action against English grammar in substituting "who" for the proper "whom" - telling those of us who acknowledge context how he really feels - and how he sees his role as a messenger of ideas. In short, this Cambridge-educated British journalist - who understands English usage better than most of us - delivers a deliberate signal of satirical intent about his (assigned?) subject matter. Should we fail to see the "tell" by someone of Simpson's pedigree as an indication to take his polemic not too seriously, we are the fools, not he.

More to the technical point: "Extremist" and "terrorist" references from the Guardian underpin any argument that Hamas is not merely a "militant" group akin to Sandanistas or the Symbionese Liberation Army. If not "terrorist group," then "extremist" might best describe the group, as Hamas 1) is repeatedly reported to take "extremist" actions, 2) described by RSs as "extremist" and 3) composed a charter whose principles and goals are clearly founded in extremism (and whose initial version specifically advocates genocide - which its Oct. 7 attack supports, despite amended 2017 language that purports to walk back the genocidal mission per se). These three CNN sources - this one about a Gazan - contradict the source provided above, all terming Hamas and/or its actions as "terrorist."

While nuances of language use change with the times, describing Hamas as merely "militant" fails to meet the historical moment while simultaneously discrediting both the authority and credibility Wikepedia seeks to curate. Jetpower (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jetpower: Connecting the grammar of the BBC piece to infer a satirical message is a bit of a stretch, and does not comply with our original research policy. The three CNN sources you cited are all opinion sources, and their regular coverage still refers to Hamas as militants (ex. here). An opinion piece would require attribution, as mentioned before.

Given the highly contentious nature of this topic, any change in Hamas' label, whether to extremist or terrorist, would probably require an WP:RFC. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Change the Shaldag unit casualties to 5 according to latest interviews with the commander of the assault.

Article: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/s1ce00xbw6 (Hebrew) Rexi312321 (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been changed [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It a terror attack

I want to add thaht its a terror attack , just as 9/11 of al qaida. 2A06:C701:9CB5:9100:E8DA:9C73:4F6A:1B6A (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The opening of the article is deceptive

It is unclear that the terrorist attack was initial aggression

It sounds like one of the battles in the "war" 84.110.51.210 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be made clear that Hamas started the conflict with this attack 84.110.51.210 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, this is Terrorism "David Forte states that the primary difference between terror and terrorism is that while terror can be neutrally evil (i.e., random violence committed by robbers, rapists and even military personnel), terrorism has the additional political or moral dimension, being the systematized use of randomly focused violence by organized groups against non-combatants to effect a political objective."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_(politics)

There are videos showing rape, torture, beheaded people and KIDS! all are civilians. Some burnt alive, some kidnapped.. if this isn't terror then what is? Mila0333 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's not clear, I also request that Hamas will be called in it's name "terror-organization" there are many documentations that proofs the terror they do to Israel and their own people Mila0333 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Veracity of sources for Yasmin Porat claim.

The website used to make this claim regarding Yasmin Porat ( https://new.thecradle.co/articles/survivor-of-hamas-assault-says-israeli-army-undoubtedly-killed-their-own-civilians ) specifies in the article that the source of their claim is Electronic Intifada ( https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-forces-shot-their-own-civilians-kibbutz-survivor-says/38861 ).

In that Electronic Intifada article, they state themselves that they do not have proof of the primary source existing; "Notably, the interview is not included in the online version of Haboker Hazeh for 15 October, the episode in which it apparently aired. It may well have been censored due to its explosive nature." and "Although it no longer appears on the Kan website, there can be little doubt about the recording’s authenticity" are the only proof they have on the veracity of the source itself.

I do not think it is unreasonable to request better sources than these two for such an extraordinary claim. 2607:F010:2E9:19:5998:2602:B997:C357 (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Electronic_Intifada EF is generally unreliable, so I've removed the section. Thanks for pointing this out. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It was broadcasted on Israeli radio kan REKA and TV channel 12.

The IDF has forbidden Israeli media from publish it and to interview any other survivors except ones approved by the IDF. 2A02:AA1:1643:17A9:C956:21AE:33B9:2009 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with using this argument is there is no proof that those broadcasts occurred since the primary source is not available and there is also no proof that "the IDF has forbidden Israeli media from publishing it" or "to interview any other survivors except ones approved by the IDF". Using the absence of evidence as proof of a conspiracy is not sufficient evidence to make such a claim. 2607:F010:2E9:19:A594:D7BC:91E2:97C7 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So your non conspiracy theory is that a journalist from channel 12 made the interview with a film team and someone identical to Yasmin Porat but just pretending to be Yasmin Porat and posted it himself with channel 12 logos etc? 2A02:AA1:1040:A559:D949:6210:BDE6:AEFD (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not an unreasonable burden to ask for primary sources when making such a claim. I am sure if you provide a source that isn't one of those two above that the information can be added to this wiki page. Electronic Intifada, as the other person mentioned, is an unreliable source. 2607:F010:2E9:19:992E:434A:CCF4:91B3 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is not an unreliable source.. even according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/ it is mostly factual, but I would argue its highly factual as they themselves have been unable to find any articles that failed fact checkers. Now if we aren't using sources because they might be very biased, why the FUCK would VOA be considered reliable? Does it not have a heavy bias towards portraying American foreign policy in a good light? 2601:601:8582:8FF0:ECC1:AA85:E0DF:3F50 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

EI is listed as generally unreliable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources David O. Johnson (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For real, VOA is a US government propaganda service, not a trustworthy media source. Makes me question everything else on the list of sources listed below by user O. Johnson. 24.96.150.197 (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Related sources:

• Haaretz (green at WP:RSP). Archive. Quote from an interview with a local resident named Tuval, who was away from the kibbutz at the time but whose partner was killed:

  קולו נשבר כשהוא נזכר בבת זוגו, שהיתה נצורה בממ"ד באותן שעות. לדבריו, רק ביום שני בלילה ורק אחרי שהמפקדים בשטח קיבלו החלטות קשות — בהן הפגזת בתים על יושביהם כדי לחסל את המחבלים יחד עם בני הערובה — צה"ל השלים את ההשתלטות על הקיבוץ. המחיר היה נורא: לפחות 112 בני בארי נהרגו. אחרים נחטפו. שלשום, 11 ימים לאחר הטבח, התגלו גופת אם ובנה באחד הבתים ההרוסים. ההערכה היא שגופות נוספות עדיין טמונות בין ההריסות.

  Google translation: His voice broke when he remembered his partner, who was besieged in MMD at the time. According to him, only on Monday night and only after the commanders in the field made difficult decisions – including shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages – did the IDF complete the takeover of the kibbutz The price was terrible: at least 112 Be'eri people were killed. Others were kidnapped. Yesterday, 11 days after the massacre, the bodies of a mother and her son were discovered in one of the destroyed houses. It is believed that more bodies are still lying in the rubble.

• Mondoweiss (yellow at WP:RSP): [3]. Quotes:

  In another report in Haaretz in Hebrew (it does not appear to be available in English) on October 11, probably following the same army-guided PR tour, Nir Hasson and Eden Solomon interviewed “Erez, deputy commander of an armored reserve battalion.” He described how he and his tanks unit “fought inside the kibbutz, from house to house, with the tanks.” “We had no choice,” he concludes.

  Electronic Intifada published a long interview with Yasmin Porat, describing how she was held hostage by Palestinian militants in Kibbutz Be’eri. According to her account, the kidnappers treated her and other hostages “humanely,” believing they would be allowed to retreat safely to Gaza due to the protection of the Israeli captives. However, when the Israeli soldiers arrived, “they eliminated everyone, including the hostages. There was very, very heavy crossfire.” Her testimony is complemented by evidence from Israeli soldiers who described how the Israeli military shot tank shells into buildings where militants and their hostages were hiding.

Andreas JN466 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that Haaretz later slightly edited the coverage of the interview given above. Both an archive version dated 28 October and the current version say (Google translation, changes highlighted) "... in order to eliminate the terrorists without knowing whether the Israelis in those buildings were alive or dead ... The price of the Hamas attack was terrible: at least 112 Be'eri residents were killed. Others were kidnapped. Yesterday, 11 days after the massacre, the bodies of a mother and her son were discovered in one of the destroyed houses. It is believed that more bodies are still lying in the rubble.

This may have been in response to social media claims and pieces like this one by The Grayzone (red at WP:RSP). Andreas JN466 13:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The way its writtem here falsely implies that everyone was killed in the crossfire. The source who was not there says nothing like that. He says 112 people were and others kidnapped. Were the people kidnapped by the crossfore too? Clearly he is just saying how many people were killed in total. He has no way and does not claim to have a way to know when and hlw each person died 2600:4041:5256:300:BA18:828D:B05B:6515 (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The wikipedia does more than falsely imply. It misstates the source. No where did anyone say 112 people were killed in the fighting. He said 112 were killed in Beeri. 2600:4041:5256:300:BA18:828D:B05B:6515 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've edited this because it's been nagging me too. What doesn't help is that the Haaretz article went through at least three versions. Compare 20 Oct. vs. 28 Oct. vs. 31 Oct.. The first speaks of shelling the houses "to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages" and (arguably) presents the price of 112 dead as the result of that decision; the second version a week later speaks of shelling the houses "without knowing whether the Israelis in those buildings were alive or dead" (the version I have now used) and specifically attributes the 112 dead to the Hamas attack overall, rather than Israeli shelling, which I agree seems neither plausible nor knowable. (The third inserts an extra paragraph marker to separate the two statements.)

The man quoted lost his partner in the attack. He was not there on the Saturday morning, when the attack began, but I imagine he would have been worried about his partner and by Monday would have travelled back and/or followed developments very closely. My heart goes out to him. Regards, Andreas JN466 18:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look at pictures of the aftermath, and think about what weapons Hamas actually has, you’ll quickly put two and two together and realize that Hamas couldn’t possibly have caused all of that damage.

also, Israel has a long history of killing their own people held hostage in order to discourage hostages being taken in the first place. Look up the Hannibal doctrine. There’s a nice Wikipedia article about it. 24.96.150.197 (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you think should be changed or added to the article? Note that these are the words of Tuval Askupa who wasn't in the kibbutz during the attack. Alaexis_¿question? 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. If multiple interviewees have said some of the dead were killed by friendly fire, this might be worth reporting. For now it may be best to wait for further reports to appear. Andreas JN466 17:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For now we have one former hostage (Porat) who said that there was heavy crossfire and the Israeli forces shot at both terrorists and hostages, and we have Askupa, who wasn't there but said that tanks shelled houses. I think it's likely that some of the dead were the result of friendly fire, given the circumstances but let's wait until RS confirm it. Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of sources on friendly fire [4][5][6], and no real reason to doubt or ignore the witness testimonies, not least the one published by Haaretz with is GREL at WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm sure that there were victims of friendly fire. The question is what exactly we should add to this article at this moment. Your second and third links are about incidents unrelated to the Beeri massacre. Haaretz is indeed reliable, so writing "According to Tuval Askupa, whose relatives were murdered in Be'eri but who himself was not present there, Israeli tanks shelled the houses of the kibbutz while fighting Hamas" is okay from the reliability point of view. However I'm not convinced that it's due. There is no deadline, we can wait for RS to investigate it and make a synthesis of the available evidence. Alaexis_¿question? 08:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The Cradle looks pretty suspicious btw. I haven't been able to find any information about the editorial team, while the Terms section produces a 500 server error. Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This has now been covered in Jacobin (magazine), a green source per WP:RSP, and I've added a couple of sentences about this. Andreas JN466 18:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A new article in Haaretz repeats the testimony of two Israeli survivors that the IDF fired tank shells at a building they knew to contain hostages as well as Hamas. Zero^talk 01:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Thanks. Ynetnews.com reports (my emphasis): "Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF believes that beyond the operational investigations of the events, it would not be morally sound to investigate these incidents due to the immense and complex quantity of them that took place in the kibbutzim and southern Israeli communities due to the challenging situations the soldiers were in at the time." Andreas JN466 15:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Survivor interview

in an Israeli interview with survivor Yasmin Porat she said that Hamas took them hostage but treated them humanly and that "The IDF eliminated everyone, including the hostages. There was very, very heavy crossfire."

Is there any accounts of the Wikipedia narrative? 2A02:AA1:1643:17A9:C956:21AE:33B9:2009 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a bit of cherry-picking here. After treating her "humanely" one of the militants used her as a human shield, per the recording. This is now discussed in the previous section. Alaexis_¿question? 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"one of the militants used her as a human shield" - only to surrender, as noted in her testimony - and presumably a good job too, since the Israeli forces were shooting everyone else who exited the building. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that definitely makes it okay. Alaexis_¿question? 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No, just different - as a fairly typical means of surrender for a hostage-taker in a hostage-style situation, as opposed to "human shield" use in the sense of using civilians as cover for combat. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas terrorists

By definition Hamas is a terror organization and not a military organization it's existing is not for protecting but controls over Palestinian and the Palestinian authority that has no power over them. Their control makes their own citizens under poor poverty and violence in an act of terror ao no one there can condemned but only join them for the sake of better life then the others which is also an act of terror. The right and correct term after all actions made by them is to say Hamas terrorists because killing baby's and abuse and burning innocent lives and rape before murder is not military form of any kind. Ades Matthew (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:TERRORIST it's better to not use the term unless attributed to others. I wouldn't oppose adding something like "X described the incident as a terrorst attack" if you can find sources saying as such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack@Hemiauchenia you can see in this 9 11 Wikipedia article the first term is to call the attack a terrorists attack so why can't you? Ades Matthew (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks Ades Matthew (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

The attack was hamas terrorists not militants 89.139.35.164 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC) The attack was clearly terrorists not militants

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see above sections for similar discussions and how to move forward. Request is outside the scope of a simple edit request as this is clearly contested Cannolis (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The security team did not kill the residents

"The kibbutz's 10-member security team fought the attackers but was overwhelmed and at least five were killed. After capturing the village, they started going from house to house, shooting or capturing the residents." This is nonsense, the Hamas not the security team killed the residents. 87.143.144.121 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Alaexis_¿question? 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@87.143.144.121 here is testimonial of jewish survivor stated that Jews were killed by other Jews in crossfire: as Wiki blocks link to YouTube just search for "Survivor Speaks: Israeli forces shot their own civilians" 77.254.148.185 (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of pepole

Be’eri has 89 confirmed murderd people. Moreover, they have 29 kidnapped and missing people (including the 11th people that were released). Moreover, regrading the terroist that were killed inside the Kibbutz there were around 200. 2A0D:6FC7:405:172:E1BC:82DD:715E:C099 (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for that updated number (minus burned militants)? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References and merging of "Survivors" subsection

The "Survivors" section currently makes roughly three statements: destroyed kibbutz (seems a bit redundant), killing of hostages by IDF, and that there was evidence of sexual violence. At the moment it does a poor job of detailing survivor experiences overall, which I assume was the original purpose. If we don't have enough information from survivors at the moment I would suggest merging this subsection in to the "timeline" above.

The "friendly fire" statements could be summarized:

"Yasmin Porat, a survivor, and Tuval Askupa, who volunteered in the Kibbutz after the massacre, believe that some hostages may have been killed by IDF shelling and gunfire[7][8]".

I used EI as the reference because Jacobin, which is cited now, cites Mondoweiss, which cites EI. EI provides a translation of a Kan interview, and also links a channel 12 interview from a few days earlier but does not translate it. Also Porat doesn't say (in the translation by EI) that she was held captive for two days, EI just claims that some hostages were held for that time period before being killed by IDF, so "...said in an interview that Hamas held her and others captive for two days" should be removed. Overall I think the main message is that Porat believes that in the building she was held, if hostages were killed, it was in the crossfire. I don't like EI as a main source, but I suppose we cannot link the original Kan interview as its not in English?

There is a lot of information from survivors in this Reuters article, including a reference for the sexual violence (currently without a citation). As it stands though, the information about sexual violence doesn't have much to do with survivors, and is more related to the Yossi Landau testimony. MyOrbs (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz Twitter thread debunking Max Blumenthal conspiracy mongering

For reference, Haaretz wrote a thread on Twitter in response to Max Blumenthal's The Grayzone article (purportedly based on Haaretz reporting) claiming the IDF killed 100+ people at Beeri. Longhornsg (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel Hayom article proving there were tied children, debunking Haaretz claim plus Hamas-Massacre.net has picture of burnt bodies with hands tied, some of whom are children

Extended violation of the extended confirmed restriction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to this article "Haaretz later found the claim regarding the tied children was false" but according to this article in the Israel Hayom newspaper https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/local/article/14710533 (translated from Hebrew) ZAKA volunteers have said they witnessed that "They (Hamas terrorists) tied people to a chair with their hands behind, and set the building on fire while they were still alive" • "A father, mother and three children are tied together and shot - an entire family was slaughtered in cold blood". Yossi Landau has also said: "I saw about 20 children handcuffed from behind" Additionally, the site Hamas-Massacre.net which documented all of Hamas crimes and has all the pictures and videos of the kidnappings, murders and body mutilations has several pictures of burnt bodies with their hands tied and by taking a quick glance one can see, that some of those bodies belong to children and at least minors. Since I have a weak stomach I don't want to have to look again at those pictures again, so I did not put a link to the pictures themselves but you can find those pictures under the "Murdered in Their Homes" section and "The Nova Party Massacre" section https://www.hamas-massacre.net/ So I request that someone will add those sources to the article and write: "But although Haaretz claimed that there were no tied children, Israel Hayom newspaper article has said by using the testimonies of ZAKA volunteers who actually were at the crime scene that there were indeed tied children some of them were also tied together with their parents. and some of the pictures in the "Murdered in Their Homes" and "The Nova Party Massacre sections at Hamas-Massacre.net included burnt bodies of minors and even children with their hands tied." Thank you. Tikatan (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC) This is the article about the Be'eri Massacre. The Israel Hayom article does not give the location where people were tied to each other and then burned alive. Further down in the article it does mention several atrocities carried out in Be'eri but none of them is about the tied children, which was the original claim. Please review what this article says already about the atrocities committed in Be'eri and let us know if there's something you'd like to add. Alaexis¿question? 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC) To add to this, there's no reason to consider "Hamas-Massacre.net" a reliable source. There's no about page containing information indicating who is running it or anything that would indicate that its reputable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Does it really matter who runs it? Most of the videos and pictures there are from Arabic telegram channels such as Gaza Now filmed by Hamas Go Pro cameras and also uploaded by the Israeli official twitter account, for example this picture: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1718265852301136072/photo/1 this picture:https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1713092721227743739/photo/1 this picture: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1712065956351000853/photo/1 this video: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1711016332089606406/video/1 this picture: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1710979198741827924/photo/1 and this video: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1710690179558555708/video/1 Additionally a lot of big news media confirmed the videos and pictures in that site, like the CNN https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/01/the-lead-jake-tapper-israel-forensics.cnn the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67343928 CTV https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/israel-releases-horrific-images-of-slain-children-after-hamas-attack-1.6598070 Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-shares-video-hamas-gunman-executing-woman-oct-7-2023-11-20/ and many many more. Plus in most of the pictures background there is a ZAKA bag (the blue and white bag) since I'm a native Hebrew speaker I can see clearly that the acronym זק"א (ZAKA) is written there, and in the pictures with no ZAKA bag for example the pictures with bodies in the streets, I can see Hebrew language signs in the background and me being an Israeli I'm able to recognize the towns and the kibbutzim where those atrocities took place, in the Nova Party Massacre Section you can see the emblem of ZAKA on the car with the Israeli number plate next to the pile of burnt bodies and you can see the ZAKA bags as well, in the videos of Israelis hiding I can hear the partygoers speaking Hebrew and in some of the kidnapping videos you can see people who different news media have said that Hamas kidnapped them such as Noa Argamani https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2OEktej8pk Bibas Family https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y9fHUOhTMY and Naama Levy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FVUxvp6Ah0. and in the Mass rapes section the videos are from the Israeli Police https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b1gyfliba https://www.mako.co.il/men-men_news/Article-cbf7c1400693c81027.htm (articles in Hebrew) it also says that men were also raped in order to humiliate. To sum it up Hamas-Massacre.net is a reliable source since there are many news media backing the pictures and videos posted there, and both as an Israeli and a native Hebrew speaker I see the ZAKA bags in the horrible pictures and the Israeli number plates on the cars, I see the Hebrew language signs on the streets and I recognize the sidewalks and the appearance of the towns and kibbutzim and I can very clearly hear Hebrew in the videos where the partygoers were hiding and you can recognize the hostages that were kidnapped. Hamas-Massacre.net is a site which purpose is to put all the proof, all the pictures, all the videos and all the testimonies taken by Hamas Go Pro cameras, ZAKA, the victims/survivors, security cameras and Israeli Police which were spreaded by news media and telegram channels in one *single* place. Tikatan (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) It does though, "Yossi Landau a senior volunteer of the organization, shares his feelings from the sights he witnessed in Kibbutz Be'eri. "We saw children hugged with their mothers, shot. We saw parents and children in the same room, facing each other. Their hands were cuffed behind their backs. By all indications, they must have been severely abuse" Tikatan (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Yossi Landau's testimonies have been shown to be unsubstantiated time and time again. It's a wonder why his material still keeps cropping up. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC) What the Haaretz piece says is that the ZAKA volunteers have been unreliable narrators and have claimed things that have turned out not to be true. nableezy - 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Can you give me the unpaywalled version? I'ts paywalled not only in English but in Hebrew as well so how could someone know what Haaretz actually wrote there? the other source is middleeasteye which says a few number of things and then adds "According to Haaretz, these allegations were false" but how can I know the middleeasteye didn't just made it up? they didn't give a screenshot or anything and as I said the actual article is paywalled. In the Israel Hayom article Yossi Landau says "We saw parents and children in the same room, facing each other. Their hands were cuffed behind their backs" he doesn't say how much children he saw cuffed together with their parents. And you know a lot of commenters in the Hebrew version of the Haaretz article were mad at the title for presenting some atrocities as things that never happened instead of things that DID happen just not in the way they were spread, according to one commenter Haaretz said there was no baby in the oven BUT there were indeed burnt babies and someone must have thought that they were burnt because they were put in the oven https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-12-03/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000018c-2036-d21c-abae-76be08fe0000?lts=1701608901038 (translate the comments). Plus, you can actually go to Hamas-Massacre.net and see burnt bodies of adults, kids and babies and just so you won't be able to say that "we can't know where are those pictures from", you can see in the background actual ZAKA bags which are the blue and white bags with the acronym זק"א ZAKA on them and sometimes you can also see the ZAKA emblem in Hebrew on their volunteers chests or cars, So basically people cherry picked things from Haaretz's title as usual without actually reading the article and understanding that ZAKA's volunteers reports on who was murdered and how much were murdered and what happened to their bodies (if their body was burned, mutilated, raped etc) are true while SOME of the stories on how whoever was murdered was murdered are not true. So there's no proof there were only 9 murdered children in Be'eri and even if there were there's also no proof none of them were cuffed, while there is proof in the Israel Hayom article that some murdered children in Be'eri were handcuffed. Tikatan (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Here is an archived version. nableezy - 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC) As I said even if "only" 9 children were murdered in Be'eri, the article does not say that none of them were cuffed, this page (Be'eri Massacre) says that there were no tied (cuffed) children because there were only 9 children and Yossi Landau said that he saw 20 burnt bodies of tied children, so maybe there weren't 20 tied children but who said none of the 9 were tied? Yossi Landau has reported he saw in kibbutz Be'eri children cuffed together with their parents. And like I said if people couldn't cherry pick from titles only, they could see that as I said ZAKA's volunteers reports on who was murdered, how many were murdered and what happened to their body is true just sometimes the story on how they were murdered is not true, like Haaretz did say that Hamas murdered a pregnant Bedouin woman by shooting at her stomach like ZAKA said, the only thing wrong in ZAKA's report is that Hamas didn't cut her umbilical cord. Same thing with the baby in the oven story, ZAKA is correct and there were indeed burnt babies, the only think wrong in their report is that they weren't burnt in an oven, although it actually wasn't even ZAKA who said it. Speaking about the burnt babies, Haaretz said in this article that only one baby died but if you check Hamas-Massacre.net you would find several pictures and videos of burnt babies (some even beheaded) as well as pictures of dead but not burnt babies, as I said those pictures and videos have in the background the ZAKA bag and emblem which proves that those pictures were indeed taken in Israel - some were even posted by Israel's official account in Twitter and Instagram, so if there was "only" one dead baby how come we have several pictures of dead babies? This of course means that like any newspaper in the world Haaretz is not 100% perfect and not 100% reliable, so you can't take every word they say as God's word and should check other sources as well. This isn't their first time being incorrect by the way, they posted a few days ago another article which made both the Israeli police and IDF call out their bullshit and its author had to apologize (in Hebrew of course) which makes them lose their credibility. Going back to the original topic, if you are willing to take Haaretz's word for everything although they were wrong in this article by saying only one baby died despite the fact that there are pictures and videos of several dead babies burnt and not, then there is no reason not to take Yossi's Landau word if he was wrong by saying that there were 20 burnt and tied children in Be'eri (but there were definitely burnt children in Be'eri according to this article just not 20 children and not tied https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/rj4bsuz46) and plus he was actually at the crime scene and saw most of the bodies unlike Haaretz. Tikatan (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for leaving a message at my talk page, I've missed your reply here. @Tikatan, I'd suggest taking one step back and clearly explaining what you propose to add or change in the article. If it's to add more details about the atrocities, they should be reliably sourced. I would suggest to use regular media outlets (like mako and ynet) rather than Hamas-massacre.net since it's unclear who runs it and it could be challenged as a self-published source. It may be reliable, but we'd need some confirmation from other sources that this is indeed the case. Regarding the "two piles of ten children each were tied to the back, burnt to death" claim, Haaretz explicitly calls it "incorrect." So we have two options: either we mention it and then say that it turned out to be incorrect, or we remove it from the article altogether. The October 15 Israel Hayom article quotes David Landau saying that there were children with their hands cuffed, rather than stating it as fact. Considering that his other early reports turned out to be incorrect, it's better to find more recent sources that confirm it. Alaexis¿question? 07:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC) There is a Twitter post by Israel's official account promoting Hamas-Massacre.net https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1720088273664811259 There's also this article In The Jerusalem Post https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-771522 And this article In Business Day https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/life/2023-12-05-worst-massacre-of-jews-since-the-holocaust-still-not-enough-for-some/ I believe it's enough to make it reliable for you, although for me maybe because I'm Israeli and can speak Hebrew it was easier to me to know it's reliable because I could see all the ZAKA bags and emblems in the background, I could see the Hebrew Language signs in the streets, I could recognise the sidewalks and kibbutzim, I could hear and understand the Hebrew that was spoken in videos of Israelis hiding and in the videos of testimonies as well, and I also remembered that I saw some of those videos on Telegram channels back in October 7th to be better informed on what exactly happened , so scrolling through the site I understood that its entire purpose is to put all the proof we have about the massacre in one single place. And there other sources about handcuffed children in Be'eri first one is from Haaretz Hebrew version, https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politics/2023-10-09/ty-article-live/0000018b-1148-dcc2-a99b-1559609d0000 scroll down a bit until you find a mini article by Michael Hauser Tov who says and quotes Netanyahu that there were handcuffed children who were executed in Be'eri, I'm not sure if it's okay to use what a Prime Minister says as a source but if not then there is another source which is basically a YouTube video by The Economic Times which features IDF spokesman Jonathan Concricus saying starting in minute 2:37 that "I think we can now say with relative confidence that this unfortunately what happened in Be'eri, this is what Hamas did to Israeli Civilians - there waw bodies scattered everywhere mutilated, women and children that were handcuffed and shot executed, houses torched and burned and people who were either burned inside or suffocated those that Hamas couldn't get in and forced them out - those were the scenes in kibbutz Be'eri. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeolZzOIznM Tikatan (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Israel isnt a reliable source either, and regardless per WP:A/I/PIA accounts must be extended confirmed to participate in these discussions. The reason for that restriction is demonstrated here, in which patiently explaining why outdated sources that have since been debunked should not be regurgitated as though it were the current understanding of the facts has not shown any indication of guiding a well-intentioned (and I have no doubt you are well-intentioned for the record) towards a better understanding of our policies. Please, if you would like to edit about this topic, work in other areas of the encyclopedia so that you can understand policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:V and so on. nableezy - 20:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) @Tikatan, you didn't answer my question "what [do] you propose to add or change in the article"? You can use the following template (the content is just an example). − The kibbutz suffered heavy losses of life and property, leaving it devastated and shattered + The kibbutz suffered heavy losses of life and property. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC) In this article it is written that: "Haaretz later found the claim (of Yossi Landau) regarding the tied children was erroneus" so the way I see it it basically means that because Haaretz "debunked" Yossi Landau's claim regarding the 20 burnt tied children in Be'eri (which according to this article and this article there were burnt children in Be'eri just not tied or 20) it means there were no tied murdered children in Be'eri. So I want you to add that there were tied murdered children in Be'eri and that Yossi Landau wasn't all wrong, that's why I want to ask you if the YouTube video that I sent of The Economic Times featuring IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus confirming there were tied or more correct to say handcuffed murdered children in Be'eri a good enough source?because if yes it confirms the article in its current form is inaccurate, so I propose that you'll use the Economic Times YouTube video as a source and add: But, although Haaretz said that the claim was erroneus, IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus confirmed there were indeed tied, better to say handcuffed children in Kibbutz Be'eri and this part is a recommendation: additionally, according to i24news (this article) there were also indeed burnt children in Kibbutz Be'eri. You can change the wording if you wish to, since I'm not the best at explaining honestly. I hope you understood. Tikatan (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC) i24 is the original source of the 40 dead babies lie, it is silly to try to keep using them. nableezy - 00:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC) And? Haaretz had a lot of incorrect reports as well, I actually pointed out 2 incorrect reports from Haaretz in one of my other comments to you - if you don't remember you're welcome to go back and read again. But just in order there won't be a pointless fight between us about that, here are other sources Ynet Ynet Mojo Story Express The Messenger Haaretz Haaretz I added 2 Haaretz articles because if you think that Haaretz is 100% reliable you will 100% trust those articles, amirite? Tikatan (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC) The problem with that is that you want to say that these bodies were incinerated by Hamas when there is reporting on Israeli tanks firing on Israeli homes as well. See for example Haaretz. nableezy - 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Oh great we went from the stage of denial to the stage of blaming, from denying there were even burnt bodies to begin with to blaming Israel for burning their own citizens... Reminds me of the classic "ummm but akshally it wAs the jEwS wHo dId tHe HoLoCaUSt tO gAiN tHE wOrLDs' sYmPaTHy. Also you are making it very clear you did not read any article that I sent because if you did, you would see that it is written that Hamas burned homes they couldn't get into thus making everyone inside burn alive and after Hamas killed and mutilated and raped bodies they burned them, Hamas-Massacre.net has a lot of proof, here is one of them... Graphic Warning Notice the ZAKA bodybag? you know the blue and white bag with the זק"א ZAKA acronym written on it in Hebrew? the one that you were supposed to see if you actually looked at pictures and videos on that site because it is enough proof those pictures and videos were taken in Israel? Huh no? Well not surprising (And you maybe won't also deny that babies were beheaded and burnt because unfortunately pictures and videos of that with ZAKA bags in the background are there as well) I gave you an Haaretz article that said that Hamas burned homes with people inside and you gave me an Haaretz article that says Israeli tanks fired at homes without knowing if there are civilians inside or not, apart from the fact it literally says in the article that no civilian was harmed and the tanks "only" shot the home entrances, and only the terrorists were killed, there was a similar article by Haaretz that said that a police helicopter killed Nova partygoers which was proven by the Israeli Police to be false because the first helicopter arrived only in 11:12 AM which was almost 5 hours after the Hamas massacre has begun, and if you thought of mentioning "Hannibal Directive" then sorry to sadden you, but first it was actually canceled in 2016 by the chief of general staff Eisenkot, which means that since 2016 Hannibal Directive doesn't exist and is basically illegal, and second thing even if it still existed it talks about shooting when a kidnapping is still happening i.e. when Hamas terrorists were in the middle of taking Israelis to Gaza, and not when those Israelis already became hostages, third thing is that the Hannibal Directive talks only about soldiers and not civilians, fourth thing is that in 2011 it was changed so that it wouldn't be allowed to shoot if the mean is to kill the kidnapped soldier because "....with the understanding that the value of the kidnapped's life is higher than the price of the kidnapping" So the Hannibal Directive basically talks about being allowed if a kidnapping is STILL happening to shoot at a soldier ONLY but not in way that endangers their life and risks killing them, and that Directive was also cancelled in 2016... So make of all this information that I'm sure you never heard about about what you will. source source source So.... If you choose to believe the Israeli Police then there was no tanks as well since it means Haaretz was proven to lie before with the helicopters, and you said that you don't believe ZAKA because they lied a lot or whatever so it would be kinda hypocritical for you to not act the same with Haaretz. But - if you choose to believe Haaretz which means that you believe there were tanks shooting at homes then it still means Israel didn't kill its own citizens because it's also written that only terrorists died in the end and the tanks "only" shot the home entrances as I said before, but you know what - let's say the tanks DID accidentally kill Israelis then there is still enough proof that Hamas burnt Israelis themselves in all the articles I gave you. Oh and don't think of giving me the testimony of the IDF female tankist soldier who said that a panicked soldier told her to shoot at a home although he wasn't sure if there were Israelis inside, because right after she said she was told that, she said that she DIDN'T shoot because it was an Israeli community. (plus the testimony was from her fighting in Kibbutz Holit, not Be'eri so it's irrelevant to Be'eri anyway) Plus it's kinda weird to me you choose to believe Haaretz only when they say that Israel was shooting at their own citizens or that some atrocities didn't happen - but you don't believe Haaretz when they say that Hamas burned homes with people inside hence burning them alive because they couldn't get into their homes. Very weird.... it's almost like you have a specific agenda I wonder what is that agenda... Oh! Maybe I do know what is your agenda, Forgive me for stalking your User page but in the bottom of it I actually found a very interesting text... Here it is: "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." We both know who are those "groups" and "individuals" . wow it's no wonder you kept protecting Hamas, playing down ZAKA and ignoring all proof and evidence I gave you during our long discussions, and it's because you are to put it simply a Hamas and Hezbollah sympathizer. Big Shame. Since I don't wish to keep talking to a Hamas and Hezbollah sympathizer with a very "locked" agenda, I would rather stop here. Honestly I hope that one day you won't be so full of hate supporting terror groups and be able to find peace and be more positive. Tikatan (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC) P.S - forgot to put a link to how a ZAKA bodybag looks like for comparisons in case you're too lazy to look it up yourself Picture Tikatan (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the Holocaust denial quip, Ill repeat that you may not participate in this discussion and may only make edit-requests per WP:ARBPIA. Ill be leaving you the notification on your talk shortly. And despite your diatribe above, reliable sources dispute what you imagine you know. We base our articles on sources, not the imaginations of partisan editors. nableezy - 03:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC) @Tikatan, thanks, I've added some information from the article you linked. I don't think that this should be added as a refutation of Haaretz claims. It's not - logically there is no contradiction, and chronologically both reports precede it. Overall, the article makes it clear that atrocities were committed and even though one report turned out to be incorrect, the reader wouldn't end up thinking that the massacre didn't happen. Alaexis¿question? 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC) @Alaexis I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what information from the sources I gave you added? I just wanted you to add that there were tied or better to say handcuffed murdered children in Be'eri per this source, and there were children burnt by Hamas in Be'eri per this source this source this source and this source, and you're right the reader wouldn't think the massacre didn't happen but they WOULD think that there were no tied murdered children and no burnt children in Be'eri which is totally wrong. This is why I'm asking you to add that there were tied and burnt children in Be'eri so the reader won't think that because of one false report there were no tied or burnt children. Tikatan (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) We dont include later debunked claims from sources prior to the debunking. And, again, you may not participate in this discussion. nableezy - 03:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) The current wording is misleading, in my opinion. It does not convey the information from the references properly and fairly.‎ At the time of writing, it says:‎ Yossi Landau, regional head of the relief organisation ZAKA, stated to Sky News that around 80% of the bodies at Be'eri and Kfar Aza showed signs of torture, and that he found "two piles of ten children each were tied to the back, burnt to death" at Be'eri.[40] Haaretz later found the claim regarding the tied children was false, because the list of the dead at Be'eri only includes 9 children.[20] With the way this is written, I think most readers will interpret it as "Landau was completely wrong (probably lying) and also 9 children died". But, going by the Haaretz article referenced, there is still a lot of truth to Landau's claim. 1. Children were murdered. 2. Children were bound. 3. Some homes were burned with people still inside. 4. It's possible that there was 20 dead bodies in one place, albeit not all of them children. 5. The article describes a case that at least the article author thinks is similar, where 13 hostages were murdered it one place including a pair of 12 year old twins. Witnesses of crime frequently get the details seriously wrong, so I think it's possible that no one lied. Also, I don't think Landau meant that he himself saw this (as the Wikipedia article now says). He was speaking on behalf of his organization and used the pronoun "we". And one of his personnel was really incessive that he/she saw the children piles, although he/she didn't say it was at Be'eri. Torr3 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Middle East Eye

Do not use Middle East Eye as a source. Torr3 (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archives at RSN [9], the main guy pushing MEE as an unreliable source is Icewhiz, and I think his opinion can be considered worthless. Bobfrombrockley, whos opinion I trust, says its reliability is mixed. I am okay replacing the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia article for Middle East Eye. Just the fact that they do not disclose their owner is a red flag to me. And then there's the possible state funding from Qatar. And it's very obvious that they are pro-Palestine and anti-Israel, yet I don't think they have acknowledged that. Their "About us" page says that their reporters "are encouraged to read between the lines". They are not talking about their opinion writers, but just "reporters". How I see that, is that the reporters are basically meant to guess what people really mean, in order to "take stories one step further". I guess that's fine if they actually do the investigative work to confirm that the things they imagine is true, but... it doesn't say anything about deep investigative work. Torr3 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The article essentially restates the reporting by Haaretz without a paywall, which is why I used it, not for any original analysis. I have no objections to other people with ECP access removing it, since the original Haaretz source is cited now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Alaexis_¿question? 07:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Torr3 180.252.173.151 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Cradle

"The Cradle" should definitely not be used again. I noticed this source was cited by this page and recently removed by @Drsmoo. See consensus here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422, and the detailed analyis by @Shadowwarrior8 there. Marokwitz (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the controversy regarding "The Cradle" has resurfaced here, notifying editors about the ongoing RfC regarding this website in the noticeboard. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability

The only sources asserting a "Be'eri massacre" are primary, Israel sources. The vast majority of sources on this page do not say anything about a massacre, and those that do almost exclusively refer to the broader massacre of 7 October. For this article to justify its standalone existence multiple reliable third-party sources would need to be included that specifically discuss a "Be'eri massacre", otherwise we're left with either WP:OR or the parroting back of biased news coverage. Dylanvt (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not accurate, there are plenty of international sources used in the article (The Guardian, CNBC, CBC, ABC). E.g., Now /Beeri/ is ... one of the centres of the massacre undertaken by the militant Islamist group Hamas.

Even more importantly, many Israeli sources are reliable and there is no reason not to use for various details. Is there something specific you'd like to change? Alaexis_¿question? 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Alaexis - the templates and arguments of Dylanvt are tendentious and wholly without merit, and should be reverted and removed. Andre🚐 20:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Beeri is ... one of the centres of the massacre undertaken by the militant Islamist group Hamas" explicitly refutes that there is a distinct "Be'eri massacre". That source, like others, very clearly refers to a broader October 7 massacre, not to a distinct Be'eri one. Dylanvt (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There's both a broader attack and each massacre that was a component. Your argument is invalid. If you want to rename it to "attack," you can propose that. Andre🚐 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas militants" ?

They truly showed who they are.. Terrorists simple as that and this should be changed in the article. 2001:4DF4:5810:7E00:913A:9D80:D55C:FD90 (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@2001:4DF4:5810:7E00:913A:9D80:D55C:FD90 Why only pro-zionists narration should be presented here? Every country militias/Forces who fighted or fights for freedom of their country are called by opressors "terrorists" . British government said so about IRA while for irish people they were freedom fighters, Putin called "terrorists" Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens, Afghanis who fighted against russian invasions. So why we should take here only zionists position? 77.254.148.185 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of this article is lies

Isreali eyewitnesses in kibbutz Be'eri said IDF soldiers not only shelled them but stood and watched as the isrealis died 2A00:23C8:1115:DE01:BFB2:D610:BB0F:C5C8 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:23C8:1115:DE01:BFB2:D610:BB0F:C5C8 exactly. There are also leaked fottages of tanks shelling kibbutz homes with Jews inside, as well as testimonials that also Apache helicopter fired at kibbutz 77.254.148.185 (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you think smth should be added to the article, please provide sources. Also, please note that Porat's interview is already mentioned in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You literally haven't brought even a single source to back your dubious claims. Palestinian antizionist crimes were photographed and documented. 2A00:A041:2C22:700:5971:396C:180C:C66D (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Update casualty counts to match newer published numbers

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  Around 70 Hamas militants had attacked the kibbutz and at least 130 people were killed in the attack,[1] including women (such as peace activist Vivian Silver),[12] children,[3] toddlers, and one infant,[13][14][15][16] claiming the lives of 10% of the farming community's residents.

  +

  Around 70 Hamas militants had attacked the kibbutz and 109 people were killed in the attack (96 civilians), including women (such as peace activist Vivian Silver)[12], 9 children (aged 12-16), and one infant,[13][14][15][16] claiming the lives of 10% of the farming community's residents. Additionally, 12 of the abducted hostages died in captivity.

Also the sidebar need to be changed: 8 IDF soliders were killed in addition to the 5 security forces.

• Why it should be changed:

Israel published updated lists of the victims.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

- Swords of Iron: Civilian Casualties

- Swords of Iron: Israel Police, Security Forces (Shabak) and First Responders Casualties

- Swords of Iron: IDF Casualties

Bowad91017 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, A source for the claim of 109 being killed instead of 130 being killed. Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow311 For the civilian numbers here an article published by NY Times What Happened in the Hamas Attack on Be’eri, Israel - The New York Times (nytimes.com) [published on 22.12.2023]

"The loss of at least 97 civilians constituted almost one in every 10 people who lived in Be’eri,"

It is one more, than the Israeli gov list. I'm not sure which one is more reliable. The Israeli gov list is more recent.

The current source the article is using is from the 18th October, there was not enough time to identify the victims (possibly some Hamas militants were mislabeled or some were assumed dead)

96 + 8 + 5 = 109 or 97 + 8 + 5 = 110 Bowad91017 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow311 The source is the list of victims published by the government. I think they are very reliable (In my opinion, it's an amazing level of transparency and thoroughness)

I understand the counting would be a bit of work. Here is a script to help you (but it shouldn't replace manual checking), you can run it in your browser using dev tools:

[...document.querySelectorAll("li")].map(x => x.innerText).filter(x => (x.includes("Be’eri")||x.includes("Be'eri") || x.includes("Beeri") || x.includes("Beéri")) && !x.includes("captivity"))

You can add .length to the end of the script to find the count, on the 3 different pages, it would return 96, 5, 8

Since the IDF victims are 8, here is a list of them: Arie Kraunik, Hagay Avni, Eitan Hadad, Shachar Zemach,  Gil Bowom, Noy Shosh, Edan Barukh, Yarin Mari

You can verify it using CTRL+F on the IDF Casualties

If checking the civilan victims is too much work, could you partially address the edit request by adding the 8 IDF victims to the sidebar?

Exracting the list of civilan victims wouldn't be too much work either if you need it (not done here for space constraints)

If you need any help, let me now. ~~~~ Bowad91017 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I abstain in responding to this edit request, but unless I didn't read the source correctly, I can't seem to verify the eight casualties you noted in this source you noted above. Also, in addition to The New York Times source stated above, where is the source for the thirteen additional deaths (I'm assuming the eight casualties are included in this total, and maybe it's in the Swords of Iron sources – but I can't verify) and the deaths of twelve abducted hostages dead while in captivity? ~ Tails Wx (he/him • aroace • 🐾) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

- hi mentor! first, sorry for dragging you into this, my question was not about this request specifically. But about what's the correct etiquette on reopening edit requests.

- About the 5 Shaldag Units, they are already listed in the article now (but you can find their names in Swords of Iron: Israel Police, Security Forces (Shabak) and First Responders Casualties)

- About the 8 IDF victims, you are indeed correct. For the IDF page they only listed where people are from not necessarily where they died. Sorry, about that I got confused myself. (it also means that there could be IDF soliders from other places who died in Be'eri)

From the list of names, I posted. I could verify that 7 of them, were in Beeri when the died (either through explicit mention or through being local officers there). But "Yarin Mari" was killed in a nearby military base.

- "Master Sgt. (res.) Arie Kraunik, 54, a local security officer, from Be’eri." IDF names three more fallen soldiers | The Times of Israel

- Hagay Avni: Hagi Avni, 50: Event designer, father of 5 who sought to defend home | The Times of Israel

- Eitan Hadad: https://www.timesofisrael.com/eitan-hadad-43-talented-bass-player-who-was-all-heart/

- Shachar Zemach: "On October 7, Zemach, 39, a member of Kibbutz Be’eri’s security squad, was killed after fighting the terrorists for seven hours" Israeli Peace Activists Who Lost Loved Ones in the Hamas Massacre Stand Their Ground - Israel News - Haaretz.com

- Gil Bowom: Gil et Inbar Buyum, 55 et 22 ans : un père et un fils qui ont voulu défendre Beeri - The Times of Israël (timesofisrael.com)

- Noy Shosh: Noy Shosh, 36: Fought terrorists outside his front door | The Times of Israel

- Edan Barukh: Edan, Sahar & Geula: Savta & 2 grandsons slain, captured, killed | The Times of Israel

But Yarin Mari was not killed in Beeri but in a nearby base: Staff Sgt. Yarin Peled, 20: Medic who scrawled last request facing death | The Times of Israel Sorry, I was wrong. Bowad91017 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

> the deaths of twelve abducted hostages dead while in captivity?

a list of those can be found in here: https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/swords-of-iron-civilian-casualties#Murdered-in-captivity Bowad91017 (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

indeed I was wrong here are more officers, that died in Be'eri but are not from Be'eri (they are listed in this source but without mention of Be'eri)

- Maj. Benjamin Trakeniski, 32, of Tel Aviv – 7th (Storm from the Golan) Armored Brigade.:

Maj. Benji Trakeniski, 32: Husband-to-be who rescued dozens | The Times of Israel

- Chief Warrant Officer Ido Rosenthal, 45, of Moshav Ben Shemen - Unit 5101 (Shaldag), Israel Air Force.: Chief Warrant Officer Ido 'Crido' Rosenthal, 45: A habitual hero | The Times of Israel Bowad91017 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Lt. Nave Elazar Lax, 21, of Lod - General Staff Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal). Lt. Nave Lax, 21: Talented musician who 'loved and was loved' | The Times of Israel
• Lt. Yonatan Goutin, 20, of Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut - IDF Multidimensional Unit: Lt. Yonatan Goutin, 20: Star judoka who chose combat in IDF | The Times of Israel
• Maj. Sagi Golan, 30, of Raanana – The LOTAR Counter-Terror School, Marom Brigade. Cpt. Sagi Golan, 30: Killed 13 days before wedding to his boyfriend | The Times of Israel
• Staff Sgt. Valentin Elie Ghnassia, 22, of Jerusalem – 890th Battalion, Paratroopers Brigade.Valentin Elie Ghnassia, 22: French 'ray of sun'; volunteered for IDF | The Times of Israel

Bowad91017 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

- Lt. Col. Eli Ginsberg, 42, of Kibbutz Dovrat - Shayetet (Flotilla) 13 Reconnaissance Unit, Israel Navy.Lt. Col. Eli Ginsberg, 42: Retired from long IDF career, returned to fight | The Times of Israel Bowad91017 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll look through and respond within the next few days, thanks! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 16:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)