Talk:Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Timeline of Operation Protective Edge – This is clearly what this page deals with WarKosign (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC) There is an ongoing debate whether the parent page (currently titled 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) should keep that name. This specific page deals only with the timeline of the operation, from the day it began till the (so far) last day. There is more than what's currently on this page in '2014 Israel-Gaza conflict' - at very least it could include kidnapping of 3 teenagers and Operation Brother's Keeper. As long as it doesn't, this page only describes the timeline of Operation Protective Edge, and should be named accordingly.

• Oppose First of all, anyone is free to add notable content that is within the scope of the article. Secondly, it is advancing a particular POV to use one side's operation name as the title, especially when the operation's name is deliberately worded to advance a POV, in this case that the operation is defensive in nature.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for that same rationale mentioned above by Tdl1060--علي سمسم (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. This is also just a continuation of the same push to move to Protective Edge. It's getting boring, and will soon get tendentious. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge

Both articles are largely the same subject, A day by day breakdown of battles and casualties Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Against merger .I don't think both articles handle the same subject. One is a detailed causalities/IAF strikes list, the other is a timeline of main events/developments of the conflict. --علي سمسم (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Against merger. As علي سمسم stated, both articles do not handle the same subject. The List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge article does need work to remove content that is not within the scope of the article and is more fitting for the timeline article. However, only days 16, 17, and 18 have this problem. This is not enough to warrant a merger. The rest of the List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge article is a detailed casualties/IAF strikes list and is clearly distinct from this article. Additionally, both articles are of the length where Wikipedia's size guideline recommends an article split, not a merger.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Against this article is neutral and covers an over view of both sides. The other article is one sided and also has been neglected for days on end. Definitely not worthy of a merger - Galatz (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you decide to merge, don't forget to merge List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 as well.WarKosign (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Against for the reason cited above. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clean out timeline info in main article

Most of the lede of the main article 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is timeline, the info should be merged into the section 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#Operation timeline and/or this article Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Obankston (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Overview section

I have added an "Overview" section. The section currently consists of the text of the section 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Operation_timeline in the main article. I will leave it like this for a day or two, to ensure that there is consensus that this is OK. My plan is to WP:TRANSCLUDE this section into the main article. This way, any updates which are sufficiently important can be included here and will automatically be reflected in the main article. Kingsindian (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to -sche for the edits; I had forgotten that this version was from 10 days ago. Kingsindian (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceasefire

An anonymous user, 84.108.204.8, is continually adding incorrect information to the article, I believe in good faith, however it is all unverified. I have reversed it several times because the anonymous IP address is not included in the IRR, however this is a big issue. They are reporting rocket attacks when there was what appears to be a siren false alarm. They are also adding information not pertaining to the conflict. Additionally they are stating the Egypt is opening the Israel-Gaza border, and removing the part that mentions the removal of the blockade. I am sure these are in good faith, however there are many issues with it. - Galatz (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I would have reverted him also it's just you were faster. Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

relevance of jailing to the operation

@Fz62: The statement in question says "The operation was also preceded by the jailing of hundreds of Palestinians". You wrote "they took place between May and July 8 2014". Please point WHAT took place on these dates, how it's relevant to the article and why is it more WP:DUE in the timeline article than many other events in the background section of the main article.

"air strikes on Gaza in which at least 6 Palestinians were killed" is a gross misrepresentation of the source - the statement is that airstrikes killed "at least" 6 in Gaza while the source talks about Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank (and says nothing about airstrikes). OBK has a dedicated article and is already covered in some detail in the main article's background section. Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir is covered there as well. “WarKosign” 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign: all those events took place between those dates. It is true that the source I referred to indicates that at least 6 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank and not in Gaza (thank you for pointing this out, it should also be added however that the airstrikes on Gaza killed three and wounded more than a dozen, see ), but it is also true that the killing of the three young Israeli Jews took place outside of Gaza, as well as the killing of the two Palestinian teenagers the previous May 15. So, unless you wish to claim that also the killing of the three young Israeli Jews is unrelated to the "operation", also the jailings and killings of Palestinians in all the occupied territories are related. As for the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, it is certainly covered elsewhere, as is everything else you mention, including the killing of the three Israeli Jews the previous June. yellow_snow_62 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Fz62

Do you have sources saying that the murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir lead to Operation Protective Edge ? I agree that Operation Brother's Keeper should be mentioned/linked to, but it has to be in more neutral terms than "jailing of hundreds of Palestinians". “WarKosign” 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Statistical section

@Nishidani: Why did you add the statistics here and not in the main article with the rest of the numbers ? “WarKosign” 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm a fucking dullard with increasingly decreased powers of concentration. I've moved it to the place you suggested.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of a 4-year-old boy during a rocket attack

There are currently in the article two pictures of injured Palestinian children (1, 2), but not a single one of an Israeli. That's clearly biased and violates NPOV. That's why this image must remain in the article to add some balance. In fact, I don't understand why it was removed in the first place. I don't see a clear consensus for this. But if the picture of the Israeli kid must be dismissed for some strange reason, at least one of those two pictures showing Palestinian children should be removed also. Don't you think?--Averysoda (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay.

Your argumentation is false, because that picture is posed. The mother said that she asked the soldiers at the time if she could take a snap. It was taken after the incident (mothers don't stand round asking soldiers to retake a photo if their child is still under threat.)

I've no objection at all to a photo representing an Israeli child in danger. Find one, but not one that is not indicative of a posed picture.

I would remind you by the way that per WP:Due, there is also the fact that 1 Israeli child died, and 533 Gazan children died. Is WP:NPOV to be taken as meaning parity in representation of the sides' grievances, or due representation of reality?

Let's do an analysis of the, from memory, 14 photos on the page, as we did at the 2014 Gaza war. Then we can see the issue in context. In the meantime, I've seen many photos of Israeli children in flight, so propose one of them.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where did you get that information about the "posed" allegation. Maybe it's true, maybe not. However, bare in mind that Wikipedia is interested in wp:verifiability, not truth. The picture is appropriate, but even if what you are saying is correct, it doesn't mean it isn't an accurate representation of the danger faced by Israeli children during the war. In addition, in this case the casualties don't reflect the (lack of) danger for Israeli civilians during the conflict, since Israel has effective mechanisms to minimize its own casualties (sirens, shelters, Iron Dome, etc), which doesn't mean that Israelis weren't threatened by Palestinian rockets (besides, those rockets affected the entire country, despite causing few casualties). I haven't seen many photos in commons of Israeli children in flight, perhaps you could propose one (maybe this one?).--Averysoda (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the archives for the period at the article page 2014 Gaza War and the argument also on my page. Articles on how it was taken appeared in the press, and are cited there. It's been verified how it was taken, in short.

That the soldiers posed for it is evident from the picture, and the mother's testimony. We do not do posed photos passing off as real-life events caught on the wing.

No one said Israeli citizens weren't threatened. They have shelters even for major wars. The whole world knows that, even Hamas.

It's late here, but I'll look around, and I hope other editors can scour for photos, which is not my strongpoint.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s. the photo you propose would be excellent. Let's case around further in any case.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I found several descriptions of how the photo was taken. According to the sources a family was in their car while the alarms went off. The child left the car before the mother and ran outside. By the time she caught up with him she saw a couple of reserve soldiers hugging him and calming him down. She asked for their permission to take a photo, and took it. There was never any mention of posing. Nishidani's claim that it's posed is pure WP:OR.“WarKosign” 03:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is one of of the discussions.“WarKosign” 03:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is another one. “WarKosign” 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talking of WP:OR, WarKoSign you took the trouble to get two independent photos of the site you assumed was where it was taken. Personal research, openly admitted on the talk page.“Everyone were hiding in cover, it was very stressful while I struggled with the car door, and when he ran for cover. I suddenly saw two home front command soldiers embracing him, it was simply amazing, and I asked them for permission to photo the moment.”

The parents are stop their car during a siren alert.

The father takes one child and leaves his wife in the car with the other child, Yair

The child manages to get out of the car alone.

The mother is stuck inside with a jammed door.

She sees two soldiers protecting him

She goes up to the soldiers and

She asks permission from the soldiers to take a photo, which they give.

She takes the photo (presumably the siren is blaring. They are crouched there, continuing to keep the position. The mother stands in front of them, courageously indifferent to the imminent possibility a mortar may hit her or the child or all 4.

The mother admits that she asked permission to take a photo. Is there any example in history of a photographer in a war zone, during bombardments, calming asking: 'Heyt! Can can I take a snap of you soldiers still hunkered down in fear and protective care, while I'm standing away from a wall, exposed to the danger, just for the family's phot album?

The word 'permission' told by the mother, means it was posed.It may have been posed some minutes later, but that still means it is a reconstruction. It was not a photo taken on the wing. Ask any accomplished photo analyst here. That is not a picture of an ongoing action under panic, stress. It is after the event.Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "permission" means that they were aware of the photo being taken and gave their consent. According to Israeli penal code it is forbidden to take pictures of soldiers since it can be considered espionage, so she was technically correct (as well as polite) in asking for permission. There is no evidence that they did anything especially for the photo, therefore it is not posed. The photo was not taken in a war zone, it was taken at an entrance to a residential neighbourhood. Their location was given as Rehovot, which means they had about a minute warning time and that the danger they were in was quite low. The title "soldiers defending a child with their bodies against danger" is incorrect, it should be "soldiers calming a child frightened by the sirens". Me finding the spot where the event probably happened (on google street view, not actually taking a photo) is pure OR and of course can't be used. “WarKosign” 07:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There already has been a long discussion over the photo of the child and soldiers. It was agreed to keep another picture where children (and adults) were running to a bomb shelter in Ashkelon. It is far more typical of the situation in Israel. The aim of pictures is to illustrate the accompanying text, not score propaganda points for either side. There is no requirement in WP:NPOV that we must have an injured Israeli child for every injured Palestinian child, considering that there were many more children killed and wounded on the Palestinian side. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

'she was technically correct (as well as polite) in asking for permission. There is no evidence that they did anything especially for the photo, therefore it is not posed.'

Such considerations are beside the point. It is commonsense that if you see something happening, and walk up and ask permission to take a photo, assent is given, and you then carefully take the snap, that this is a posed photo after the event, recreating it. I have no problem with soldiers protecting children, that is not the point. Several editors were satisfied neither by the caption nor the photo, one of many, the only one of which we don't know if it was taken during a siren, or after the siren stopped (a mother walking up to soldiers and calmly taking a snap suggests the alert had stopped. It is not 'technically correct' to stand about, as a parent, while an alert to seek shelter against a threat, and take a photo, unduly exposing oneself to risk, for which quite specific instructions are given. We know this is probably not posed because it comes with a video from which the still was excerpted. Needless to say, one does not put such material in (which is abundant), and one expects, in a war of images, that judgement and discretion be used by all concerned.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda

You appear to have made a blind revert. You challenge the use of Mondoweiss, as is your right. You have no right however to excise in the same edit a datum not sourced to Mondoweiss, consisting of text and a link to another wiki page where the facts are fully documented. I refer to:

Undid revision 667966365 by Nishidani (talk) No, you need a reliable source to confirm this interview. Mondoweiss is not RS

That is a deceptive edit summary. Removing at the same time:

An Israel missile killed 9 youths and wounded 15 as they were watching the Argentine-Netherlands semi-final match in a beach café in Khan Younis

is a particularly egregious form of POV censorship because the text mentions that rocket firing stopped during the world cup broadcast that night (this you don't challenge). and when I added the missing fact that Israel continued to fire missiles, killing 9 civilians in one case, you expunge it. Thus maimed, the falsity by omission of the text is sustained. Editing ethics requires that it be restored, as having absolutely nothing to do with the contention in your edit summary.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming you have so much information on the Internet about that particular incident... why do you need to cite an extremely partisan unreliable source like Mondoweiss to back up those claims?--Averysoda (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

'Extremely partisan?' Read The Times of Israel or The Jerusalem Post. We used them as RS, yet they are extremely partisan. I read this reflection last night, from a middle-of-the road journalist writing for Haaretz.

For the few who will wade through its 183 pages, the report makes for harrowing reading. It devotes ample space and deference to Israelis suffering from rocket attacks, but its eyewitness accounts of the scenes of carnage in Gaza in the wake of Israel air force bombings in which entire families were wiped out will disturb even the most ardent justifier of Israeli actions. They are, in a word, atrocious.

"The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness,” Judith Herman writes in the book Trauma and Recovery, but that observation relates to people who had been exposed to the calamities in the first place. Last summer, the overwhelming majority of Israelis were spared the sights and sounds of the carnage in Gaza: Israeli media refrained from covering the suffering of Gazans while politicians and pundits maintained that it was unpatriotic to even discuss. The hardships and ordeals of Israelis cowering from rocket attacks, undeniable in and of themselves, were magnified tenfold while the misery of Gaza was not only downplayed but also depicted as well deserved. Chemi Shalev , 'UN report on Gaza will further embed Israelis in their isolated bunker,' Haaretz 22 June 2015.

What Shalev is openly admitting is what every reader who does not limit himself to the Israeli mainstream press knew all along. Huge amounts of print about Israeli suffering, day in day out, and a few statistics about the other side. Shalev is saying the mainstream Israeli media (as opposed to outlets like +972 magazine)whose English editions we rely on failed lamentably to report what the American Jewish press (as opposed to the mainstream wasp press)dutifully covered: The Forward, Tablet magazine, Mondoweiss and many others did cover much of that detail, fearlessly. Shalev's point has been repeated by numerous Israeli journalists who at the time protested the blanketing out of balanced coverage. Objections to Mondoweiss are, contextually, objections to its coverage of what is not reported in Israeli mainstream sources, not objections to its reliability. The rule appears to be:'since the mainstream press doesn't pick up the Palestinian story, let's insist that WP:RS be used to exclude any reasonably good sources that do pick up these things, thus ensuring that the 'proper spin' gets the priority we owe it.

Numerous editors plunk in Arutz Sheva, and I do see anyone removing that stuff mechanically, as editors do Mondoweiss, which regularly runs good solid traditional investigative journalism. One should challenge the use of Mondoweiss for controversial claims, but challenging it for the names of children killed, is silly. Other articles do mention those names, but a reporter who interviews the family of the deceased, and tells their story, and is published on a website not known to be anti-Semitic, hysterical or known to invent fantasies out of whole cloth (I find numerous articles in our RS slightly 'hysterical') is by commonsense perfectly acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel are known reliable sources (they don't lie), at least more reliable than Arab newspapers that you cite all the time like Ma'an News, Haaretz and Al Jazeera. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs like Mondoweiss, +972 magazine, Electronic Intifada, StandWithUs, Monitor, Camera, HonestReporting and others are not reliable to state unattributed facts in a serious encyclopedia. If you start to back up information with organizations like Mondoweiss, I'll start to use their counterpart pro-Israel sources to write things you won't enjoy so much. It's a matter of reciprocity, NPOV and balance. As far as reliability goes, political organizations are not the same than newspapers.--Averysoda (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel are known reliable sources (they don't lie), at least more reliable than Arab newspapers that you cite all the time like .. Haaretz.

Evidently if you labour under the impression Haaretz is an Arab newspaper, you shouldn't be editing here.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant pro-Arab/pro-Palestinian newspapers.--Averysoda (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, but Haaretz is not 'pro-Arab'. As to pro-Palestinian, as a liberal newspaper it subscribes to the principles of natural justice, and equality, and in this sense, it takes more care than most Israeli newspapers to cover both sides. Most of its contributors are liberal Zionists. It is definitely not pro-Arab, which, in any case, is a meaningless term.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't belong to our discussion, but I wouldn't say that Haaretz "covers both sides" (at least equally). You can ask anyone in Israel. They will tell you Haaretz always tries to find pretexts to justify Palestinian actions, leaders and organizations (as well as enemies of Israel in general, including Arab countries that participated in wars), while usually placing the blame on Israel, even when that's hardly possible. Also they try to depress Israeli society by claiming that "everything is wrong". That's why Haaretz is not very popular in Israel. It has a lot to do with political positions instead of "natural justice". As for "liberal Zionists".... the Labour Party could be considered "liberal Zionist", not Haaretz (maybe "potz-Zionist"). In any case, I would like to find a "liberal" newspaper like that among Palestinians or in any Arab and Muslim country, although probably those journalists would be hanged and burned publicly for high treason. I guess the word "self-criticism" doesn't exist in some places (some people would tell you the Arabs don't have an inferiority complex to think about the enemy's wellbeing like so many Jews. In some respects the Arabs are more clever than the Israelis... I just gave a complement to Haaretz's friends!).--Averysoda (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I will ignore the "meta" discussion of whether Haaretz is pro-Arab or liberal Zionist or whatever. The main point here is that you should follow WP:PRESERVE. The fact that some people were killed while watching a football match was widely reported. If you don't like the Mondoweiss reference, just Google for another one and add it instead. I found this link in 2 second. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that particular event was widely covered by mainstream media and reliable sources. I was making a clear point: Mondoweiss is not a reliable source and can't be used to state facts in a serious encyclopedia. It only can be used for attributed opinions of Mondoweiss (secondary sources are preferable though), whenever that's relevant (if ever). That's all.--Averysoda (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not referring to your explanation on the talk page, just the edit on the article page. Removing an undisputed fact just because you don't like the reference is not good. Just fix the problem, if you can. Add a "better source" needed tag if you must. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. I recognize my mistake.--Averysoda (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714143725/http://www.wnem.com/story/25961162/israeli-military-masses-troops-along-gaza-border to http://www.wnem.com/story/25961162/israeli-military-masses-troops-along-gaza-border

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140724141904/http://pflp.ps/english/2014/07/15/pflp-proposal-for-calm-seeks-new-chains-on-the-resistance/ to http://pflp.ps/english/2014/07/15/pflp-proposal-for-calm-seeks-new-chains-on-the-resistance/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141106100445/http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/gaza-rocket-hits-southern-israel-causing-no-damage-or-injuries-army/ar-BBckBaA to http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/gaza-rocket-hits-southern-israel-causing-no-damage-or-injuries-army/ar-BBckBaA
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714151836/http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/657369-gaza-on-knife-edge--ban-ki-moon.html to http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/657369-gaza-on-knife-edge--ban-ki-moon.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714151303/http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=94581 to http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=94581
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140718115201/http://www.click2houston.com/news/israeli-cabinet-to-consider-ceasefire/26957062 to http://www.click2houston.com/news/israeli-cabinet-to-consider-ceasefire/26957062
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140728090257/http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Kerry-returns-to-Mideast-to-push-for-cease-fire-5634687.php to http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Kerry-returns-to-Mideast-to-push-for-cease-fire-5634687.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140728183855/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/25/372750/we-killed-10-more-israeli-troops-hamas/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/25/372750/we-killed-10-more-israeli-troops-hamas/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140730015220/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/World/2014/07/26/21834271.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2014/07/26/21834271.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140808203806/http://www.local10.com/news/ceasefire-between-hamas-israel-starts/27159652 to http://www.local10.com/news/ceasefire-between-hamas-israel-starts/27159652
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140728102709/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-what-now-for-gaza-israel-nears-moment-of-truth-in-war-with-hamas-9631788.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-what-now-for-gaza-israel-nears-moment-of-truth-in-war-with-hamas-9631788.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140728211626/http://www.vagazette.com/news/sns-rt-us-palestinians-israel-infiltration-20140728,0,6706630.story to http://www.vagazette.com/news/sns-rt-us-palestinians-israel-infiltration-20140728,0,6706630.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140808051119/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/30/373427/three-more-israeli-soldiers-die/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/30/373427/three-more-israeli-soldiers-die/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140812061913/http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/US-Abduction-of-Israeli-would-be-outrageous-5662201.php to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/article/US-Abduction-of-Israeli-would-be-outrageous-5662201.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140804003618/http://www.startribune.com:80/world/269559871.html to http://www.startribune.com/world/269559871.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140806194016/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/2014/08/03/373844/israeli-attacks-kill-13-more-palestinians/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/03/373844/israeli-attacks-kill-13-more-palestinians/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140808050603/http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/israel-pulling-out-of-gaza-ahead-of-truce/27310898 to http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/israel-pulling-out-of-gaza-ahead-of-truce/27310898
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140807120848/http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Israel-Hamas-dig-in-as-Gaza-talks-go-on-in-Cairo-5673606.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Israel-Hamas-dig-in-as-Gaza-talks-go-on-in-Cairo-5673606.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140811200908/http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/08/09/3239543/rockets-airstrikes-after-gaza.html?sp=/99/164/252/ to http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/08/09/3239543/rockets-airstrikes-after-gaza.html?sp=/99/164/252/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140812210858/http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/08/11/foreign-ministry-denies-rafah-border-closure/ to http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2014/08/11/foreign-ministry-denies-rafah-border-closure/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140814224337/http://www.bnd.com/2014/08/13/3347722/ap-video-journalist-killed-in.html to http://www.bnd.com/2014/08/13/3347722/ap-video-journalist-killed-in.html?
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140818202502/http://english.pnn.ps:80/index.php/politics/7992-israel-announces-the-expansion-of-the-fishing-zone-in-gaza-as-a-goodwill-gesture to http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/politics/7992-israel-announces-the-expansion-of-the-fishing-zone-in-gaza-as-a-goodwill-gesture
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140820053644/http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/08/19/3265132/israel-rockets-fired-from-gaza.html to http://www.islandpacket.com/2014/08/19/3265132/israel-rockets-fired-from-gaza.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204230458/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-07/16/c_133486297.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-07/16/c_133486297.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2014/08/09/3239543/rockets-airstrikes-after-gaza.html?sp=%2F99%2F164%2F252%2F

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) 01:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Very biased pictures

The pictures give a very biased and inaccurate impression as they depict only the aftermath of the destruction of homes in Israel , while no photos were shown of what happened to homes in Gaza. There are so many pictures online of destroyed homes in Gaza during this war , yet none were shown in the article.--Ahmodye (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)