Comments:Southern Gaza hit by new Israeli air strikes

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Title

why is the headline sourthern gaza hit by new israeli airstrikes? i look up to wikipedia for its objectivity... israel launched airstrikes for retaliation of two rockets being fired from gaza, why isnt that mentioned in the headline??Eframgoldberg (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased

i clicked on the link of al jazeera at the bottom of the article and found this... john dixon United States 06/02/2009 Title of Story How come every time an article is printed concerning rockets being fired between Israel and Hamas the headline always reads "Israel fires into Gaza", and only later, at the end of the story do we find out that Israel fired on Gaza only after Hamas fired on Israel? Why doesn't the story read "Hamas fires on Israel - Israel fires back". That would be true and unbiased reporting. i completely agree. i hold wikipedia to higher standards than al jazeera. wikipedia needs to change their standards in order to keep making a claim of being unbiased. Eframgoldberg (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because airstrikes are far more destructive military maneuvers than hand-fired rockets. To imply the military actions of Hamas and the actions of the IDF are evenly distributed - now that would be biased. --128.243.253.113 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli air strike vs. Palestinian rocket attack

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/QassamRocket.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/AirStrikeAP_800x506.jpg

That's why the headline reads the way it does.

/troll

You make it seem as though what's taken place is symmetric warfare. During the January incursion into Gaza, Israel made it a point to completely obliterate the Hamas run police force. Therefore, there is absolutely no rule of law in Gaza as per Israel's objectives. Now, it's silly to say that every rocket fired as of the unilateral ceasfire is a hamas attack. Even if Hamas wanted to prevent civilians or random militant groups from launching bottlerockets into israel, they no longer have that facility. If someone throws a stone across the border into Israel, and Israel responds with an Airstrike, do you think the headline should read: "Breaking news: Gaza civilian throws stone into Israel"? Also consider the significance in terms of cost between each respective action. How much does it cost for Israel to perform a well planned airstrike vs the cost of whatever toy rocket happens to be available for a blind launch somewhere into Israel? -99.224.209.50 17:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

last time i checked laucnhing qassam rockets, not bottle rockets, into civilain territory, or launching any unguided missiles into civilian territory violets article 3 of the geneva convention and is considered a warcrime. it is also a violation of the ceasefire. if titles of the articles are going to solely mention israel's responses to hamas's aggresions then that is biased. and if hamas has no control over its citizen's firing explosive rockets into israel then they shouldnt be considered a representative of its people. israel just didnt decide hey lets bomb some ammunition depots and smuggling tunnels out of the blue, they were forced to by the incoming rocket fire. what should any government do when its citizens are in fear of rockets falling out of the sky? not protect its borders??? and please remember cause and effect, the rockets went into israel, then israel responded with airstrikes. as a matter of fact, an army spokesperson came out afterwards and said the strikes were in retaliation for the rocket attacks. the whole reason operation cast lead was started was because of incoming rocket attacks. even if israel's resposnse is using too much force? they have consitently done that and what did hamas expect firing hundreds of rockets into israel. as far as im concerned if any country fired hundreds of rockets into a neighboring country, i would expect some sort of retaliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.124.239 (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeaaaahhh. Israel, innocently, JUST react every time.. not one remembers the over 400 childrens killed until 20 days ago? What justifies that crimes? Toy-rockets? IF criminals in the Israeli government wants REALLY the peace, then they should handle Hamas and talk with them. Instehad, they starved, oppressed, killed palestinians while USA continues to send to them ships with loads of weapons and explosives. This is a crime, no matter how Hamas does. Israel set ups cleary the conditions to make war and lift tension with arabs. Now Liebermann, the 'Hiroshima solution' is a popular politician. Now israeli public opinion is even against arab-israel citizens. This is the result to leave free Israel to every bs they want to do.--Erik455 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Toyrockets my dear sir? They are atleast as big as fullgrown humans and has half the range of an cross channel V-1(V-1:s carried a tonne of high explosives). So your suggestion is to let Hamas bombard Israeli sovereign territory(an act of war) while doing nothing and hope the Hamas leaders will come to their nonexistent senses? So according to this, the United States should have left Japan alone during Pearl Harbor attack? Oh comeon! You know perfectly well that a country cannot be unresponsive to hostile attacks. Gsmgm (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)