Talk:Re'im music festival massacre

RFC on Terminology

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Please answer the first question and the second question with brief statements in the two Surveys. Please do not reply to other editors in the Surveys. That is what the Discussions are for. In the Discussion sections, remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.

Survey 1: Militants or Terrorists?

Should the Hamas combatants be referred to as militants or terrorists?

• Both In general as militants but mention that they have been designated as terrorists by multiple countries. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists (invited by the bot) Targeting of civilians in this context is slam-dunk terrorism. "Militant" is a totally different thing and not even established and also not a good choice on term even if it was. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Either or both.(Summoned by bot) No offense intended to North8000 immediately above, but the question under policy is very much not what we think is an appropriate descriptor in the circumstances, but the WP:WEIGHT given to the descriptions in the overall body of sources discussing the attack. (Although as a side note, I think N8 is correct that this is paradigmatic terrorism). While the volume of such sources covering these events makes it quite difficult to develop a hyper accurate sense of what the ratios are in this instance, I think it's pretty clear that both have been used liberally, across a broad swath of sources.
  Really, it's a matter of context and the specific statement in question, because most of the individuals that such statements will refer to will be both things (that is, militants as a general matter, and terrorists with regard to the festival). So, for example "a terrorist attack by Hamas militants" would be apt, and no element of such a statement would be out of step with the average source here. I think there are probably plenty even among those who are more sympathetic to the Palestinian view than the Israeli as a general matter who would still be able to recognize why these were terroristic events and why sources describe them as such. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants in general (ie. Wikivoice), terrorists only where attributed to sources using that term, per @Senorangel and MOS:TERRORIST. Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Militants: There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page . I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner, and the notion also flies in the face of the principle of consistency. A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages. Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.? I see no clarity on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There is literally a guideline on this, MOS:TERRORIST, and the way to term Hamas should be and has been determined on its page. I'm not even clear if local RFCs should attempt overrule a guideline in this manner"

It's complicated: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override the application of a WP:PAG (WP:IAR and all that), but such an action will typically only be endorsed by a consensus of experienced editors in cases where it is necessary to facilitate accurate, reliable information and/or comply with other PAGs (because WP:CONLEVEL is an important factor). However, note that in this instance MOS:LABEL is not a WP:guideline, but rather a style page. As a much more minor expression of core community consensus, it certainly has to bend to give way to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT where the style guidance is in strong and direct tension with that pillar policy, as it very arguably is here.

"A group should not episodically be labelled something on one page, based on a single act, and carry a different set of labels on other pages based other sets of actions - descriptions of entities should, wherever possible, be broadly consistent between pages"

I agree, but looking at the disputed wording here, this doesn't seem to be a question of trying to redefine any primary labels for Hamas as a group. Rather, the question is how to describe the particular assailants in this case, and as to that, it's pretty clear that there is a healthy volume of sources supporting "terrorists" as WP:DUE in that regard--probably even due enough for Wikivoice. Now, others in this discussion have proposed leaning into heavily attributed language in order to split the difference, and that may very well be a good option here, depending on what exactly that wording looks like. But personally, if consensus agrees to just describe the participants of the attack as terrorists generally, I think in this case it would be consistent with policy and permissible, given the weight of the sourcing.

"Moreover, this attack did not involve just Hamas, so the question is, to a certain degree a misnomer. Is this an RFC to re-label just Hamas, or also the PIJ, PFLP, Lion's Den etc.?"

That's a good point, although I think it's going to take some time in order to reliably source the involvement of any organizational parties beyond Hamas. In any event, I do think we need to avoid any overly simplified descriptions about "Hamas terrorists". That said, "Hamas" and "terrorists", as separate descriptors, are probably unavoidable in the context of various different statements here--including in the lead, and quite possibly in Wikivoice. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • As the perpetrators of an unambiguous terrorist attack (politically motivated mass murder of civilians without any direct military objectives), they have become terrorists.
  • I disagree with my esteemed colleague Iskandar323. This doesn't automatically label Hamas as a terrorist organization or contradict prior discussions, as we are talking about the perpetrators of this attack specifically - the designation of Hamas as a group is another question.
  • There are plenty of existing articles that use 'terrorists' in wikivoice; this term is not banned.
  • To comply with WP:NPOV, for balance, we should probably include the viewpoint of Hamas - "Hamas disputed this characterization; Since most of the partygoers were Israeli citizens, this makes them legitimate targets according to Hamas". Marokwitz (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Terrorists - The terrorists which committed these acts of terrorism are terrorists, whether or not you acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Dovidroth (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  With respect, Wikipedia isn’t (and shouldn’t be) edited in accordance with what editors “acknowledge”, we are not the arbiters of what fits a particular definition or not, per WP:NPOV. Yr Enw (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorists - Action condemned as terror globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned, we should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

“Per definition” is likely WP:OR Yr Enw (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists:
  • Per @Marokwitz
  • Just because the BBC doesn't call them terrorists doesn't mean we don't call them terrorists. The BBC and Reuters don't even call 9/11 terrorists, and that doesn't affect us. MOS:TERRORIST says "widely" and not all sources around the world and "so what about Israel?".
  • There has been a history of Wikipedia considering war crimes as terrorist acts, such as the Camp Speicher massacre. Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is it’s not consistent across wiki at all. There is also Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others, which have all been described as terror attacks by certain sources, and yet are not called such in their articles (except when referencing the sources directly). Neither should they be, imo. Yr Enw (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  So, are you saying we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" at all? Not even in reference to 9/11? That is not what the MOS:TERRORIST policy suggests. Marokwitz (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, I’m saying we should attribute the word when and where we do, which is what WP:TERRORIST says. Yr Enw (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand if you're suggesting we should be consistent and change, for example, the September 11 attacks and Oklahoma City bombing articles to use the "t" word only with attribution - these articles don't currently do so. Marokwitz (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, personally, that’s what I would advocate. Yr Enw (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Terrorists seems entirely apt here given what happened. --Andreas JN466 22:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure why we need this survey. The event is the "largest terror attack in Israel's history,[1][15][13] and the worst Israeli civilian massacre ever.[16]". Who executed it? Peace fighters? Or what is the right word for someone who conducted a terrorist attack? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• According to the article on terrorism, there is no international consensus on its definition, but it is widely understood to apply to the use of force that meets the following criteria:
  • Indiscriminate targeting of non-combatants
  • Intention of reaching political rather than military goals
  • Causing fear in the general public or a targeted part of society
• In this case, the targeting didn't seem indiscriminate, as more than 345 of those killed were opposing combatants. The taking of prisoners with the intention of exchanging them for combatants held prisoner by the other side is a frequent military goal. Wether an act of violence causes fear in a specific group beyond those physically affected is dependent on its psychological predisposition and resilience. Since we also should also observe WP:TERRORIST, I tend towards Militants, even though the objective and encyclopedic term would have been combatants, as opposed to insurgents, freedom fighters, separatists or similar partisan expressions. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey 2: Terror Attack?

Should the attack be referred to in the short description and the lede paragraph as a terror attack?

• Weak yes (invited by the bot). It's applicable. "Weak" (compared to my strong opinion on the first question) because the alternate is not such a bad choice as the alternate in question #1 as written. The implicit alternative on this question is just "attack" which would also be fine. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak yes This is related to how it has or has not been described as an act of terrorism. Senorangel (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes.(Summoned by bot) Per my comments above: it's not the only way to approach the description, but there's no denying that it's a defensible description, based on the WP:WEIGHT of the sourcing. So long as the article as a whole strives to explain at least some of the historical background and broader context of the attack, describing these particular acts of violence in a fashion consistent with how the significant majority of RS do is not only acceptable and appropriate, but really the only option we have under our policies, which show deference to the descriptions in said sources, not our own idiosyncratic views on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. It was a savage attack on civilians. Mcljlm (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• No except when referencing use of the term by sources (ie. "described as"), per Loughinisland massacre, Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing, Omagh bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing, and Deir Yassin massacre, amongst others. Yr Enw (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this is widely agreed upon by mainstream sources. It is no different from the September 11 attacks in this regard, which are described in wikivoice as a terror attack. There is no way that a mass murder of civilians without a military objective can be described as an 'attack'. Marokwitz (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The events at the festival were quite different in at least one key way, and that is sense in which they were unplanned, as Israeli intelligence has noted. Most terror attacks are premeditated. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Calling it unplanned is absurd; it was a coordinated attack planned months, or years in advance. There are many terror attacks, probably most, where the attacker decides to carry out an attack and only chooses the actual victims randomly. Marokwitz (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Israeli intelligence services very well may speak in absurdities, but as clearly stated in the attached piece, the consensus is there was no advance awareness of the festival. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Having no advance awareness of the festival is quite different from calling the attack unplanned. They didn't cross the border for fun and games. Marokwitz (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Preparation and planning are separate constructs. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per mainstream media. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - Action condemned as a terror attack globally. Actions constitute terrorism per definition. Wide notability in reference as largest terror attack on Israel. Furthermore, footage spread also to induce terror in civilian populations. In accordance with NPOV as mentioned. International media and organizations refer to it as a terror attack. We should include Hamas denial of their actions. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying we should say it with citations from those “International media and organisations” or just in general regardless of attribution? Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• No per WP:TERRORIST.

Discussion 2: Terror Attack?

@Robert McClenon: In the last paragraph, massacre is written as a terrorist act, what other changes do you want to make? Parham wiki (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Parham wiki - I do not "want" to make any specific changes to the article, or to leave the article unchanged rather than make any specific changes. I am asking the questions neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General Discussion

This will become very hard to follow if editors have discussions in the voting sections. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

New Police investigation points that Israeli combat helicopter hit civilians at festival

This new police investigation published in harretz that points out that, an IDF combat helicopter hit some revelers. Should be added.[1]https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-18/ty-article/.premium/israeli-security-establishment-hamas-likely-didnt-have-prior-knowledge-of-nova-festival/0000018b-e2ee-d168-a3ef-f7fe8ca20000 Marshmallowjunkie (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I added this, an editor is claiming that it is fake based on an older PolitiFact article on a tweet by the IDF, which isnt the subject of the Haaretz article, and with this NEWSru source saying the police denied it. But in my view this is well sourced to one of the best Israeli sources we have available to us, and I see nothing policy based to remove it. nableezy - 19:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz is anything but a trustworthy source. It's one of the least respected journals in Israel.

The video that circulated was originally linked to an article in Hebrew describing the helicopter attacking targets in Gaza. The narrative that this happened in Israel is blatant disinformation. Since Haaretz is now paywalled, I can't see what they wrote about it, but the original article out of which this video came, reveals that this allegation is just plain false.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/b111niukzt

It's Ynet which is a much more trustworthy journal in Israel.

And the caption under the video from the article, "תיעוד תקיפת חיל האוויר ברצועת בפתיחת המלחמה (צילום: דובר צה"ל)"

translate roughly to: "Documentation of the Israeli Air Force attack in the Gaza Strip at the start of the war (Photo: IDF Spokesperson)"

The whole section is fake news, so at least provide challenges, such as the PolitiFact News.ru articles you have above and the fact that this assertion was heavily refuted online. It was shared in a ton of places, and a ton of people called it out for being untrue.

I'm quite angry this made it to the article in its current form. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This was published on November 18, making Ynet on October 15 discussing something different decidedly not relevant to this material. The YouTube video has nothing to do with what Haaretz published. As far as least respected, ok lol, whatever you say. Finally, per the latest set of clarifications opn the Arab-Israeli conflict, non extended-confirmed users may only participate on talk pages to post constructive edit requests. If disruptive commentary like the above continues this talk page may need to be protected. nableezy - 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I did however add the Police denial citing Times of Israel. nableezy - 19:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In what world am I being disruptive other than you not liking what I have to say? If you can't engage in dialogue in two ways, then maybe you shouldn't be using the talk page yourself, Mr. "lol whatever you say"

Nevertheless, the article being from October 15th is actually very relevant because it proves that it was the original source for the video being discussed. It's not until about a month later that the article's video, often shared with the article itself, began making rounds on social and traditional media with the false claims that this was at the music festival. The fact that a video over a month old was shared across media platforms is enough to question the associated claims' authenticity. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I just read it. I don't like it. Either it needs to go into more depth and detail the whole social media controversy regarding the incident and detail the debate on both sides, or it needs to be removed entirely because we don't know the truth behind the claims. The way it is now does not necessarily portray accuracy. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the social media reaction about a different video has nothing to do with this. nableezy - 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The disruption is the rant about fake news. But as you wish. nableezy - 20:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I provided clear evidence that challenges the information you posted. There was nothing disruptive about it. Frankly, I would sooner accuse you of being disruptive for accusing me of being disruptive, taking the focus away from the article's content by shifting to personal attacks. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the only participation you may engage in on this page is to make constructive edit requests. Full stop. nableezy - 22:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I was the one who has originally asked to remove the fake content as I found the denying sources which I have mentioned here. Currently the article has the following info:

  According to Haaretz's journalist Josh Breiner, a police source said that a police investigation indicated an IDF helicopter which had fired on Hamas militants "apparently also hit some festival participants."[27] The Israeli police denied the Haaretz report.[28]

IMHO it's easier to remove this entire content as it's pretty absurd as clearly one journalist misunderstood something and then police clearly stated that it was fake news. If police would have released it on the first place they would not deny it later. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I just made a similar statement a few seconds after you wrote this.

It should just be removed entirely. We don't know enough about it. This is encyclopedia, not a news aggregate 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Then we should remove all news articles? Which would leave exactly what on this page? nableezy - 20:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there's a little concept known as nuance; you see, some information can be highly contested and heavily debated, without a common consensus. In this case, there is not enough of a consensus to describe, with encyclopedic knowledge, about the incident because there's simply not enough information about it.

As a counter to your rhetorical question, should we add an article on Wikipedia for every news article ever created? I just read an article about a lost kitten in New York. Does that deserve an entry? 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but when we do have a notable event based entirely on news sources then it is curious, to say the least, to claim that news sources should not be used because we are not a news aggregate. Everything on this page is from the news media. Its only this material that brings up things some would rather not be covered that is being challenged. nableezy - 22:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I had previously added this content here at 23:50 – 23:52 18 November in a different section. It was removed by User:Oleg Yunakov at 18:01, 19 November 2023. Now, Haaretz is listed as a "green" source at WP:RSP (in fact, as far as I recall, Haaretz is the only Israeli newspaper thus listed). So the thing to do is to include the material and to include the denial, as the article currently does. --Andreas JN466 22:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we plan to collect all the fake news and then their denials? I believe for that we have a separate page (Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP Haaretz doesn't have a reputation for publishing fake news, on the contrary. --Andreas JN466 22:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we saying that mistakes can't happen and anything which would ever come out of Haaretz would be the immanent truth? I do not mean that they did it on purpose, but we all are humans and mistakes can happen. And here it's clearly mentioned with multiple sources and video proof (links are given above) that it was a mistake. Perhaps and most likely an honest mistake. So what is the point to add this honest mistake and then write that it was a mistake rather then removing the mistake on the first place? :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It isnt a mistake just because you think so. We have Haaretz, a known reliable source, reporting on what their sources say. We have the police denying it. We include both. You just thinking it is a mistake does not make it so, and if it is a mistake Haaretz will publish a correction. The video has nothing to do with this, and this repeated invocation of a video from weeks ago to dispute new reporting is as bogus as the rest of the complaint here. nableezy - 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you are trying to add me into the equation. I have never said that as much as YOU want this to be added it shouldn't be and didn't say that I am not not sure why do YOU want so much to try to show that Israel killed their own people when it was mentioned to be incorrect. Could we please going forward concentrate on the facts and not on me or you? If it's not too hard. I'd appreciate it. We have two facts: A. Josh Breiner said that police told him they hit. B. Police said that thy didn't say it. So what is the point to add misleading info and then correction saying it was misleading? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The facts are that Haaretz reported something and a police spokesman denied it. Why exactly are we supposed to believe the police spokesman over Haaretzs anyway? Your personal opinion on if something is true or not is not something I am interested in debating. What does interest me is properly summarizing the material in the sources, and this is something that is reliably sourced. nableezy - 23:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, attributing this to Brenner is incorrect, Haaretz, being a professional newspaper, has editors, a byline does not mean that the reporter is the sole person responsible for the material. This should be attributed to Haaretz, not Brenner. nableezy - 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Are we trying to create a conspiracy theory that Police is trying to lie and cover it up? :) If it's not the case then I see no point to say the incorrect statement. But since we were able to show the truth at the end this is what matters. An intelligent reader will get the proper understanding after reading it. :) With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is creating anything, and it remains your personal belief that this is an incorrect statement and that the police denial is the "truth". Wikipedia is not concerned with what you think is true. nableezy - 01:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems you didn't read what I wrote. I can repeat. A. Josh Breiner said that police told him they hit. B. Police said that thy didn't say it. B happened after A. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and we include both A and B. You are under the impression that the Israeli police's public statements are The Truth™ and as such anything that contradicts it is a lie that should go unmentioned. I am not under that impression however, and neither is Wikipedia. nableezy - 04:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of the Nov 9 Politifact piece. I didn't think it had anything to do with the Nov 19 Haaretz report. The Politifact piece is about social media users misattributing IDF video coverage included in this Grayzone article (which didn't actually claim the footage was from the music festival but just presented it as showing what IDF (not police) pilots firing on "vehicles streaming back into Gaza from the Nova electronic music festival and nearby kibbutzes" and "on unarmed people exiting cars or walking on foot through the fields on the periphery of Gaza" saw) to the festival. The footage isn't from the festival. Haaretz on the other hand are quoting a police source speaking of IDF combat helicopter use at the festival.

I agree with Nableezy: if Haaretz retract the story (which I think is unlikely, but who knows) we'll report that. I'll keep an eye. At the time of writing, however, the Haaretz article is unchanged.

(Note that Grayzone is not a reliable source per WP:RSP, though the Mako outlet's interviews with IDF helicopter pilots that they're quoting on their page may be.)

I must say it feels somewhat unseemly to be arguing about these details, given the magnitude of what happened that day. :( Let's spare a thought for what all those who died that day, who nearly died, or were injured, or were taken hostage, or lost loved ones, or indeed those who piloted those helicopters, went through (or are going through). I can only imagine what it might feel like for someone who was personally affected by this horrible event to come to a discussion page like this. Andreas JN466 23:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Denial by Hamas that they have performed the massacre and accusing Israel in it

Hello friends. I would like to check if this passage starting from "On 19 November" is ok according to WP:QUESTIONABLE? Thanks! With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean this diff. And why wouldn't it be? Ynetnews and Jpost are RS. Longhornsg (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I have no doubt of Ynetnews and Jpost. I just mean that they have reposted a message of a organization which is recognized as terrorist by several countries and trying to see how it fits the line "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" from QUESTIONABLE? Do we post opinions of any extremist group if they are recited by RS and it makes their views valid from QUESTIONABLE point of view? Thats what I am trying to understand. Thanks. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli helicopter now reported to kill some of the festival goers

Israel reported that Hamas was the sole culprit of ant festival deaths on oct 7th- we were told it was premeditated. Now we're learning that it became a target but might not have been one intentionally and the IDF killed an unreported number of festival goers.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-18/ty-article/.premium/israeli-security-establishment-hamas-likely-didnt-have-prior-knowledge-of-nova-festival/0000018b-e2ee-d168-a3ef-f7fe8ca20000 66.44.122.214 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the official statement by the Israeli policy about this claim: " Contrary to the publication, the police investigation does not refer to the activity of the IDF forces, and therefore no indication was given of any harm to civilians caused by any aerial activity at the site.

The preliminary findings of the ongoing national inquiry, spearheaded by law enforcement and communicated to the international media, cast a spotlight on the profound and reprehensible acts committed by Hamas terrorists during the Nova music festival. Any effort to downplay the severity of these atrocities, as depicted in the misleading Haaretz newspaper publication, deserves unequivocal rejection." Marokwitz (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

PNA "denial"

The reported "denial" by the PNA of Hamas' responsibility is mistranslated. If you read the actual statement in Arabic, there are two material misrepresentations: the statement does not claim that Israel killed everyone, but rather that Israeli sources reported that Israel initiated "Hannibal" directive permitting them to kill everyone; and it does not deny Hamas killings but rather that these reports cast doubt on Israel's official account.--Exjerusalemite (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)