I've been watching this question for a while, and have also found it perplexing, because it seems to me that apart from the body/title disconnect, there were multiple possible interpretations.
Motivation: I personally think that the title as it currently stands (I think in the present continual?) "Do Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian kids?" sounds motivation-y, because (to my ears) it reads as "Are Israeli soldiers in the habit of killing children?". If this is the desired intent (see 5 below) I would favour including the word 'deliberately' in the title.
Historical fact Alternatively to avoid that motivation-y interpretation I would change the title to something like "Have Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian kids?": though, as Skilvvz says, nobody is disputing that.
Disputed video: The original inclusion of the Muhammad-al-Durrah video (given that it is also disputed) could have also derailed the question, but in any case it also tends to reinforce the "they're doing it on purpose" angle.
Not just children: The body of the question ends with 'rate of civilian deaths', so 'kids' suddenly disappears.
Policy: The body of the question also says "wasn't accidental", so contrary to others here, that does seem to imply that the OP was interested in motivation/policy.
Comparison: The OP also mentions "in any war" so he does also seem to be interested in comparisons.
Notability means "a lot of people believe the claim". I'm too lazy to prove what follows, but it seems to me that for the cases above, a lot of people believe that the IDF has killed minors (2) - in fact I'd say nobody doubts it. A lot of people apparently believe that the IDF are deliberately* killing children (1), though they may not go as far as believing that it is official Policy (5). Obviously nobody believes that it's just children (4). And lastly, I'm not sure that anyone doubts that a disproportionate number of civilians are being killed (compared to other conflicts)(6) - but logically, the people who believe that children are deliberately targeted would also believe that there is a disproportionate number of children compared to other conflicts.
*The answers bear this out, if nothing else
I'm personally not 100% convinced that in this case the "don't invalidate answers" directive is worth applying, especially if the answers are answering different questions:
- Noam Weiss addresses Historical fact, and partially Motivation & Policy
- Eran Medan addresses Comparison for Not just children
- vartec addresses Historical fact, Motivation and Policy
- Evan Carroll addresses Historical fact (not sure why he got so many downvotes, other than for being Evan Carroll).
So... what do you want to do with that? I think that there are several different questions here, and any effort to make the question more specific will necessarily render some answers obsolete.
As I see it there are four options (sorry, another list):
- Leave it as it is (if we really thought this was an option we wouldn't be here)
- Split into separate questions (probably the best, but implies quite a lot of work)
- Choose one question (Historical fact?) and kill the answer which doesn't apply (not cool)
- Edit the question to explicitly acknowledge it's 'multifacetedness' (less work, and potentially broken window)
I personally favour 2, but I'd settle for 4.