Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 → Archive 35

Subject on Hamas stated goal in lead

I think Hamas stated goals should be in the lead due to its political importance of the war Bobisland (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should be, and the idea that the lead should only focus on Israeli arguments as given in such tendentious edits as this by My very best wishes is asinine. We include the stated goals for Israel in every bombing campaign it periodically runs through, for example 2014 Gaza War (The Israeli military operation aimed to stop rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza Strip), Gaza War (2008–2009) (On December 27, Israel began Operation Cast Lead with the stated aim of stopping rocket fire.) Not including Hamas's aims is a clear NPOV violation. nableezy - 15:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No it should not because the lead should briefly summarize the content of the page. Yes, we do have a very brief subsection 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Hamas_motivations. But what does it say? It starts from the phrase: "According to Michael Milshtein, an expert on Palestinian affairs from Reichman University and former Israeli military intelligence officer, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, is motivated primarily by the long-term vision of destroying Israel". Then, there is a claim by Mohammad Deif (please read it). However, what was included to the lead is very different and not a proper summary of this subsection; it is different from the claims by both Milstein and Deif. But given that the subsection is very brief (maybe 2% of the page?), it should not be reflected in the lead at all. The problem here is that the claims by Hamas about their motivations were discussed in many sources. Hence we must include various claims and counter-claims, but this is not something for the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    MOS:LEAD leads are based on significance, not just the percents of a wiki page being summarized, which is exemplified across Wikipedia Bobisland (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
But how do we define the significance? Just because you or me think so? No, if something was indeed significant ( on this page), this should be described in a large section of the page. If it was not, it means it was not significant for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It isn’t an argument it’s the stated reasons for the attack, widely reported in reliable sources. You may disagree with the reasons, you may think they do not justify anything, and that’s totally valid, but it is unarguable that these are the reasons Hamas has given for its attack and that NPOV requires including that. nableezy - 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
On Nov 1, Hamas also stated they sought the annihilation of Israel and would continue attacking to achieve that aim. That was in the lede but removed. So what is the actual Hamas stated goal that needs to be in the lede? WCMemail 16:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
If Hamas stated that’s why it went to war then it should be added as well or to the Hamas motivation section although I couldn’t find anything on this using Google Bobisland (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
That is an overarching goal, not the justification offered for this attack. nableezy - 17:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The Hamas Charter rejects the peace accords, promises to kill Jews, annihilate Israel and establish an Islamic state amongst other goals. [1]], as noted by Reuters [2] Hamas founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel. On Nov 1 Hamas official Ghazi Hamad stated that "We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated".[1] It seems these attacks are part of its stated aim of annihilating Israel, rather than merely grievances with Israel. So my question stands, why was that removed? What goal should be stated in the lead? Because it clearly doesn't seek peaceful co-existence. WCMemail 18:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, these are exactly the reasons why Hamas has attacked, they are statements by Hamas itself, and they should be clearly stated on the page. "Hamas stated that its attack was in response to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements", etc.? But "in response" is not a goal to accomplish. The destruction of Jewish state is. Then, everything else will be resolved as they want. By the same token, what Israel does is not a "retaliation". Their goal is to destroy Hamas and perhaps the Palestinian state (one can reasonably argue that the Gaza led by Hamas was a de facto Palestinian state or a part of it). My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Personal opinions dont count for anything here. Here is CBS: Hamas has said it was motivated to launch the attack essentially as the culmination of long-building anger over Israeli policy, including recent outbreaks of violence at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, but more generally over the treatment of Palestinians and the expansion of Israeli settlements. Here is the Washington Post: The coordinated attack by Hamas caught Israel by surprise but comes after months of worsening tensions over violence at al-Aqsa Mosque — a sacred Muslim site in the heart of Jerusalem on the same spot as the Temple Mount revered by Jews — as well as continuing resentment of the punishing blockade and occupation of Palestinian lands. Here is al Jazeera: Hamas said its unprecedented offensive by land, air and sea was in response to the desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque as well as Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades. These include the 16-year blockade of Gaza, Israeli raids inside West Bank cities over the past year, increasing attacks by settlers on Palestinians as well as the growth of illegal settlements. Whereas we have two editors offering their own personal analysis based on their own personal beliefs about what the goals are. We dont edit based on personal analysis based on our own feelings. nableezy - 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
That is not an OR or personal opinion, but something reliably published about Hamas goals [3], i.e. "Its [Hamas] 1988 founding charter called for the destruction of Israel, although Hamas leaders have at times offered a long-term truce...". This is well known, published everywhere, and pretty much logical from Hamas perspective. According your quotation above, the attack was "the culmination of long-building anger". Sure, they were very angry, but the anger can not be the goal. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as an overarching goal Hamas would like to replace Israel with a Palestinian state, though they have also accepted Israel within the Green Line if that is acceptable to the Palestinian people as a whole. That is not the same thing as what their aims and motivations for this attack were. And what Ive provided are sources saying what Hamas has said is the cause of their launching the attacks of 7 Oct. nableezy - 19:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Your quotation does not provide any goals. The "resentment " is not a goal. Did they want to take hostages for exchange? Yes, this could be one of their goals. The title of this discussion is "Hamas stated goal in lead" as stated above. Note that "causes" [of the conflict] and the "goals" [of Hamas] are very different things. I do not think we should debate causes of the entire conflict in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
No it provides the stated reason. As does our article. The goal was the reversal of those actions. As one would understand if they read the sources. nableezy - 21:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, at least in theory, the reversal of specific actions (like the "16-year blockade of Gaza") might be their goal, but these sources do not explicitly say that the goal of Hamas was reversing these actions. This is not surprising because Hamas leaders would be idiots to think that Israel would reverse its action, i.e. lift the blockade of Gaza after such attack. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats like saying the Israeli attack cannot be said to be a response to the October 7th Hamas attack. That you cannot say what caused an attack. The sources discuss Hamas's reasons for launching this attack, and so too does our article. nableezy - 22:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it was a response. But the specific stated goal of Israel (we are talking the "goals" in this discussion) was the destruction of Hamas. We can say that on the page. By the same token, we could say that the goal of Hamas was/is the destruction of Israel or whatever other goals they say. A "response" is not a goal. A "retaliation" - yes, maybe, but I do not see it claimed as the main goal by any side. My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thats their founding charter, not the most recent revision, and that isnt especially relevant here anyway. We have a source saying that the Hamas justification for the attack was what we include. I dont believe the article says Israel or Hamas seeks peaceful coexistence, making that also not relevant. nableezy - 18:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a very extensive literature on the charter, the internal disputes among Hamas's various winds abvout the retention of what was a sentence added by an obscure Sunni cleric, and the difficulties of its political realists to change it, down to the modification of 2017. To cite the original charter in this sense is misleading. The whole history of this area is one of Israel refusing to accept the existence of a Palestinian people let alone their right to have a state, par passu wioth groups like Hamas refusing to accept Israel, though, as Nableezy states, by the 2010s they had accepted that whatever might be conceded depends opn the collective view of the Palestinians themselves. We should not be sucked into caricatures of complex history, like stating Israel has a right to exist, which Hamas denies while ignoring that evidence that Israeli recognition of a right to exist of a Palestinian state is exiguous. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This is fine, but how would you define the goals of Hamas when they committed the attack (per sources)? It was well prepared. Did the goal was just taking the hostages? Was it executions? Was it provoking a disproportionate response by Israel? Was it getting help from other powerful players like Iran? I am not sufficiently familiar with this literature. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn’t hazard to define Hamas’s goals for a wiki article in any other than the terms set forth by quality RS, citing Hamas’s specific statements. In think it fair to acknowledge the obvious fact, however, that the formal public declarations of intent rarely reflect all the substantive reasons and in this, Hamas would be no different from any other organization. For example, analysts who treat Hamas, like Hezbollah, as, in good part ‘rational’ actors, that is, in this context, an organization with sufficient historical and political knowledge to take into account the consequences of their bloody foray into Israel, will no doubt offer presently some insight into these more reclusive facets: an awareness that hostage on a large scale would be met with massive and unprecedented destruction of their infrastructure and decimation of their people. Much depends on to what degree the murders that took place formed part of their calculations, compared to the advantage a large number of hostages seized afford to some future negotiations. I very much doubt, but it is a purely subjective guess, that anyone in Hamas seriously subscribes to the view of its first charter, that Israel could be wiped off the map (though some may suffer from the contrafactual delusion that Arab countries would ever rise to the defense of Palestinians). These views are of course foruming and inappropriate but the serious technical literature on Hamas that informs them suggests we should be careful to attributing to Hamas what its enemy asserts is its real purpose, another Holocaust that would wipe Israel off the map.(But everything is possible here. I just hate publicitarian memes on sight) Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hamas officials have said their goal is the annihilation of Israel, verbatim, and recently so why don't we state that? It is readily sourced. Its in their charter. Why don't we simply say what Hamas itself says is their goal? No one mentioned Israel, we're just looking at what Hamas says is their goal. We can't speculate what Hamas means, if Hamas says annihilation of Israel it its goal, its reported in sources, thats what we say. I'm really struggling to understand why there is a reluctance to simply state what is Hamas' stated goal?
The 2017 document doesn't change their charter [4] and its a document that is self-contradictory. EG:
On the one hand they state they'll accept a peace deal based on 1967 borders and then threaten Jihad. I can understand why editors are confused because Hamas statements are completely contradictory. WCMemail 21:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Probably the most frequently claimed goal of the attack by Hamas was disrupting the Saudi-Israel agreement and other similar agreements [5]. But again, this is just a claim, and with Hamas itself saying they attacked just because they were very angry (see quotation by Nableezy above), this is all very much debatable and hardly an appropriate content for the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, Netanyahu said it very clearly: "...the war will continue until we achieve all of our goals: to eliminate Hamas, to return all our hostages, to ensure that the day after Hamas, Gaza will no longer be a threat to Israel, there will be no element in it that supports terrorism, that educates its children to terror, and who threaten the State of Israel” . Our goals. They might not be achievable, but they are the goals. What Hamas say about their goals? That is "Our goals in this war are: ....". My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated, says Hamas official Ghazi Hamad". Retrieved 2023-11-20.

Casualties number source

I checked sources for Gaza casualties figures and it seems all are reporting numbers as "per Gaza authorities". This should be mentioned. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

According to OCHA flash report 47 (extlinks) "According to the Gaza Media Office, as of 14:00 on 22 November, more than 14,500 people have been killed in Gaza, including about 6,000 children and 4,000 women. This office, which is under the local authorities in Gaza, has assumed MoH’s role after the latter stopped updating fatality tolls [since 10 November]". Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Media coverage: Reports of decapitation, sexual violence and torture

Why do we have such a section? If these are confirmed by RS, they should be integrated into the main body of the article in wikivoice. If RS differ, then they should be integrated with attribution. If they have been rejected by RS, they should be removed.VR talk 01:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Big agree. This section is a mess. I mean, there's an entire subsection on "immolation" supported by a single source called "Media Line".... Collectively, these sections are about a hundred words longer than "Humanitarian situation in Gaza", which creates a huge WP:BALASP issue. We can do better than this. WillowCity(talk) 02:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This section is well sourced, lots of media attention to this. Its a notable topic. Don't see a reason to remove it. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This should not be a part of "Press coverage", but a part of section "Palestinian attack (7 October)". From what I can see, this is all well sourced and should be included, unless this is a duplication of other content currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree that they're well sourced. All of these allegations fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the sources are generally... unexceptional. For example, as I'm writing this comment, the "decapitation" section is supported by:
  • an October 10 article from i24 that weaves "soldiers say"-type language into its melodrama;
  • two RS from October 11 and 13 respectively (i.e., even deeper in the fog of war than we are now) reporting on claims by Israeli soldiers and one other person;
  • Fox News... (need I say more?);
  • an NBC News article whose headline refers to "unverified reports";
  • CNN finding "no evidence" of beheadings as of October 12;
  • two RS describing footage curated by Israel for Western journalists; and,
  • A Times of Israel article in which a forensic scientist lists other explanations besides beheading.
The overwhelming majority of these sources are dated, heavily biased, thoroughly equivocal, or some combination thereof. The sexual violence section is marginally better-sourced. The immolation section should be omitted entirely unless better sources are tendered.
But at absolute most, the sources currently cited justify maybe a couple of sentences. Not 750+ words. WillowCity(talk) 04:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Per My very best wishes the material is generally well sourced and should continue to be included. However, I see someone has added back the misquoting of Chen Kugel about decapitations.
See [6] for the full press conference.
Chen Kugel was asked about decapitations, he initially responds as outlined in the article, then it it pointed out that the Israeli Forensic Institute has only seen a subset of the cases where it was not possible to identify the victims. Further, it is clarified that in other investigations not conducted by the office it had been observed. This is a classic example of a misquote, the meaning behind his comment is being misrepresented. WCMemail 08:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the Media coverage section should contain the general overview of media coverage, biases, maybe a few prominent examples of inaccurate reporting. The current content which is supported by RS should be incorporated in the article. I'm not sure that WP:EXCEPTIONAL is relevant here. Considered that Hamas murdered almost one thousand civilians in one day, the claims of decapitation and immolation aren't that exceptional. We should apply the standard WP:RS standards. Alaexis¿question? 15:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It's ugly to argue past vague figures, but not a thousand, but upwards of 800 civilians died on the first day, two thirds of the casualties, more or less the same ratio as the Gaza bombings. Of those 800-850 civilians we do not have the statistical breakdown of those directly killed by Hamas, or other groups, and those who died during the successive Israeli efforts to take back control of its territory, as a result of friendly fire (about 10% of the Israeli casualties in the Gaza Strip battles are due to friendly fire). For this reason, we should refrain from citing newspaper reports filed in the immediate aftermath. They are totally unreliable.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The logic here seems to be: "high civilian casualties in a short span of time make allegations of grotesque violence unexceptional". If this is the case, and bearing in mind that the death toll among Gaza's children has far surpassed 5,000, an allegation that IDF soldiers were beheading or immolating Palestinian infants would not be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The ECREE policy applies to "Surprising or apparently important claims", and these claims are both surprising (to me, and I'm sure to many others) and apparently important. I'm not making any accusations, but these claims are exceptional, unless you're predisposed to believe that the alleged perpetrators are inclined to these types of violence. WillowCity(talk) 16:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
All of this has already been copied to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, where it is more apt in any case, so I would suggest that editors can trim quite freely here, where the material is more undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
All of this material was copied to the child article in this edit. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Subject on Hamas stated reason for attacking being in lead

The text “Hamas officials stated their attack was in response to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israeli settler violence, and restrictions on the movement of Palestinians between Israel and Gaza”

keeps getting removed from the lead, I think it should stay in the lead and don’t know why it keeps getting removed, the last two edit summaries explaining its removal was

“such debates hardly belong to the lead. One should focus on facts” and

”tidying lede, had become a bit of a mess with material being removed without consensus, changes to text without reflecting the cite, emotive terms being added plus other changes in the article”

both of these edits also removed other text but I don’t understand why it removed the stated reason for the attack, I think it should stay in the lead as I believe one side of a war stating why it went to war is significant, I don’t understand why this gets removed from the lead, I don’t believe placing the text at the bottom of the historical context tab is a improvement and a proportionate place to put it Bobisland (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Restored the stated causes for the attack when introducing the attack per my comments in the above section. nableezy - 16:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There was the following phrase in the lead: However, intelligence and security officials from multiple Western countries say that Hamas initiated the war in order to create a 'permanent' state of war and to revive interest in the Palestinian cause.[1][2]
Why that was removed? Not only this is sourced, but that goal by Hamas ("to revive interest in the Palestinian cause") has been actually accomplished. That needs to be noted.My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hubbard, Ben; Abi-Habib, Maria (9 November 2023). "Behind Hamas's Bloody Gambit to Create a 'Permanent' State of War". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 November 2023. Retrieved 16 November 2023.
  2. ^ Rubin, Shira; Warrick, Joby (13 November 2023). "Hamas envisioned deeper attacks, aiming to provoke an Israeli war". Archived from the original on 13 November 2023. Retrieved 16 November 2023.

"Israel–Hamas war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israel–Hamas war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 24 § Israel–Hamas war until a consensus is reached. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but I believe there's a problem in the infobox. The infobox states that the war is between Israel and Hamas, not the State of Palestine. That is accurate. But then it shows more than 14K casualties on the Hamas side, which seems to imply that 14K Hamas members/fighters were killed when in fact the vast majority of those killed in Gaza have unfortunately been civilians. I suggest mentioning that fact in the infobox, as well as stating how many of the 1.2K Israelis killed were civilians or in the military. Moazfargal (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually quite irresponsible to have a military conflict infobox and then blur the lines between soldiers and civilians, as if validating the notion that everyone in the conflict is a military target - better no figures at all then figures presented in such a misleading light an manner. Civilians casualties need separating. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the main reason it isn't included is because, as the Washington Post points out, most sources don't distinguish between Civilian and Militant deaths. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe because it's not a war but a genocide. Frenchl (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Milshtein

According to Michael Milshtein, an expert on Palestinian affairs from Reichman University and former Israeli military intelligence officer, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, is motivated primarily by the long-term vision of destroying Israel.[1]

Apart from the fact that this is an egregiously silly piece of opinionizing, where are Milshtein's credentials as a reliably published authority ('expert') on 'Palestinian affairs'? Whatever individual motivations may exist, Hamas's decisions are based on consensus deliberations, not on single antupathies. Further it was plunked in the midst of two statements by core Hamas figures, and was disruptive of those public expressed motivations. There are numerous authoritative scholars who no doubt have advanced hypotheses about this.

The section should rightly cite whatever RS tell us of the express declarations of Hamas leaders regarding their reasons, and then what really informed academic experts on Hamas opine about their possible wider, unspoken calculations. Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) ps The hysterical statement by Ghazi Hamad is fascinating given his prior history as a negotiator, but it throws no light on the reasoning behind collective decision made by Hamas's directorate, which was apparently restricted to a very circumscribed circle.22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

References

  1. ^ "Israeli fantasies and Hamas realities". Globes. 23 October 2023. Archived from the original on 2 November 2023. Retrieved 2 November 2023.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
I have no opinion either way on what this individual has said, I just want to point that out. But even a cursory google search shows the views of the individual are considered worthy of consideration by the FT and other sources. So why dismiss his commentary as silly opinionising and an attack on his credentials? 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs)
During any war, I don't see why we would use the opinion of one side about the motivations of the other side. I'm sure there are those on the Hamas side that opine Israel is motivated primarily by the long-term vision of destroying Palestine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that from WP perspective, it does not matter if there is a war (yes, it always is, especially in this part of the world). An opinion by any side of the conflict about the another side not only can, but should be cited with proper attribution if it is notable, well-sourced and gets consensus for inclusion. This is covered by WP:Biased. Someone being a former member of Israel armed forces or Hamas does not disqualify him as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that Milshtein -- or any scholar -- is on any side of this war. Israeli scholars aren't on the side of Israel; Palestinian scholars aren't on the side of Hamas; this even goes for former members of either side's gov't/orgs. Meir Litvak's 2009 book included two chapters by Milshtein [16] [17], the first of which was cited by Nur Masalha (once) in his 2012 seminal work on the Nakba. Not a giant in the field by any means, but those are legit scholarly credentials IMO. But if Wikipedia quotes every scholar of the IP conflict, we'll have several sub-articles just filled with quotes. The notion that Sinwar or any other Hamas leader has a long-term vision of "destroying" Israel doesn't need to be attributed to Milshtein, as he is hardly the first or most prominent scholar to suggest this. In general, the article-writing method of "this person said this thing... and then that person said that thing... and the third person said..." is tedious, and in a situation like this, everybody is saying something about something. Of course, that's just the curse of the "reactions" section of any current event article. Levivich (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 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: Moratorium in place. Moratorium in place until December 1; close move request at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Hamas-Israel war – WP:AND, it is customary in Wikipedia to name in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. Since this involves two parties it's best we move article to reflect WP:AND; it should be 2023 Hamas-Israel war ... Homerethegreat (talk) 10:20, 26 November 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.

WP:headlines

As per WP:headlines: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. The only source for the claim (not numbers) in this edit by user:Duvasee is the question at AJ’s headline. Is there any reliable source for the claim? TaBaZzz (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional source, ITV, added, says "Gaza has become, in just one month, the deadliest conflict for children this century...". That will do, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
NYT "In less than two months, more than twice as many women and children have been reported killed in Gaza than in Ukraine after two years of war." or "experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza show that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century." are alternatives.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Subject on lead image

Why are all the letters in the lead image marked off? Bobisland (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Must've been a mistake by user Ecrusized. I've pinged them in the Wikimedia Commons file talk page. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 10:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Someone fixed it Bobisland (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Jericho Wall document

It appears that Israel had the detailed Hamas plans for the invasion for more than a year, but repeatedly dismissed them even after a Hamas training exercise similar to the plan three months before the attack . This would seem rather important. Question is, should we wait for more sources. [18] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah, no need for anything else, though Im sure it will come; thats a solid source and backs up earlier reporting on Unit 8200. I added it along with the material about the earlier warning from the sigint unit. nableezy - 01:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

However

I've removed 3 of several examples of the use of 'however' placed to suggest the previous statement, usually re Palestinian claims, is false.

In the hurry to make this into a synthesis of what the primary Israeli sources, Jpost, ToL, Ynet, which have more or less joined the war and report it in terms of an Israeli perspective, no one appears to have noticed that the incongruencies rife in these newspapers reappear in different sections contradicting what was earlier written. At one point the helicopters arrive an hour into the Hamas assault but couldn't distinguish Israelis from Hamas operatives. At another point a police investigation is cited as concluding these helicopters had little to do with the casualties since they arrived 'hours' later. Hamas attacked at 6.00-6.30 am. The northern Galilee helicopters an hour afterwards, according to version one, i-e- 7.00-7.30, which is not hours, but right in the thick of the Hamas assault. Hamas withdrew its forces at 10.30 apparently, at around which time significantly stronger Apache helicopter backups arrived.

Our pages are not coverage of the war, bvut coverage of Israeli newspaper coverage, which is erratic in its conflicting reports over every single detail. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@NishidaniThis is highly likely to be contested. I recommend you start a RfC on whether these Israeli sources are reliable sources in the context of this war. Cortador (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it is contestable that
  • (a) This is a war between two parties, Israel and Hamas (read also the Palestinian people)
  • (b) The overwhelming bulk of sources used to document it are Israeli newspapers
  • (c) The Israeli sources named (and not named, Haaretz etc.) thoroughly identify themselves with 'our boys', and the Israeli victims. I read most articles and 95% are so partisan and emotional that they are 'unreadable' for facts, as opposed to how facts are to be neutrally represented.
  • I didn't state that they are unreliable sources. They qualify technically. I read an account of the British-Argentine war in the Falklands recently: newspaper accounts were alluded to quite often for how they egregiously spun, twisted, invented stories to titivate the anxious home readership. Serious military histories (and I read Burton Maugham's Tobruk and El Alamein (1952) as a control for this) use war memoirs (from both sides), government archives to describe the technical mechanics of battle, and almost never allude to, or rely on, contemporary newspapers. No time is wasted documenting that Rommel, for example, was a general in an evil regime's armed forces, or that Italians were pawns of fascism, an equally despicable regime. The narratives tell you the only thing that is worth grasping. How one or another side managed, with what matériel, or strategic stroke, to win ground or lose it, and why the adversary retreated.
  • All wars are accompanied by intense efforts by specific army/government related bodies to massage, manage, persuade and dominate the home side's perceptions. An informational war kicks in, as the governing states or bodies view to dominate the narratives to the end of enlisting public and international support for their respective campaigns.
  • Wars are 'sexy' and attract a large influx of editors wishing to participate in shaping the way the narrative is represented on wikipedia. Most have no background understanding, quite a few are emotionally committed to one party. This makes for a perfect knit between source bias and editorial passions. The result is massive WP:Undue, as the factual record, very thinly accessible, is flooded out with official points of view or one's side's commentariat prejudices.
  • Nothing can be done to fix the resulting WP:Systemic bias. It will take a year down the road for us to access reliable independent analyses that are even-handed. Till then we will have this mother-lode of tripe to represent wikipedia's idea of NPOV.
  • My note was just a wake-up annotation to remind readers and editors that these articles are intrinsically flawed and will remain so for some considerable time. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    Feel free to replace/remove these sources and see what happens. I'll tell you again: this won't be solved without a RfC. Cortador (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been here 17 years. I can predict the outcome of any RfC like that, which in any case I wouldn't vote in, because, under normal circumstances, all those Israeli newspapers are RC. There is no solution.14:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)
Nishidani: What do you think should be included in the page? --Mhhossein talk 21:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not a matter of inclusion, but of excluding a lot of stuffing like the ridiculous chronology. This is a political history of competing propaganda claims. War articles should deal with the mechanics of battles, strategy, logistics, command decisions, and results by the respective sides, not newspaper chat about 'discovering' evidence that justifies the war as opposed to the disavowels of the other side.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles about wars should include what reliable sources report on regarding the war. Their purpose is not to be a tactical breakdown of the events. Cortador (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Just because reliable sources report something does not necessarily justify inclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Non sequitur. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Possibly the quality of many current-events articles would be better if we could only start articles about them in five years time. However that's not feasible, and as long as we strive to cover ongoing events as they progress, we're forced to use newspapers and similar sources. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Self revert re Menachem Klein

Specifico and I discussed this on his page. DavidRoth just erased it again, while retaining the most egregiously aimless splash of generic opinions by 'terrorism' experts, one of which is decidedly selective and therefore distortive of the factual record (the Hamas Charter of 1988 should not be mentioned without noting it was revised in 2017). I.e.

Following the attack, American counterterrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman pointed to the 1988 Hamas Charter, commenting that Hamas had always had "genocidal" intentions and that it had no intentions for "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace". Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, argued that the attacks were "part of the long-term vision of Hamas to eradicate Israel" and "Hamas is not ready at all to give up on the jihad."

I think that just crap assertion, but didn't remove it. What I did was cite as balance higher up in the history section how one of the foremost Israeli experts on the inner workings of Hamas's organization backgreoundes the October 7 attack. The erasure unbalances this neutral balancing. Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Klein offers a valuable perspective. Just two comments
  • The key assertion that is made implicitly is that the planning of the October 7 attack was triggered by the cancellation of the elections. Klein actually refers to reports in the New York Times and Washington Post here, so maybe it's better to use those reports. Maybe they make the connection explicitly which would make our life simpler.
  • The article discusses the pressure applied by Israel and the US but also says that There were certainly political reasons for Abbas to call off the elections, so I would simply state that the elections were cancelled in the article without going into details.
Alaexis¿question? 21:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war

Should the article be moved from the current title to the above title. Just a discussion. It would seem that the war would carry on to 2024 which is <30 days ahead. Toadette (Happy holiday!) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to wait until it does. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Large removal

This removal of long standing text[19] has the edit summary: Undue, a fringe view of the situation in the West Bank, not related to war or Gaza at all. I don't see how this is undue, fringe, or unrelated. I'd restore, but 1RR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Restored. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This text is not related to the war or Gaza in any way. The accusations of apartheid are regarding the West Bank. Please explain what connection this text has to the current conflict. I see no reason to include it. Dovidroth (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The accusations of apartheid are in respect of the Palestinian people, not the West Bank. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please explain why this belongs in an article about a war between Hamas and Israel. 13:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
It is relevant historical context (the section you removed it from). Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
In what way is it relevant? Dovidroth (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Two editors have said that it is. Perhaps other editors will agree that it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please explain how it is relevant ... Dovidroth (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
One can say this is a war between between Hamas and Israel, not a war between Palestinians and Israel. But 15,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed and another 6,000+ in the years preceding. More Palestinian civilians have been killed since October than Ukrainians in the lengthy war with Russia. Over a million Palestinians have been displaced and most of their homes destroyed or damaged. To remove from the historical context of the war the opinions of multiple human rights organizations and just simply say Hamas did it, is not a neutral point of view. The conditions under which the Palestinians have lived prior to the war is certainly due in a section on historical context, and this is well cited by reliable sources. WP:RS WP:DUE WP:NPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
aka the clock didn't start on October 7. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The relevance should normally be established by the reliable sources cited in the text. Does anyone have dispute over whether the link has been referred to by those sources? --Mhhossein talk 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how it is not relevant. Gaza people are Palestinian and the context is about Palestinians. @Dovidroth: you should stop writing disingenuous edit summaries. Here is another example.Ghazaalch (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, it did not start on October 7. There were many events on the both sides that lead up to the war, including the fact that the Palestinians rejected many peace offers from Israel, and Hamas killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings in restaurants, bars, busses and schools. This cherry-picked fact doesn't seem to add much. Dovidroth (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Both sides rejected peace offerings. And Israel bombed civilian areas in the past. Please keep a WP:NPOV. And how can the situation in which 2.2 million people have been forced to live be a cherry-picked fact? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Where is the apartheid in Gaza and how does it relate to this conflict? Previous suicide bombings by Hamas are much more relevant to this conflict, yet not mentioned. I still haven't received an answer. Dovidroth (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Where is the apartheid in Gaza Seriously? And the answer is more than sufficient, seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT is in play. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not certain you can point WP:IDONTLIKEIT to Dovidorth. Overall, the user has asked you for an explanation and it looks like you're not directly answering him or took your time with it. Regarding Apartheid in Gaza, I think Dovidorth is referring to the fact that Israel does not occupy Gaza, according to the UN it indirectly occupies Gaza.
One may actually just as easily say there is discrimination against Jews in Gaza. Since no Jew has lived there since 2005 (fact), despite thousands of years of Jewish existence in Gaza.
But we shouldn't start entering these issues. I think one should tone down and relax. We should reflect the encyclopedic truth and be responsible to ensure that we do not misinform the reader. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Gaza continues to be occupied. The UN and the majority opinion also consider it so and this position is reflected on all the relevant WP pages so best stop making stuff up. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
You have received answers. The article has a chart on rockets fired from Gaza over the last 20+ years. As for suicide bombings, they are terrorist attacks. Hardly a reason for killing 15,000 civilians. As for where is the apartheid: [20][21][22] It's not a source, but for more, you can read our article Israel and apartheid O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please note a statement such as: "Hardly a reason for killing 15,000 civilians." seems to demonstrate an opinion regarding Israeli action. I understand this can evoke emotions, but we must do our best to write in an appropriate manner, especially in regards to controversial topics. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The statement is about normal responses to isolated terrorist attacks. And do not again suggest that I am reacting emotionally. WP:PA O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I believe Dovidorth is referring to Palestinian refusals to - Camp David in 2000, 2001 Taba peace proposal, 2008 Olmert proposal, 2014 Kerry's "contours for peace" and 2019 Trump deal of the century.
Either how, dovidorth's point does stand that one must mention Hamas actions prior to war. Not mentioning it will be a breach of NPOV.
Regarding Apartheid, since it is a controversial topic and is not widely accepted (I do not recall a single democratic government that officially states that Israel is an Apartheid) I think it should not appear such since it can seriously misinform readers. One can of course write on UN condemning Israel for its practices in the West Bank. But one must be aware of the full scope. Indeed Hamas' previous attacks on Israeli civilians and wars are WP:NOTABLE. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Dovidroth keeps asking editors to explain why the material is being restored, the question is not that, it is his removal that needs to be explained. If you would like to add material re Israeli allies rejecting the use of the word apartheid or any other relevant context, feel free. As for the Palestinian rejectionism trope, don't even bother. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Dovidorth'ss asking you - Why is Apartheid relevant?
Perhaps you should explain to Dovidorth. You need to explain why it should be included since it's controversial and since most countries do not consider it happening. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
And Israel has rejected peace proposals multiple times. Google it and there are many sources, some we accept. It is not uncommon for both sides in negotiations to reject proposals.
Prior actions by both sides are mentioned in the article. We cannot mention every action. I don't think the numerous bombings of Gaza over the years are included.
How can apartheid not be mentioned? Controversial, sure. But war is about controversy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Please feel free to enlighten me. I saw Israel rejected something in 1969, don't think it's relevant to current situation, otherwise almost all deals rejected by Palestinians. [23], here is an interesting Op-Ed Homerethegreat (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Opeds from the JP are not interesting at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Simply false. See this O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a biased source (as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It certainly cannot be presented as fact.
Returning to the central question of this discussion: Do you have any mainstream source that discusses apartheid in the context of leading up to the war? Unless you can show me such a source, this doesn't belong. Dovidroth (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
in the context of leading up to the war It's historical context, not leading up to anything, section starts in 1967. Same as background section, which doesn't do "leading up to the war" either, starts in 2005. Just drop this. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/12/middleeast/israel-apartheid-regime-report-intl/index.html. A CNN report from BTselem itself. Now if anyone tries to dissociate this from this war, then it wouldn't be surprising if this uproar continues. Borgenland (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Also a UN report, unless someone calls the agency antisemitic again. https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-bantustan-israeli-apartheid-gaza-strip
Borgenland (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The argument being made is that apartheid accusations, and presumably any other relevant thing, need to be directly linked to this particular war, which they do not, it is relevant historical and current context, as is the occupation, Al-Aqsa, settlements, annexation, blockade, war crimes, human rights violations, you name it. Some want to pretend that this all about Hamas, which it is but that's not all it is about, as the United Nations Secretary General confirmed once again "It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation" Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
All of the examples that you mentioned: occupation, Al-Aqsa, settlements, annexation, blockade, war crimes, human rights violations - are mentioned in mainstream media as causes of the war, at least according to Hamas. Please show me one major news outlet accepted on Wikipedia that explicitly mentions the apartheid accusation as a cause of the war or a part of its background. If it does not exist, this does not belong in the article. Dovidroth (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67257862. Another statement from the ANC and the South African president, both of which know a thing or two from apartheid. Dated 7 NOVEMBER 2023 from a source that is WP:RELIABLE, unless you resort to finding another cherry-picked argument. And I do wonder how you can callously not refer to Reuters as reliable. Borgenland (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If it is only mentioned in the context of South African officials to the war, it should be mentioned in International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, not in this article. Please show me a reliable source that mentions apartheid as part of the historical context to the war. Dovidroth (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Both of these sources are from 2021. They obviously don't say that apartheid was a cause of the war. Dovidroth (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Historical context is not cause of the war. Also see comment above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
See my comment above, I have not seen any sources that make the connection that apartheid is a potential cause of the war. Dovidroth (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Last time, the section is not only about the causes of the war. Maybe try reading it? Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Modification of Netanyahu's stance in "Israeli Policy" section

Netanyahu and his right-wing allies have always wanted to reoccupy Gaza and rebuild settlements there.[24] He just couldn't find the excuse to do so until now. I believe Netanyahu's stance should be better clarified/modified in the "Israeli Policy" section/sub-section.

"When Ariel Sharon decided to remove Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip, he viewed Benjamin Netanyahu as his main obstacle."[25]. "Netanyahu quits cabinet over Gaza pullout plan"[26] "At Sharon memorial, Netanyahu laments Gaza pullout"[27] "Netanyahu blasts Ariel Sharon at memorial marking former PM's death."[28] Crampcomes (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Dovidroth (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with WP:NOTAFORUM. Netanyahu's stance is already noted separately in the "Israeli Policy" section. I'm just getting consensus here first to improve it with the sources I provided above. Crampcomes (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Your sources says that Netanyahu opposed the Gaza pullout (not straightforward either - he voted in favor of the Disengagement). No sources suggested that he wanted to recapture it after the Disengagement. Dovidroth (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Times of Israel and JPost, Netanyahu vehemently lamented Gaza pullout at least as late as 2016.[29][30] Per NYTimes and Times of Israel, Netanyahu quit cabinet in protest over Gaza pullout plan in 2005.[31][32]. Furthermore, to refute your argument, in one of the sources (Politico[33]) I provided above it clearly says that and I quote "in interviews with POLITICO, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke out strongly against Netanyahu’s suggestion of a return to military control over Gaza."[34]Crampcomes (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Netanyahu may have lamented the disengagement. That does not mean that he wanted to recapture Gaza. And you can’t bring his political rival as a source. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Dovidroth (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Per NYTimes, Times of Israel and many other reliable sources, Netanyahu clearly said Israel would military control Gaza again. [35][36] Crampcomes (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You are quoting sources from the beginning of the war, when Netanyahu felt that there was a security need to control Gaza again. You are extrapolating that this was his goal before this, and you have yet to show any source to that effect. 15:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources as well as Netanyahu himself say Netanyahu was the main opponent of disengagement from Gaza. Then from 2005 to until recently he had been vehemently lamenting the disengagement from Gaza, and now he's openly calling for reoccupation. This is what needs to be added in the "Benjamin Netanyahu/Israeli Policy" sub-section under background section. Crampcomes (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
He voted for the Disengagement, and thus not so straightforward. Feel free to add sourced information, but make sure that the sources say what you are quoting them as saying. Be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Dovidroth (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Background

@SPECIFICO: Please elaborate how you plan to gain consensus for this recent addition to the article? Background: the circumstances or situation prevailing at a particular time or underlying a particular event. Opinions are not really relevant here. I can now find multiple sources stating that Netanyahu was never interested in a two state solution and cite the Likud charter and his far-right wing alliances. This will make the background section a collection of opinions, and make it much less relevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

If you do no believe that content is background, then you can move it to another location. If you believe it is UNDUE or irrelevant, you can state that view. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I think it doesn't belong to the background, and there seems no alternative section for analyses; as I have stated clearly in my edit summary. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
In that case, you removed valid content from the best possible location for no good reason, so the content can stay as it was. If you figure out a better location, we can discuss the alternatives. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
As you prefer then, I will move it to the regional effects section, while although unrelated, it is the section containing all the analyses. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: Reverting without engaging in talk page discussions, which I clearly referred to in my edit summary, is edit warring. Please self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss how was the revert I made connected to " Opinions are not really relevant here. I can now find multiple sources stating that Netanyahu was never interested in a two state solution and cite the Likud charter and his far-right wing alliances. This will make the background section a collection of opinions, and make it much less relevant."? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: you moved editorial content back to the factual background section. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
You moved a section on motivation to another section while there was still talk on whether it's needed or not. So I think it's best to have first worked out in Talk prior to moving. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Genocidal intentions

I was just think this insertion is giving an undue weight to Bruce Hoffman's personal viewpoints? Are we adding every comments by every "counterterrorism analyst"? --Mhhossein talk 15:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas is known for having called for Israel's destruction. It's not something new. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Is that why they’ve accepted a two state solution with pre-1967 borders?
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-set-to-recognize-1967-borders-but-not-israel/amp/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
How is the second link you cited at odds with thee Hoffman view? SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hoffman points to the 1988 charter, an outdated document written in response to Israel butchering 140 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Hamas hasn’t really cared about this charter and rewritten it in 2017, with some (arguably dubious) mention of how their struggle was against the Zionists, not the Jews. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Some points from 2017 charter, hope it clarifies...
The movement
1. The Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. [Its frame of reference is Islam, which determines its principles, objectives and means.]
The Land of Palestine
2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras al-Naqurah in the north to Umm al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.
3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim.
19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.
27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.
32. Hamas stresses the necessity of maintaining the independence of Palestinian national decision-making. Outside forces should not be allowed to intervene. At the same time, Hamas affirms the responsibility of the Arabs and the Muslims and their duty and role in the liberation of Palestine from Zionist occupation. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. WP uses secondary sources in the proper context. in 2017, Hamas published its “General Principles and Policies,” a revised organizational document that significantly deviated from the fundamentalist principles of the group's original charter from 1987, and that effectively accepted the Oslo Accords as an existing political fact The full minutes of the talks were published in an official Emirati document. In essence, the message of the Hamas leadership was clear: "If you in Fatah are convinced that you can get a state from Israel along the 1967 lines through negotiations, go for it. We will not interfere."[1] Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
What comes from here is that we must adhere to secondary sources and actual experts that discuss the issue. Bruce Hoffman is a counter terror expert and a secondary source. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No secondary sources, no balance, no nothing. Just cherry-picked text. This is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article talk page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The charter of HAMAS [37]




The 1997 document is here [38], it doesn't modify the charter, its a statement of general principles and properties. It doesn't accept the 1967 borders and it still seeks the destruction of Israel. The revised charter also rejects the Oslo accords explicitly.


[39] HAmas has already publicly stated it will continue to repeat attacks like those of October 7 until Israel is eliminated.


To conclude:

Hamas calls for genocide, the destruction of the Jewish race, the destruction of Israel and as recently as of October 23 vowed it would continue in the same vein. Those are Hamas' own words. WCMemail 12:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Shall I make a large section here full of quotes demonstrating genocidal intent from the Israeli government? Oh, wait, we are not in a forum. Once more, secondary sources:
As the Google Scholar links show, the last three of those have written the world's leading current textbooks on genocide. You also have Jason Stanley, a world expert on fascist propaganda at Yale University, raising the same concern. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
How is this relevant to the original question of whether Hoffman's opinion should be included?
Also, I checked two random sources from your list I see neither Jones nor Bartov clearly stating stated that there is genocidal intent on part of Israel, but again, it's irrelevant since this thread is about Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 13:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, its simply whataboutery.
There is a comment made by Bruce Hoffman, which is verified by Hamas' own words, which is repeated multiple times in reliable sources. So it is relevant. But won't last long in this article for "reasons" incompatible with WP:NPOV. WCMemail 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Responding to the rest of the whataboutery. Let's keep talking for ever and ever about Hamas superseded charter, duh. Undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Little in this thread is relevant to anything as it is WP:OR. We are not here to cherry-pick a document and come to conclusions on our own. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say we were, I merely commented that the suggestions made that Hamas has renounced its charter are not true and by its own spokesman it still has genocidal intent. Are you suggesting that Hamas are a bunch of liars?
The fact remains the analysis is relevant, the reasons for excluding it are not. WCMemail 15:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Our analysis is of no value. Cherry-picking from a primary source and then saying: To conclude: followed by your conclusion is not how we do things at Wikipedia. WP:OR And yes, Hamas, the IDF, Netanyahu are all a bunch of liars. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The analysis pointing to genocidal intentions of Hamas are relevant and should be kept. I also do not understand the reasoning for removal or its movement out of motivations section. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Alaexis: If you simply look for the word "intent" in Bartov's piece you find "In justifying the assault, Israeli leaders and generals have made terrifying pronouncements that indicate a genocidal intent." Later, he says: "My greatest concern watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action." As for Jones, the Vox piece has: "Beyond killing civilians en masse, Israel appears to be inflicting “conditions of life calculated to bring about [the targeted group’s] physical destruction,” as prohibited by the convention, said Adam Jones, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia who has written a textbook on genocide." What Jones is quoting there is one of the definitions of genocide in the Genocide Convention. Just sayin'. Andreas JN466 00:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree, we need to focus again on issue. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the personal opinions? The question that matters here is how much weight should Hoffman be given? Id say some, Hoffman is an established expert in the field of terrorism, especially al-Qaeda, less so on the history of Hamas or genocide. There is literally no worth in any Wikipedia editor's personal opinion on the charter, the 2017 document, any interview with a Hamas official, to be as blunt as I can be stfu about your personal opinions here, on all sides. Nobody needs to know what you think about Hamas' genocidal intentions or lack thereof. Or Israel's. If your view mattered you could get it published in an actual reliable source. Until that happens I dont want to read them. Hoffman's view matters for that reason, and the only thing for us to analyze is how much weight it deserves here. But, I dont think it really fits in the section on Hamas motivations. That may be the raison d'être for Hamas as a whole, but it doesnt really speak to the motivations for the current war. We, for example, dont include what the NYT says was a "key objective" for Hamas, to take as many soldiers as possible captive for a prisoner exchange. nableezy - 16:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Further to this point - There is so much factual information and description to be presented to our readers that opinions, analysis, predictions, and conclusions should not be prioritized either on talk or the article content. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Let's include capturing Israelis in order to exchange them for Hamas prisoners as one of the goals (sorry for offtopic). Alaexis¿question? 22:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, shouldn't that go both ways? And, are they all "Hamas prisoners" and not just people criticizing the war on social media? [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Not just Hamas prisoners, Palestinian prisoners. That has been a goal from the start of this. Not just the release of Hamas members held, but every Palestinian held by Israel. nableezy - 23:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Whatever, we should use the term used by the majority of RS. Alaexis¿question? 23:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean, what source says it was to release Hamas prisoners? nableezy - 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
We gave you several sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia. Please read the articles in our links and do not respond with an insensitive comment like whatever. WP:NPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to the same NYT article which said that Sinwar "developed a dedication to freeing the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israel." I've checked other sources and indeed most of the released detainees are not associated with Hamas, so we should call them Palestinian prisoners. Alaexis¿question? 07:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind the Hoffmann quote. It's broadly representative of a quite common opinion. Various genocide scholars who've accused Israeli have equally accused Hamas. Andreas JN466 00:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.972mag.com/hamas-fatah-elections-israel-arrogance/

Military aspect/technology section

I would like to get a consensus first on this: I noticed that in most invasion articles, such as 2003 invasion of Iraq, Gulf War etc there's a section on the military strengths of both the invading and defending forces. The difference couldn't be starker among these two forces with Israel boasting fifth generation fighter planes and tanks while Palestinians have neither, not even anti-aircraft guns. As such I think it's important to add such a section in this article also. Crampcomes (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You meant to say Hamas, which is the terrorist organization the IDF is fighting. Civilians don't have 'armies.' HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hamas is a political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip and it won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. Crampcomes (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Not all war articles have such sections, especially in cases when a regular army fought some kind of insurgents (e.g., Second Chechen War). It's probably a good idea to discuss the military technology - not just shiny hardware but also things like cyber capabilities and tunnels - not sure whether it should be a standalone section or part of a wider discussion of the sides' strategy, operations and tactics. Possibly it's worth waiting a bit until we get more clarity about it. Alaexis¿question? 22:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed Crampcomes (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree that this is worth mentioning; however, as someone who has been struggling to get the article length under control, I do ask that it is kept as brief as possible - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Repetition in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#Negotiations_and_diplomacy

There is a repetition here. Correcting it could require deleting some words, so wanted to see your opinions on editing it:

On 18 October, the United States vetoed a UNSC resolution that "condemned the Hamas attack on Israel, called for humanitarian pauses in all attacks to allow the delivery of lifesaving aid to civilians, and called for Israel to withdraw its directive for civilians to evacuate the northern part of the Gaza Strip". The US vetoed a UNSC resolution, sponsored by Brazil and supported by 12 of the 15 Council members, calling for "humanitarian pauses" to deliver aid to Gazan civilians. The UK and Russia abstained. Starlighsky (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, I think one of the bigger issues with this article is editors are too worried about rocking the boat (particularly with removing content); if someone has an issue with your edits, they'll revert it - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Blue/Red zones on map

Noticing that the map image in the infobox has blue and red colorations for territories in Palestine-- considering how polarizing and devisive the war is -- could we use a color combination that is less cultural associated with "good vs bad" AND also less inaccessible for Red/Blue colorblind folks (i.e. a brown and a green of diffeent hues, or green and blue of different hues). Sadads (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s been like that since day 1, I get what you mean but that isn’t the mapmaker’s intention to depict. On October 7, when it was Gaza invading Israel the territory under Hamas control was also shown as blue
refer to https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict_(7–_8_October).svg#mw-jump-to-license The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's universally seen across cultures that blue = good and red = bad, sure that linked TV tropes Wiki page shows Star Wars characters where that is the case, but the list of "good colors" includes all of them, including Red is heroic, which opens with a picture of the Incredibles all dressed in red (if I remember, because I only saw that film on original release, their "basic form" was blue). Certainly from a British upbringing, red and blue were always equal, being the two colours worn by teams on gameshows, a medium with no heroes or villains. It also should be said that blue is undoubtedly the colour of Israel. The Palestine flag has four colours, of which green is probably the most relevant, but green is not strongly contrasted at all with blue. White and black would not be helpful either to show Palestinian holds, so in my eyes at least blue and red is unproblematic. The Great Mule's statement that Hamas incursion into Israel was also shown in blue is factually correct; that's another problem in itself if it confuses readers. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
More importantly, we need to make the map accessible for colorblind readers. This is something that Wikipedia always tries to do. Template:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_detailed_map shows Palestinians in light green. This does not create a contrast problem. I suggest we change the red into light green on the map of this article. Tradediatalk 01:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF casualties

I think that the infobox should break out the casualty numbers suffered by the Israel Defense Forces during their invasion of Gaza. The 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article seems to be saying 88 KIA, 260 wounded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF casualties

I think that the infobox should break out the casualty numbers suffered by the Israel Defense Forces during their invasion of Gaza. The 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article seems to be saying 88 KIA, 260 wounded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF casualties

I think that the infobox should break out the casualty numbers suffered by the Israel Defense Forces during their invasion of Gaza. The 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article seems to be saying 88 KIA, 260 wounded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Israeli rejection of ceasefire

Bsherr and WMSR, you have both removed that Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire on the basis that they agreed to one. They did not, and they were very adamant that this was a pause and not a ceasefire, and they continue to reject such calls. Why are you removing that? If you think that the temporary pause should factor in to that why not just add the word "permanent" before ceasefire? nableezy - 01:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Andreas JN466 06:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I am only concerned that the article is consistent. This article literally has a section entitled 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Duration of the ceasefire (24 November–1 December). So any statement that either party has rejected calls for a ceasefire is so obviously incorrect that it looks like a glaring error. "Permanent" ceasefire is a very different matter, but the sources referenced all predate the 24 November–1 December, ceasefire the discussed later, so, if the statement is to remain, it should be supported by recent sources that make the differentiation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I have tagged the references in the article and given the reasons the statement cannot be verified in each. I think the statement is likely correct, but it needs to be properly referenced with reliable sources. --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, they were tagged, until User:Ecrusized removed them here, accusing me of disruptive editing. Generally, when one accuses another of disruptive editing, one explains it on that user's talk page. Perhaps you could do me that courtesy? As you should be able to see, we are trying to discuss those sources productively and in good faith, but you just removed my notes about them. --Bsherr (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of disruptive editing, although that is what the essay I linked in my edit summary describes tag bombing as. I think one tag in lede is enough to bring the issue to editors attention, 3 long tags next to each other seemed unnecessary to me. Ecrusized (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
User:Ecrusized, if the work to address the sourcing of that sentence offended your sense of aesthetics, why not consolidate the notes I left in the reason parameter into a single tag, or cut and paste those notes here to the talk page? Instead you just deleted them without a word here on the talk page, and left an edit comment linking to an essay about disruptive editing, of which you say you are not making an accusation. May I revert your edit with an with a comment consisting of a link to WP:VAND, which I am similarly not accusing you of? Do you understand? --Bsherr (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you can restore the notes. Like I said, I just removed 2 of the 3 same tags next to each other because it seemed excessive to me. Ecrusized (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
We can remove the note now. Reuters, today: The United States and ally Israel oppose a ceasefire because they believe it would only benefit Hamas. Washington instead supports pauses to protect civilians and allow for the release of hostages [...] Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan accused Guterres of reaching a "new moral low" by sending the letter to the Security Council, adding: "The Secretary-General's call for a ceasefire is actually a call to keep Hamas' reign of terror in Gaza." I don't think this was even needed, because Israel has been vocal in saying that the war won't end before Hamas is defeated. I've renamed the section heading "ceasefire" to "truce" to prevent confusion. DFlhb (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF casualties

I think that the infobox should break out the casualty numbers suffered by the Israel Defense Forces during their invasion of Gaza. The 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip article seems to be saying 88 KIA, 260 wounded. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Kfar Aza atrocities

Over at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre, there is discussion regarding whether unverified claims regarding the massacre (baby decapitations, etfc.) should be included, following a recent Haaretz piece on the matter. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § Guerre Israélo-Palestinien octobre 2023 until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Reaction statement in the lead

The following sentence, currently in the lead, is quite objectionable:

"As of 11 October, at least 44 countries have condemned the attack as a terrorist attack, while other countries have placed the responsibility on Israel and criticized it for occupying Palestinian lands."

The sources used to support this claim are a Thinktank and the Reuters, with the Reuters does not seem to be supporting the sentence in the lead. The think Tank source is not really a suitable source for this purpose. Aside from the sourcing issues, why should this reaction be stated in the lead? How about adding that thousands of protest are taking place against Israel against the world? --Mhhossein talk 15:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That text has problems. Better sources are needed, and the WEIGHT of a substantial sample of RS needs to be used to provide suitable and suitably-framed article text. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
More thoughts? --Mhhossein talk 21:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the 44 should be removed unless better sources can be found. But it's cler that some countries have called the attack terrorist. Though I'm not sure if that's lead worthy.
Second, Israel's occupation of Palestinians is a fact and should not be presented as an opinion of some countries. Even the US and EU (and even Israeli courts) treat the West Bank as Israeli-occupied territory. VR talk 05:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
While it is true that the thinktank is pretty heavily biased, I'm not sure that alone warrants removal entirely. According to a Non-Profit Think-Tank rating group sponsored by UPenn, among about 4,000 nominees, The Washington Institute was voted to be among the best in Transdisciplinary Research and Policy Oriented Research Programs, earning number 43 and 51 respectively. A source that is biased doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be removed. Perhaps we could insert an attribution or a {{better source needed}} tag?
As a side note, a country's borders is literally an opinion of most countries; all borders are made up after all - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Then we should discuss if it can be included in the lead. --Mhhossein talk 18:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Which source is not great? All three? Why so you believe so? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
As I said above and again when you raised this issue below, WINEP, a pro Israel think tank, so should be attributed anyway. Seems the only source for the 44 countries thing, undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Copy from below section

Hi Duvasee. Let's discuss why do you want to remove this content. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is already included in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Duvasee (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason to remove the addition in another article. Please read prior discussion where it was mentioned regarding this current article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
As you can see in the prior discussion, your edit effectively added winep (a poor source) three times, and it is the only source for "44...etc", so I think undue. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
There are other sources such as the Economist etc. that also support that statement that it is the bloodiest day in Israeli history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. This has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not undue. This is due. The deadliest day for the Jewish people since 1945 is not due? The deadliest day in Israeli history is not due? Homerethegreat (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
We are talking about this sentence - "As of 11 October, at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack,..." sourced to WINEP. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we are talking on the title: the bloodiest in Israel's history and the deadliest for Jews since the Holocaust. Look at the edit @Oleg Yunakov is referring to. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You removed it with the justification Per talk, WINEP is a biased source that should be attributed and therefore undue for the lead as the only source for "44 countries...", Reuters source does not support it.
First, I would suggest that the statement in general is due for the lede; a summary of international opinion is highly relevant.
Second, their bias or lack thereof doesn't come into play; they are making a clear statement of fact (at least 44 countries had condemned the Hamas invasion as a terrorist attack) and unless they are unreliable - and this statement could be used to prove they are, if it is false - we can and should echo it.
As such, I've restored the content. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
WINEP is a biased source and requires attribution, therefore it is unsuitable for the lead which is presenting the statement as fact. Independent RS is required to support this, it is telling that there no other sources for the statement (the Reuters source does not support the material, either).
This discussion is actually an improperly titled continuation of the section above #Reaction statement in the lead where this issue was originally raised by another editor so I am going to copy this section there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with the UNDUE aspect. There are lots of factoids about this conflict. For example, ALJazeera, a reliable source, points out[45] that Israel has killed 136 children per day in the first 30 days, compared to 0.6-3 children killed per day in much larger conflicts like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen. But if it is only a single source making this (indisputably true) claim it would be undue for the lead. VR talk 01:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

End copy

I have tagged the disputed material undue inline. Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Aside for the reliability of the cited source, some users have raised objections against the inclusion of the sentence in the lead. --Mhhossein talk 18:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

Once upon a time, we had a professionally written, concise, and easy to read lede [46]. Now we have utter chaos instead. This needs to be fixed asap. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The issues need to be resolved pointwise. --Mhhossein talk 19:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the lead is ungainly and requires clarity and condensation. I also think that the article needs a good going-over and checked for neutrality and proper use of sources. I found one passage, right in the lead, in which a quote did not accurately reflect the underlying source and was phrased in a POV manner. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

suspected Hamas militants surrendered

Could someone kindly explain to readers what this is supposed to mean?

  • A militant can surrender
  • Someone who is suspected of being a militant hasn't by definition surrendered. Civilians don't surrender. If among a body of people presenting themselves as civilians, some are suspected of being Hamas militants in mufti, they are not surrendering but trying, if the suspicion proves to be correct, to slip away. Please adjust and try avoiding the inane syntax of Israeli war reportage on this page.

Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Persons suspected of being affiliated with Hamas performed an act of surrender to Israeli forces. What needs explanation? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not an answer, but a recapitulation of the error. 'Persons suspected of being affiliated with Hamas performed an act of surrender to Israeli forces'. Image floating before the reader's eyes: people under rubble check their iphones as Israeli forces close in. They dial up the IDF register of Gazans listed as Hamas affiliated suspects. Noticing that their names are listed there,they deduce they are on the suspects' list and thereby they duly surrender as 'suspected Hamas militants.' The phrasing is farcical.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I do not understand the story that you added and how it's relevant about "Image floating before the reader's eyes..." . We act according to sources and add information accordingly. People suspected of being affiliated with Hamas surrendered, meaning they laid down their weapons, handed them over to Israelis etc. You can add of course that Israel was criticized for having arrested a journalist or other persons not affiliated with Hamas. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
That isn’t true according to the international press. nableezy - 14:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
[47] Homerethegreat (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel says. Further reporting has cast doubt on the claims. Like Haaretz and BBC. This is not a platform for Israeli propaganda in which we repeat the claims of a combatant as though they are accurate and objective fact. nableezy - 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
At this point, it's more war crime than "surrender" - the 10-15 have also been labelled "Hamas-affiliated", which could equally mean Hamas local politician, bureaucrat, butcher, baker or candlestick maker as anything else - it's not clear or evidenced (and seems improbable at this point) that any of the detainees were active combatants in the sense of being capable of "surrender". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The word "suspected" is not used by i24 which simply says that 150 terrorists surrendered. Ynet calls them "חשודים בטרור", that is, "terror suspects," which is ambiguous, but most Israeli sources call them militants/terrorists without caveats (example). I would suggest replacing the word "suspected" with the attribution, along the lines of 150 Hamas militants surrendered on 7 December and dozens more three days later according to Israeli sources. Alaexis¿question? 12:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree "suspected" with attribution. "Suspects" routinely surrender in various contexts and for various reasons. In this case, plausibly, to avoid being summarily executed. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, that is acceptable, we can simply call them militants/terrorists (though best use militants since otherwise it will require attribution). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

per Haaretz "Of the hundreds of Palestinian detainees photographed handcuffed in the Gaza Strip in recent days, about 10 to 15 percent are Hamas operatives or are identified with the organization" and "....this is not a massive surrender of entire units of Hamas disbanding and handing over their weapons to IDF fighters. Despite this, the security officials claim that the published photos of those detainees have a strong effect on the motivation of the organization's operatives who are still fighting in Gaza." Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The international press has attributed these claims to Israel, i24 has repeatedly published discredited propaganda and shouldnt be treated as though it is giving an unbiased account here, or even an accurate one. Ive added what the NYT and the Guardian has to say on these supposed terrorist surrenderings. nableezy - 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
BBC "There are still some questions raised by the footage. Notably, the man is being held at gunpoint and issued directions from off-screen, so it's unclear whether he is "surrendering" the weapons or just moving them as instructed. Given he is already in his underwear and he cannot have been concealing them on his person, it's unlikely Israeli troops did not know about these weapons, suggesting this may be performed for the camera, rather than as an act of authentic surrender. We also don't know if he, or any of the other individuals in the video, have any involvement with Hamas or the 7 October attack." caveat emptor. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Add that plz, or I can too. nableezy - 19:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
What does the past state of the article (or this passage) have to do with its current state? Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE

@AquilaFasciata: How is that even applicable here 'for the statement about footage of Israelis taken captive'? نعم البدل (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Re [48] I agree with "displayed," as "appeared to show" is POV and weaselly. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Admittedly, that specific shortcut may not have been the most appropriate, maybe WP:OBV would've conveyed what I meant better. That being said, I cited that as what I figured your response to the removal of "appeared to show" would be (It's not cited as Israeli capturees etc.). The other part is that saying "appeared to show Israelis being captured" is equivalent to saying "the sky appears to be blue." - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
No, I think WP:SKYISBLUE is correct. I think that in general the article needs to be checked for neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Subject on moving first paragraph lead sentence to second paragraph

I think it would be better for organization and smoother reading if the sentence “After clearing Hamas militants, the Israeli military responded by conducting an extensive aerial bombardment campaign in which 6,000 bombs were dropped on Gazan targets” and after of the first paragraph were moved to the second paragraph on the top as it combines the Israeli response Bobisland (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

just do it, if somebody has a problem it will be reverted and then a discussion can take place. But you can be bold. nableezy - 16:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I already did but it got reverted Bobisland (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
well in that case the person who reverted you should explain why here. Ping them and ask for an explanation. nableezy - 17:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
No one is responding, going to separate Israeli response if someone opposes it come back to this talk page Bobisland (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind the lead is restructured again Bobisland (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the neutrality template regarding?

@Nableezy:, you appear to have added a neutrality template to the lede without linking it to a talk page discussion. Please address what the dispute is regarding. Ecrusized (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

#Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede nableezy - 20:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Would one of the regulars here please have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit#2023 Israel–Hamas war? There's a rather detailed and thoughtful request there that an uninvolved person like me is not equipped to answer. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And another has appeared, same link. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead wp:neutrality

At the end of this sentence in the lead, << The UN has warned of the "immediate possibility" of starvation and spread of disease in the region, due to the cuotoff of water, fuel, food and electricity. by Israel >>, the following appendix was added today which Israel states would benefit Hamas..[49]. This is a case of "talking point" said by a press agent, and adding it goes against the wp:neutrality rule on an encyclopedia. Even if it is based on a quote (I didn't see it mentioned in any source) it was used as a rhetoric to minimize the UN statement. So, this appendix if accepted as relevant should be included in another sentence and certainly not in the one about the UN statement. Iennes (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You've made several comments about neutrality on this page but none of them really seem to understand what it is. I'm not sure I like that "which Israel states would benefit Hamas" language either, so go ahead and take it out. But, we should also remove the Hamas denials of sexual violence per WP:MANDY and the overwhelming evidence that it occurred. Andre🚐 06:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Saying that Hamas has no credibility is your own point of view; they released hostages and respected the deal. Iennes (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
You lost me, I'm sorry. I didn't say anything about Hamas' credibility or whether they released the hostages. They did, you're right, but what does that have to do with this? I said I don't mind removing the language in underline and italics. But, I do not think that "Hamas has denied the allegations" makes sense, since we have documentary proof of things that Hamas has denied occurring. It's not typical to print a denial, we aren't journalists, we are an encyclopedia, and people don't have a right to have their voice heard everytime an allegation is or isn't substantiated by RS. Andre🚐 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Letting you know that you violated 1RR here and here and should self-revert. To address that, I thought adding Israel’s reasoning regarding the cutting off supply is a needed detail and attributed that statement to Israel per npov and wikivoice. Its stated in various sources such as https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/30/gazas-blocked-relief, https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-11-17-2023-1811384fac6394329dd71e3aaf461eb5 Would “;Israel stated that fuel would be diverted by Hamas for military means.”(as said in the AP article) work? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"wiped out multiple generations of families"

I don't doubt that this statement is true, but it's not encyclopedic and it's not NPOV. One assumes that anytime a family is killed, it had multiple generations, unless it was a couple/thruple with no children or some siblings without parents, but ... why is this a good and clear and neutral way to describe it? Further, I'm not sure why the the lead discussion was summarily ignored to remove the sexual allegations under active discussion above, so I reverted that. Andre🚐 06:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not encyclopedic and why is not NPOV? You just saying something doesnt make it true, and removing what a number of sources have remarked on is what is blatantly non-neutral. Utter bs to remove this material without any basis at all. nableezy - 09:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"Wiped out" is not the way an encyclopedia would describe it. I consider the encyclopedic tone to be a very dispassionate one. And you have to explain what it means better in the prose. And I like I said, why does this a high level aspect of the war? Doesn't any war, where a house blows up, there's an assumption that if the grandma and the mom and the child lives in the house, wouldn't that be multiple generations? I mean, I just don't understand this addition, and it looks like it was just added, and the articles used for the source were also just published. And anyway, the Financial Times article, while reliable, does not even contain the fact that "mutliple generations were wiped out," that information only appears in the WP:HEADLINE. Andre🚐 09:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
That is how the sources describe it, and if you felt that you could have edited it. And FT says "The tradition of extended families living together in multistorey buildings, compounded by relatives moving in together for safety in wartime, has meant that hundreds of multigenerational families have suffered the same fate as the Aghas, all but wiped out in single or multiple strikes." and later says "About 1,550 families have lost multiple members, according to health officials in the Hamas-controlled territory. At least 312 families had each lost more than 10 people by November 23, the officials said. Aid agencies speak of the all too common use of the acronym “WCNSF” — short for “wounded child, no surviving family”." and later says "Further strikes hit members of the wider family following the attack that killed Iyyam’s parents on November 3. No generation has been left untouched." You are just making up does not even contain the fact that "mutliple generations were wiped out," that information only appears in the WP:HEADLINE. You either did not read the story or are just straight up bsing about its contents here. Why? nableezy - 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, stating that "multiple generations of families were wiped out" is a hyperbolic and exaggerated type of florid prose. That is why it appears in the HEADLINE. The text you quoted is more reasonable, and I would not oppose text based on that. But it does not literally say multiple generations of families were wiped out. It says that a number of families have lost multiple members. It does not say wiped out, but, "all but wiped out," and I oppose any usage of "wiped out" because again, it's incendiary and unencyclopedic. Further, it is not used literally in the body as you just quoted, proving my point correct. Andre🚐 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It is not hyperbolic or exaggerated, and that description verges on being purposely outrageous, it is well established by the several reliable sources you removed without having apparently even read. I await editors who can read and honestly portray what they read to participate here. nableezy - 09:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
You literally just quoted text that did not say any multiple generations of families had been wiped out, but that families were "all but" wiped out. If you have "all but" cancer, you are cancer-free. Andre🚐 10:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Matar said the loss of families also had social and historical implications. “The death of whole families means records of these people and their social lives have gone.” then Campaign group Amnesty International documented in detail five cases of air strikes wiping out entire families, saying the attacks should be investigated as potential war crimes. Beyond that, the material you removed that cited FT was The Financial Times reported that how Palestinian families would have multiple generations living in a single multistory building has had the effect of those families being completely wiped out by airstrikes. As of November 23, according to Gazan health officials, 312 families had suffered the loss of more than 10 members. This had also led to children being left without any surviving family, with the acronym "WCNSF" for "wounded child, no surviving family" being increasingly used. nableezy - 10:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
And again, wiping out entire families, is not the same as wiping out multiple generations of families. The latter implies that multiple generations of families might no longer have any surviving members. Whereas, simply the statement "wiping out entire families" is a less strong statement that implies the death of families, again a sad and tragic event, but not the same as implying multiple generations of families, which is not in the text you just quoted. It also would need to be properly attributed since FT attributes it to Amnesty, and the text I had reverted did not attribute it but stated it in wikivoice or attributed to FT rather than Amnesty or the other people interviewed. And I still don't like the language "Wiped out" in wikivoice, period. Andre🚐 10:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Campaign group Amnesty International documented in detail five cases of air strikes wiping out entire families, saying the attacks should be investigated as potential war crimes. And you are ignoring the several other sources cited. Such as AP News: Entire generations of Palestinian families in the besieged Gaza Strip — from great-grandparents to infants only weeks old — have been killed in airstrikes in the Israel-Hamas war, in which the Israeli army says it aims to root out the militant group from the densely populated coastal territory. ... But the scope of the destruction and loss of life in Gaza, with entire families wiped out in a single strike, has raised troubling questions about Israeli military tactics. I dont really care what you like, this is not your personal website. nableezy - 10:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
And again, that article still does not say entire generations have been wiped out. Nor again, does the text you just quoted. I can't keep going around in circles on this. Yes, the AP article contains this, Entire generations of Palestinian families in the besieged Gaza Strip — from great-grandparents to infants only weeks old — have been killed in airstrikes. This language could simply mean, as the article goes on to say, that members of each generation had been killed - not that whole generations were wiped out rendering those families empty, as the text you are defending implies. As the article goes on to write, There were two survivors. So the whole generations were not wiped out, again! And go ahead and ctrl+F for "wipe out" or "wiped out" in the AP piece. It's not there. You can't do that in wikivoice. Andre🚐 10:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Wow. Entire generations of Palestinian families in the besieged Gaza Strip — from great-grandparents to infants only weeks old — have been killed in airstrikes in the Israel-Hamas war, in which the Israeli army says it aims to root out the militant group from the densely populated coastal territory. And Andre here: that article still does not say entire generations have been wiped out. Entire generations of Palestinians families have been killed in airstrikes. But that does not mean that entire generations have been wiped out. And when it says "entire families wiped out in a single strike" that still does not mean entire families were wiped out. Ill wait for somebody who will be more willing to engage with what the sources say instead of distorting them to justify their tendentious edits. nableezy - 10:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I'll try one last time before I give up. #1. "Wiped out" is a sticking point. The first text you quoted does not have it. The second does. It's attributed to Amnesty. #2. "Whole generations" implies "the entirety of each generation and each family in each generation," or at least is ambiguous. Not that many people from each generation, including generations within a family. Because, due to the language, "whole generations of families were wiped out" implies that there would be no surving members. And that's why no article actually says that. Because many families lost a lot of members, but had some survivors. The part that says 5 cases of entire families being killed were documented by Amnesty can be attributed to Amnesty, but that is different from a blanket statement that "multiple generations of families were wiped out" which again, appears nowhere in that formulation or that particular language that was used except in the WP:HEADLINE of the FT piece. I'm done now, bye. Andre🚐 10:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Then change "wiped out" to something else. What AP reports is "Entire generations of Palestinian families in the besieged Gaza Strip — from great-grandparents to infants only weeks old — have been killed in airstrikes in the Israel-Hamas war, in which the Israeli army says it aims to root out the militant group from the densely populated coastal territory." and "But the scope of the destruction and loss of life in Gaza, with entire families wiped out in a single strike, has raised troubling questions about Israeli military tactics." Indeed, I do not know what is difficult to understand here, but Ill be very pleased if you are in fact done here. nableezy - 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if the complaint here is literally one just of phraseology then the text should have been rephrased. If you give "wiped out" the thesaurus treatment, most synonymous alternatives are more, not less colourful - "eliminated" might be the most clinical, as it were. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This analogy was reversed. If you said someone's cancer was "all but" gone - you would be talking about someone who was in remission and their cancer essentially eliminated. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
No way - if your cancer is all but gone, you still have cancer and you might have to get more treatments of chemo or immunotherapy to make sure it's 100% gone. Otherwise it can grow back. Andre🚐 11:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
So you could have written "all but" if you think the distinction is that important. But this whole discussion appears to be an exercise in splitting hairs. Eliminated 30+ members of any family across multiple generations is a form of extreme eradication, one way or another. Say "all but" if it pleases. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It was pretext to remove what somebody does not want covered. That’s all it is. And I’ll return it. Because the basis for the removal is so outrageously and transparently bogus. Or if anybody else wants to restore it, by all means. nableezy - 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Andre, I am going to restore the material but with "nearly entirely" for the sentence on entire families. That should resolve this issue if that was the actual complaint. I welcome you to come up with wording to replace "wiped out". nableezy - 22:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
done, also included Time reporting according to the Palestine News and Information Agency that 825 families had been completely wiped from the population registry. nableezy - 03:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The current edits appear to address my objections from the above discussion. Andre🚐 05:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Another edit request 17 December

Would someone please attend to this? Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit has a reasonable request and some discussion by editors who cannot edit this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated casualty figures for Oct 7 terror attack

Note yesterday's Agence France Presse report carried by France 24 quoting a final death toll of 1,139 for the Oct 7 attacks. The updated number has since been adopted by Voice of America [50], The Guardian [51], South China Morning Post [52] and others. The figures are based on Israeli social security data previously also quoted by Haaretz. --Andreas JN466 17:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not so trivial a change, since this report deals only with the October 7 attack, whereas this article should contain the total numbers for the whole war, so the casualties have to be tallied carefully to use the latest data, avoid double-counting, and all that without improper synthesis. I might have time to do that later, if no one has done it earlier. Also, on a technical note, the infobox should be edited here. Alaexis¿question? 07:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_29&oldid=1197332282"