Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Previously stockpiled

In the Escalation section, the article said the Palestinians threw previously stockpiled stones. The source it cites doesn't say that. Previously stockpiled should be deleted. 2601:1C0:CD02:DE90:95AF:68D8:20BF:A36A (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is present in a New York Times article cited earlier in the article ("The Palestinians had stockpiled stones at the site in expectation of a standoff with the police and Jewish far-right groups"), I added a cite to it in this section. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

flag icons?

Does the article need the flag-icons? We have MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, to avoid using flag icons in the info box. And for the list in Reactions, you have the country name is it really needed to have the flag icon? Govvy (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts. I'm not sure to what degree that would extend to {{Infobox civil conflict}}, but I think it's probably fine here? Regarding the reactions section – I think the guidance at MOS:FLAG allows us to use the flags of countries in tables like these, I don't see an issue there. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Split?

I find it strange that the article dealing with the civil conflict was merged with the one for the new war in Gaza. Regardless of whether they are two sides of a coin (which is debatable), there should definitely be a separate article for the war in Gaza. Hamas is not part of a "civil conflict", it is a belligerent in a parallell war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What war in Gaza? Are you referring to the strikes? I don't see why they should have their own article. It would have great overlap, as it's an integral component of these events, and would thus be confusing for the reader. We can't create two new articles every time Hamas and Israel exchange air fire. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not splitting it, at least not yet, so neither should we. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html The events are obviously connected.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they are connected does not mean they're one and the same. Even if they were, the Gaza events are notable enough to warrant an article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately it falls upon editor discretion as to whether people find the two topics worthy of separate articles. In such a hypothetical article, you'd be duplicating half this article in the "background" section, and the other half in the "reactions" section, leaving little in the way of unique content. So personally I don't see the point at this time, but others may feel differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

Do we have to list every statement released by national governments? This is contrary to WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:ROUTINE. I suggest just summarizing statements in support of Israel, support for Palestine, and neutral calls for dialogue/ statement of concern.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. At minimum we should scrap any kind of routine response, especially by a country not directly related to Israeli-Palestine conflict affairs (for example either by being a regional power, historically invested, or internationally influential eg a UNSC member). For example, I don't see why the routine responses like those of the Philippines are warranted for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. This is especially responses by Muslim-majority nations which have influence and connection to the conflict are deleted under this new justification (like Indonesia and Malaysia), and responses from parties such as the Vatican City are also deleted with this justification. However, if needed, we can instead summarise countries' responses to those which are

1. condemning both sides

2. condemning Israel

3. condemning Hamas

as most countries are more or less falling under this category. At the very least, it should be noted that nations which voice out their opposition to the issue are noted in this article. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – The article with full International Reactions is over the WP:SIZESPLIT rule of thumb of almost certainly splitting at 100,000 characters, now that they have been split out it is under this, although still within 'probably split' this is probably because of the number of citations to make sure everything is unbiasedly sourced.

There is precedent for this over at Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#International_response, where responses are grouped in the main article and the full details are in International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. However, it needs to be treated carefully for this article as there are more events and parties involved. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this issue should be dealt with centrally somewhere (has it, does anyone know?), making arbitrary decisions about which country is worthy to comment is not something we should be doing article by article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Either it should be reduced with only Isreal and Palestinian reactions or being forked out to a new page. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Feast to famine is not really a good solution, we have lost the thread of what is happening with key actors like the US and the UN.Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions 2

Hi!, I wanted to point out the terrible biased POV of Wikipedia by removing reactions from so-called non-influential countries and leaving only the powerful's reactions. It is a sad attempt at how US- UK- and UNSC-centric this website has turned into. No offense intended, but what makes the UK more important than Chile or Japan more important than Argentina makes no sense to me. CoryGlee (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add more international reactions, please do so on the new international reactions article. X-Editor (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There is limited space in any Wikipedia article. The consensus solution appears to be to give all responses over at International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and in this article list responses from countries that have some broad link to the parties/conflict.

The UK response could have more weight because it administered the area under the UN Mandate, likewise the Jordanian response might be included because of the country's historic involvement in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Weight is given to the United Nations Security Council because in theory the body is responsible for ensuring international peace and security.

If it appears that the article gives greater weight to great powers, this may be because they have historically exercised more influence outside their own borders and thus have greater links to the conflict and the parties. However, if there are any instances of direct bias without a good historical reason to include the response then please do highlight this. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Second on this. There should've been at least consultations and consensus before the mass removal of many nation's statements on the matter. If an Extended Protected editor restore the edits by ProcrastinatingReader until we can have consensus on what we should do first, then it'll be much preferred. Otherwise, this is leaving out many countries' statement on the matter and building on the impression that a few countries have only voiced out on the issue. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone else has already moved all the reactions from 2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#International to International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and added a link to that here. Whether any reactions from there should be listed here, which those should be, can only be resolved through further discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the full list into that article, however. Hope that might address your concern of selectivity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Add China's reaction to the international reactions section

As of right now, it seems the list is a bit arbitrary? In any case, I think China's reaction should also be listed, as it is a notable UNSC member who has attempted to take action on this issue:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-calls-for-calm-restraint-amid-israels-jerusalem-attacks/2236116

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-urges-united-nations-to-act-on-israel-palestinian-conflict-2440924

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-calls-restraint-after-israel-palestinian-clashes-2021-05-12/

https://english.cctv.com/2021/05/13/ARTI774r9itTg6GCWE4oWJrN210513.shtml

https://english.newstracklive.com/news/china-pushes-for-united-nation-to-act-on-israelpalestinian-conflict-sc57-nu318-ta318-1159701-1.html

--2601:644:8500:A520:6CCB:BC53:F108:EDC8 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Logically yes. But these responses are mechanical, and unbelievably tedious. No one reads them but the editors who add these tidbits. No mention is made of the hugh outpouring of cheering squads among journalists recently reported by Gideon Levy. I.e.

“Two Arabs were killed in Lod by a missile launched by Hamas. I call that poetic justice. … Too bad it was only two,” tweeted journalist Shimon Riklin on Wednesday regarding the killing of two Israelis, a father and his daughter. “Ben Caspit, on the other hand, is presumably a centrist journalist, and he screamed at the imam of Lod: “We really have to hit you hard, and show you who’s the boss here, show you that you don’t burn anything belonging to Jews in Israel.”Gideon Levy, 'Those Who Thirst for Blood,' Haaretz 13 May

That sort of material tells you far more about the rage (we already have quotes from Palestinian groups calling for violence) than a roster of 'names' or countries just tweeting or announcing the usual vapid 'statements'.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" section

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" subsection, the first paragraph repeats some things in the second, and the grammar is off. I can propose replacing:

"During the evening and night of 10 May, Arab rioters in Lod threw stones and firebombs at Jewish homes, a school, and a synagogue, later attacking a hospital. Shots were fired at the rioters, killing one and wounding two; a Jewish suspect in the shooting was arrested.[63]

Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks were thrown at Jewish apartments. Some Jewish residents were evacuated from their homes by the police. One man was seriously injured... "

With:

"Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks and firebombs were thrown at Jewish apartments, a synagogue and a school. Staff at a local hospital were also attacked, while in some neighborhoods shots were fired at rioters, killing one and injuring two. A Jewish suspect int he shooting was arrested. One man was seriously injured..."

I noticed that the usage of "mob" was being actively discussed in the talk page, not sure if "rioters" is better. Maorbs (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize that in Lod Arab residents are denied the right to build bomb shelters. I.e.

Two Israeli Palestinians were killed in a neighborhood of Lod: because it is “unrecognized” under racist Israeli regulations, its 600 residents may not build bomb shelters to protect themselves and the municipality refuses to do so.' Richard Silverstein, ‘Hamas Fires Iranian-Made Cruise Missiles for First Time, Five Israelis Killed’ Tikun Olam 11 May 2021

Of course that is a blog, and cannot be used. But Silverstein has excellent contacts with some Israeli security sources, and a mainstream source should be sought for this interesting detail.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Economic Losses

Israel :

https://kwinews.com/the-manufacturers-union-reveals-the-losses-to-the-israeli-economy-due-to-the-gaza-missiles/ ($50million - $160million)

Hamas :

Price per missiles : https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/graveyard-shift-for-islamic-jihad-a-visit-to-a-gaza-rocket-factory-a-531578.html (600$)

Number of missiles fired : https://mobile.twitter.com/IDF/status/1392614050341793798 (1500+ idf claims)

600 * 1500 = $900,000 Blazeken93 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that experienced, but here's my 2 agorot:

This makes sense perhaps as a subsection of the larger Israel-Palestine Conflict, as well as perhaps with respect to the Iron Dome missile defense system. It certainly is an interesting comparison (it is much cheaper for the Palestinian militants to attack than for Israel to defend, and this may be an issue in using any missile defense system in this manner).

• Are economic losses normally included in articles of this kind?
• This looks like an analysis, so there should be reliable sources for this comparison and its relevance. Discrete sources that build up the facts would make the comparison more like original research.

RebBlumstein (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Names of the Casualities

Al Jazeera and many prominent sources have reported the names of the children killed in both the clashes and the airstrike. I noticed that under the tag Casualties, the articles doesn't name the victims, but just leaves it as a statistic, which said "83 Palestinians had been killed, including 17 children, and more than 480 others wounded". In comparison, the next two paragraphs not only names the Hamas Members, but also defines their roles as commander or militants, while the fourth paragraph, is more sympathetic to the isreali victims. The word 'civilian' is used only once to describe two people killed in Dahmash, while a third women residency is mentioned to where she lived.

Not too say that the article is biased, but there isn't any sympathy to Palestinian victims, and again reduces them to a statistic. By doing so, the article imply both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed might be Hamas members (One can assume that no women were killed either.)

Link is also here if you want to add their names. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/palestine-know-their-names/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.2.98 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who to ping here, so I'm just gonna address this generally. The reason we don't put names under the casualties section is because no article on Wikipedia does. If we only put the names of Palestinian victims on the list, then the article would be inherently biased as it would imply that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice.

Furthermore, I could argue that Al Jazeera is partisan when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as noted in the summary of Al Jazeera here, and that the source you've listed for the names is partisan as it attempts to paint Israel as inhuman. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reason is to avoid the implication that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice, then shouldn't it be true for the opposite as well, instead of saying "while two more civilians from Dahmash and a soldier died the next day", we state that "three Isreali's died". Allow me to assure you, I don't want to do that because that also reduces the victims to a statistics, but if one is fair for one, then that makes it unfair to the other.

Also by saying, you want to avoid implying that "Israel is killing innocent civilians", isn't that already admitting a bias against Palestinians. In which case my above assumption is true, that the article implies both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed are Hamas members, with no civilians.

And while I agree that Aljazeera does have a possible leaning to the Palestinians, the same portion of the article uses extensively Ynet, which, while not present in the WP:RSPSS is known to be on the right of the Isreali Political Spectrum and also has a stronger bias for Isreal.

While I do admit that that puting names may drift the article to one side, merely reducing them to a statistic and only mentioning Hamas commanders and militants also biases the article.

Clarify Ben-Gvir's political party/ideology?

It's not *wrong* to call him far-right but that can come across as vague in the context of Israeli politics (does it mean an ultranationalist or a religious zealot? A Yisrael Beiteinu supporter? Even a Likudnik?) and the article twice uses the term to refer to him. I think it'd be more informative for at least one of the references to be to his political affiliation in Otzma Yehudit, and/or to describe him as a Kahanist. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For English WP, the expression "far-right" is self-explanatory and I would think it covers all your use cases.Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The all Arab-Israeli article should be indefinite move protected

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/requests, i propose the amendment about existing arbitration enforcement about Israeli-Palestine articles that would ban any users except administrators to move any article subjected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, i can't do it because i don't know about how to file arbitration amendment. Can someone help me about it? Are there have a chance that unregistered user like me can enact the amendment request? 36.65.44.100 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your best shot would be to enlist the assistance of someone sympathetic to your request. It is not that long since the last round of Arbpia discussions, I don't know when the next one will be.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, I saw your informed contribution on the move debate on the Arbitration Committee ruling, do you know how to advise here? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This would probably have to be filed at WP:ARCA as a request to amend the WP:ARBPIA4 case. I suppose no rules stop the IP from filing it (it's unclear whether a non-EC user filing an ARCA for the topic area would be violating the 500/30 rule, but I'd imagine not). I don't really think this would be a good idea though. Page moves are normal, and often the initial title of a page is not the right title, so a topic-wide page move ban seems excessive IMO. In any case, if such a request is made it would be a good idea to supply evidence of sufficient disruption to the point where there is a need for such a restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion came up at the VP recently about (more generally) non-confirmed users filing arbitration requests. I believe the consensus was that it's permitted. If one has troubles they could request clerk assistance at WP:AC/CN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all advice. 180.242.50.216 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures for use

• 
• 
• 
• 

Taken in Kfar Saba, north of Tel Aviv.

Israeli civilian population targeted by terrorist bombings. More if needed. Faithfully --YeudiGH (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding these images to commons. I have, on commons, created a category for them. --Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"hitting" vs "targeting"

Introduction, second paragraph:

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings.

This difference in wording (hitting vs. targeting) should be justified. Not saying that it's not, just wanted to be sure. Maybe double-check that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andibrema (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(if I'm wrong, someone please feel free to correct me): Hamas rockets are fired indiscriminately towards civilian areas, without specific targets (they're not very advanced pieces of technology, so the harm they cause is more random). In this case, the homes and school in Israel were not specifically targeted. The IDF airstrikes targeted specific residential highrise buildings in Gaza, which is why there's a difference in verbiage. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Rockets fired from Lebanon?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306183

Wait for other media sources to validate...

Supposedly there were four rockets, fired from Palestinian insurgents

Casualties

Shouldn't there be a sentence in the Casualties section about Israeli casualties? Right now, the only info in the Casualties section is about Palestinian casualties. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave up paying attention to that section, probably you are better off with the infobox, that seems to be always current, if not entirely accurate.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Involvement of Palestinian Factions

Both the PLFP and DFLP have announced their participation alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Shouldn't they be added to the belligerent section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.208.39 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second this, and also request the addition of the Popular Resistance Committees which have engaged in fighting also: see here --CommieMark (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of language like "stormed"

Wording like "stormed" is neither neutral terminology nor backed up by the reliable references used in the article. Yesterday, there was some discussion in this talk section about whether Israeli police even entered al-Aqsa mosque, or whether the clashes were outside. But in either case, there is more encyclopedic and accurate language that can be used for the confrontation between police and protesters. OtterAM (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The ToI source (we should ideally find some others) says "The international community, including Israel’s Arab allies, condemned the Jewish state Saturday for security forces “storming” of Al-Aqsa during the clashes." (their scare quotes) and it also says "Anger grew on Saturday with the circulation of a video in which a stun grenade is seen detonating inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque, after it was launched into the building by Israeli security forces. According to Channel 12 this was in response to attacks on the forces from within the mosque. Other images online appeared to show the riot police entering the main mosque building amid the violent clash."

I find it difficult to imagine how they entered if not by storming but I will look around for some other sources and perhaps you could do the same? I replaced the article wide neutrality tag with an inline tag next to the word "stormed".Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Storm: "a violent assault on a defended position". If anything, this gives too much credit to Israeli police, since it is a stretch to say that al-Aqsa was "defended" in any meaningful sense. As I stated above, other terms like "raided" have also been used to describe the events at al-Aqsa. The neutrality of this should not be in dispute. WillowCity (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sources:

• Financial Times: Israeli police stormed the compound, which is sacred to both religions, at least three times in the past week, using rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades. At least 600 Palestinians were injured.
• Business Standard: Israeli police storm al-Aqsa mosque, hundreds of Palestinians hurt
• The Guardian: The latest violence came after Israeli police stormed the compound early on Monday firing stun grenades and tear gas and clashing with Palestinians inside following days of worsening clashes.
• Al Jazeera: More than 170 Palestinians have been injured after Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque...

It seems like fairly common language (especially given that ToI, whose bias, if any, would tend towards downplaying this, still acknowledges it.) I've added FT and the Guardian, which are probably the highest-quality out of these, and removed the tag for now - we can still debate the exact wording, but I'm simply not seeing how a POV tag can be maintained in the lead of the article over wording that is used in, in the article voice, in such high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note, this edit isn't really necessary and I'm not sure it adds anything - the sources I added already support that language and are non-opinion pieces, while the added source is an opinion piece. We should rely on the strongest sources available; there's no need to cite an opinion-piece here when we have two non-opinion pieces supporting it at the end of the sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Ground invasion of Gaza

Per the New York Times a ground invasion of Gaza has begun.[1] you probably need more sources but here is a first one for you.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that link doesn't work for me. Someone has added something to article already but some sources are saying that there has been no entry into Gaza as yet so perhaps we need to wait a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ground troops are present on the border, but have not entered Gaza. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306197

--Ester9001 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Language of:

The language of: "

The Israel Defense Forces states that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties are confirmed members of Hamas, and also states that some Palestinian civilian casualties were caused by errant rocket launches within the Gaza Strip

"

Should really say that the IDF has so far confirmed 15 Hamas members among the dead. Because this number, 15, was stated when the total dead was only 30 a day or two ago. So saying 'the idf have so far confirmed' would be good to avoid confusion and pay regard to the fact that the event is currently unfodling.

"So far" is an implication, simpler is to date the claim.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, such as: on the x of may the IDF confirmed. I agree--Ester9001 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Revert "The following day, Israeli police conducted arrests in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site." to "The following day, Israeli police stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a major Islamic holy site."

The line about "conducting arrests" creates a distorted picture of events. I strongly suggest the article revert to the prior sentence about police storming al-Aqsa, with the removal of the neutrality tag. I do not understand why this change was made without discussion, let alone consensus. WillowCity (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Zeex.rice in Special:Diff/1022897764. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal or moving of statemnt regarding Gaza from Al-Aqsa section

There is a statment in the 'Al-Aqsa' section: "Militants in Gaza fired rockets into Israel the following night.[66]" This reads as nonsequetor and better belongs in the 'Gaza' section. Please remove or move to the relevant section.

Update on death toll in Gaza

Change from "113 civilians and militants killed, 580+ wounded" to "109 civilians and militants killed, 621 wounded " 3skandar (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The data is from the Health Authority of Gaza's Facebook. The source of the previous citation from Al-Jazeera is unclear, I could not find the "113 deaths in Gaza" figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3skandar (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 3skandar (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Their Facebook page is not an RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Add children death in Gaza based according to Gaza Health Authority

Change from "* 20 militants killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" to "* 20 militants and 29 children killed (per Hamas & PIJ)" 3skandar (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Same reason as above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

This talk page is too long. Why not archiving most unused discussion on this page? 182.1.60.223 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"This talk page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. Any threads with no replies in 3 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived." Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone with more WP formatting knowledge than me please separate the following notes so they don't look like they belong to the latest Talk section? Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done −Edward (^t⋇_c) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (2)

change the last line on Gaza section " On 14 May, Israel Defense Forces' ground and air troops claimed they had troops on the ground and in the air attacking the Gaza Strip,[95][96] although this claim was later retracted.[97]" TO

On the night of May 14, at 00:18, the IDF Spokesman announced that the attacks in the Gaza Strip had been expanded, and that ground forces of the Armored Corps and the artillery were attacking the Gaza Strip.(https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1392953390443991040). In response, Hamas sent it's armed men to the tunnels to prepare for the Israeli fighters, However, the announcement was a ruse by the IDF, who had intelligence on the location of Hamas's tunnels, called "The Metro", and proceeded to attack with air strick and Artillery the tunnels, while Hamas armed men were hiding inside. (https://www.foxnews.com/world/live-updates-israel-calls-up-9000-reservists-ahead-of-a-possible-ground-invasion/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/13/middleeast/israel-palestinian-violence-intl/index.html/ https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1393082846324088833). In the cordinated attack, IDF has sent 160 Aircrafs and Fierd 450 bombs on "the metro" in under 35 minuts. it is not clear how meany Hamas armed men were killed, however The IDF estimates houndreds of armed men are killed, and the Rocket manufacturing infestructure Was severely damaged, No infentry was involved, and IDF did not send any ground forces at all. (https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/BybX5Giuu / https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2021_q2/Article-178966fb8e96971026.htm?sCh=3d385dd2dd5d4110&pId=1898243326). Dotan il89 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd better rewrite that with spellcheck and a grammar. It's garbled.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

As explained below proposing a social media section, it is too early to evaluate this item. Thye Haaretz piece states that the IDF apologized to media for erroneously stating it had already invaded, and that after the retraction, social media then speculated that it was a deliberate deception. Social media speculation is one thing. Fox et al., picking up rumours another. We should know what to write when the Gaza casualty list is published in a day or two, and solid sources confirm, if any, the link.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (3)

Please revert "...a neighborhood of East Jerusalem, which had been annexed by Israel in 1980, though the legality of the annexation is disputed." to "... a neighborhood of East Jerusalem. The area in question, effectively annexed by Israel, remains under international law a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation."

International law is unequivocal on this point. Once again, this change was made without discussion or consensus. I really wish people would familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV and especially WP:FALSEBALANCE before making inane edits in service of a partisan political agenda. WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is correct, and someone should restore the earlier text. It is a cliché here that everything is 'disputed' as if there were some parity between the parties, when only one party, against international consensus re law, 'disputes' the obvious. There is a learned paper by Lustick that shows no formal law has ever passed the Knesset 'annexing' East Jerusalem, and international law is umambiguous. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

done.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. The Israeli courts have interpreted the 67 and Jerusalem Law together as an effective annexation, I would think that because Israeli law has been applied there. None of it is recognized by anyone other than Israel and while they are free to dispute whatever pleases them, it is of no legal consequence.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Nishidani — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling East Jerusalem a "belligerent occupation"

This 100% ignores the US, Kosovo, Guatemala, and others openly declaring Israel the unified capital. International law is not some unified anti-Israel fiction.

I think that the term should be used carefully and only be applied in cases where covering perspectives or opinions, analogous the "reception" section of a film article. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree.

The view of a handful of countries, including the one violating customary international law and international treaty law, does not suffice to change the unequivocal international consensus. Likening international law to a film's critical reception is, if not in bad faith, a gross mischaracterization. This is not a matter of differing perspectives or an area open to interpretation on which reasonable people can disagree. Annexation is prohibited under the UN charter and under customary international law. This is not a matter of conflicting interpretation, it is a matter of settled legal fact. There is no grounds for changing this. WillowCity (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This was already dealt with in a section back up the page. It's a standard phrasing without implications. Also recognition of capital and recognition of sovereignty are not the same thing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Riots in the Al Aqsa Mosque

The section in the summary on Israeli police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque negates to mention their reasoning: Their were Molotov cocktails being thrown at them and put in Islam's third holiest site. "Riot police entering the Al Aqsa Mosque, where Molotov cocktails where being thrown at Police by Palestinian rioters" makes more sense.

Relevant sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant sources saying that, Palestinians had Molotov cocktails at Al Aqsa Mosque

• https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-on-high-alert-after-palestinian-riots-in-jerusalem-gaza-rocket-fire/
• https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1434077/Palestine-mosque-news-al-aqsa-mosque-east-Jerusalem-israel-EVG
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-clashes-palestinians-turn-deadly-jerusalem-tensions-spread-n1266906
• https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/eid-al-fitr-thousands-of-palestinians-at-al-aqsa-after-night-of-clashes-668032
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57053074
• https://vietnamtimes.org.vn/violence-escalated-between-palestine-and-israel-31536.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/jerusalem-spiralling-violence-amid-spike-in-west-bank-revenge-attacks-2021-5

Shalom, 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Several of these sources are seriously biased (JPost and ToI especially), many of them do not state that the alleged Molotov cocktails were anywhere near al-Aqsa, and all of these sources cite claims by the Israeli authorities. I do not think any addition should be made, it's speculative and unnecessarily inflammatory. False balance[[2]] at its worst. WillowCity (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not false balance at all .The JPOST and TOL is respected paper of record if we use Al-Jazeera there is no problem to use this Shrike (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a number of unreliable/possibly biased sources there (I say possibly because they're not on WP:RSP and I'm too lazy to dig atm). BBC etc seem to satisfy some kind of appropriately worded statement, maybe best attributed to the Israeli police. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@WillowCity BBC ,businessinsider and NBC are also biased ? It should be added that according to Isreali-police/IDF/whatever Palestinians had Molotov cocktails at Al Aqsa Mosque and some of them were actively throwing them on the police. Else this article ain't fair. What the Isreali-police/IDF says matters. Shalom, -- 212.64.210.90 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They arguably do have some bias but that is neither here nor there. See WP:RSP, Business Insider is not confirmed to be reliable. The NBC article only refers to Molotov cocktails in relation to Lod, and as I said above, BBC relies on the ex post facto justification that Israeli police provided. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the IDF/Israeli government and we should strenuously resist attempts to turn it into one. WillowCity (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ToI link says On Wednesday, according to Palestinian health officials, 16-year-old Palestinian teenager Said Odeh was shot and killed by Israeli forces who said he was throwing Molotov cocktails at troops. That is well after the storming of al-Aqsa and doesnt even say it happened there. NBC says On Monday night, unrest spread to Lod, a city southeast of Tel Aviv, where Mayor Yair Revivo said "Arab youths" vandalized public property, threw Molotov cocktails and lowered the Israeli flag to be replaced with the Palestinian one. He said one person was shot to death, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reporting it was an Arab man killed by a Jewish resident. Lod is not al-Aqsa. AGF not being a suicide pact, I am not going to assume that any of the other sources support anything you claim they do given that the first two reliable ones I looked at do not. Kindly dont make things up, it just wastes peoples time. nableezy - 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

West Bank

I added a sec for this as it appears also to be escalating. with 4 deaths reported today. The infobox shows 10 deaths, idk whether that includes those 4. Can someone pin down how many deaths/injured since the 6th? Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Merging

With another page about the 2021 Jerusalem clashes, I think this page should merge with that one as to not cause confusion and possible misinformation. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry wrong page, remove reply Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the other article as redirect. Feel free to copy from history. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 22:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. however it might be better to have it moved to "2021 Arab/Israeli War."

Deaths in lead

Currently, we're sourcing the number of deaths in the lead to the New York Times, but the piece seems to indicate that only 35 Palestinians had been killed by the night of 11 May. A previous version of the article may have supported the 65 (According to the AP, this is what Gaza's health ministry claims), but I don't think it's appropriate to use the source to provide for a number it doesn't actually give. The Wall Street Journal, as of 5:53 GMT today, seems to be reporting 56 Palestinian deaths (including 14 children) and seven Israeli deaths (including 1 child). The reporting from WSJ appears to be based on the numbers given by both Israel and Palestine. The WSJ source, however, doesn't give a good estimation on the number of casualties of Palestinians (though it says >200 Israelis have been injured in rocket attacks since the evening of 10 May). A more recent report from the Times of London seems to put the Palestinian death toll at 53 (including 14 children) and the Israeli death toll at 7 (including 1 child). This is an increase in the number of Israeli deaths reported by the Times of London earlier today. France 24 currently reports 56 Palestinian deaths (including 14 children) and an additional >300 casualties in Gaza in addition to 6 Israeli deaths (including one child). Argentina's Clarín reports that 65 Gazans have died (including 16 children) and that at least 7 Israelis have died (including one child), and Argentina's La Nación reports that 65 Gazans have dies (including 16 children).

The WSJ, NYT, Times of London, France 24, La Nación, and Clarín are all respectable sources, though there seems to be general disagreement on the number of casualties/deaths here (likely owing to the fact that this is ongoing). WSJ and Times of London seem to be in agreement on the deaths of the 14 Palestinian Children and the number of Israeli deaths, though they slightly differ on the total number of Palestinian deaths (both of which are much higher than NYT). Argentine media, as well as Arab media, reports the 65 number and the 16 children dying pretty consistently, though Arab media seems to be doing so with attribution to the Gazan health ministry. All of this is to say, I'm editing the lead to incorporate more recent reporting (I think noting a range of deaths is better than picking one number, especially when reputable sources disagree), and I'm editing the relevant sections to incorporate the reporting from the various sources, so as to try to avoid overreliance on a single source here. As time goes on, I expect all these estimates to change upwards, though I figure that doing this now will help the article to better reflect the current situation and will provide a framework to build upon as new reports come in. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I moved the casualties section to its own space as it is not just Gaza. Someone suggested we might do away with it altogether, idk if that's workable.Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

They all take their info from Hamas and they say it.We should attribute it too. --Shrike (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Did Israeli police enter the Al-Aqsa mosque

According to Israel national news on 10th May, they did not enter and only made arrests outside. Says in the wiki that they stormed the Mosque Compound, however I suppose 'compound' may be the outside part also. However maybe it should make mention of this claim that they did not enter the Mosque building itself.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/305906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ester9001 (talk • contribs)

They threw stun grenades and tear gas into the actual mosque itself, but I don't think they actually entered it on foot, just the compound (though they broke the windows of the mosque from outside to throw things in). This could probably be explained, but it seems most sources just talk about them entering "the compound" and leave it at that. E.g. NYT, or the Al Jazeera source currently in use. The source you linked above was referencing a statement from the Israel police, which would probably have to be attributed if we were to include it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wounded vs Injured

The article uses both terms seemingly interchangeably, I think it would be good for the presentation of the article to establish consensus on one term for use, especially for the infobox, instead of switching between the two. Personally I prefer wounded, thoughts? BSMRD (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to pick one – and it's not clear that we should – then it should be "injured," because it's a more accurate umbrella term for all of the situations described in the article. A wound is a specific type of injury, and not all of those injured were wounded. I hate to get technical here, but we should at least be correct if we're going to generalize.

Alternatively, we could use whichever term is appropriate for the situation that it describes. For example, 21 police officers injured during protest activity is more accurate than wounded. On the other hand, 300+ Palestinians wounded by Israeli airstrikes, misfired rockets, etc. is specific and also accurate for that situation. So, I would argue we should stick to the language in the sources and make decisions on a case by case basis. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (2)

The IDF fired missiles at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on 23 April after 36 rockets were fired at southern Israel.

after to in response to

Just clearing the vagueness 150.242.64.120 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I restructured the sentence completely. Maybe that addresses your concerns; maybe not. I did, however, make it closely reflect what is written in the source. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously stockpiled

In the Escalation section, the article said the Palestinians threw previously stockpiled stones. The source it cites doesn't say that. Previously stockpiled should be deleted. 2601:1C0:CD02:DE90:95AF:68D8:20BF:A36A (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is present in a New York Times article cited earlier in the article ("The Palestinians had stockpiled stones at the site in expectation of a standoff with the police and Jewish far-right groups"), I added a cite to it in this section. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

flag icons?

Does the article need the flag-icons? We have MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, to avoid using flag icons in the info box. And for the list in Reactions, you have the country name is it really needed to have the flag icon? Govvy (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts. I'm not sure to what degree that would extend to {{Infobox civil conflict}}, but I think it's probably fine here? Regarding the reactions section – I think the guidance at MOS:FLAG allows us to use the flags of countries in tables like these, I don't see an issue there. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Split?

I find it strange that the article dealing with the civil conflict was merged with the one for the new war in Gaza. Regardless of whether they are two sides of a coin (which is debatable), there should definitely be a separate article for the war in Gaza. Hamas is not part of a "civil conflict", it is a belligerent in a parallell war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What war in Gaza? Are you referring to the strikes? I don't see why they should have their own article. It would have great overlap, as it's an integral component of these events, and would thus be confusing for the reader. We can't create two new articles every time Hamas and Israel exchange air fire. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not splitting it, at least not yet, so neither should we. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html The events are obviously connected.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they are connected does not mean they're one and the same. Even if they were, the Gaza events are notable enough to warrant an article. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately it falls upon editor discretion as to whether people find the two topics worthy of separate articles. In such a hypothetical article, you'd be duplicating half this article in the "background" section, and the other half in the "reactions" section, leaving little in the way of unique content. So personally I don't see the point at this time, but others may feel differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions

Do we have to list every statement released by national governments? This is contrary to WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:ROUTINE. I suggest just summarizing statements in support of Israel, support for Palestine, and neutral calls for dialogue/ statement of concern.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. At minimum we should scrap any kind of routine response, especially by a country not directly related to Israeli-Palestine conflict affairs (for example either by being a regional power, historically invested, or internationally influential eg a UNSC member). For example, I don't see why the routine responses like those of the Philippines are warranted for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. This is especially responses by Muslim-majority nations which have influence and connection to the conflict are deleted under this new justification (like Indonesia and Malaysia), and responses from parties such as the Vatican City are also deleted with this justification. However, if needed, we can instead summarise countries' responses to those which are

1. condemning both sides

2. condemning Israel

3. condemning Hamas

as most countries are more or less falling under this category. At the very least, it should be noted that nations which voice out their opposition to the issue are noted in this article. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Support – The article with full International Reactions is over the WP:SIZESPLIT rule of thumb of almost certainly splitting at 100,000 characters, now that they have been split out it is under this, although still within 'probably split' this is probably because of the number of citations to make sure everything is unbiasedly sourced.

There is precedent for this over at Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#International_response, where responses are grouped in the main article and the full details are in International reactions to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. However, it needs to be treated carefully for this article as there are more events and parties involved. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this issue should be dealt with centrally somewhere (has it, does anyone know?), making arbitrary decisions about which country is worthy to comment is not something we should be doing article by article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Either it should be reduced with only Isreal and Palestinian reactions or being forked out to a new page. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Feast to famine is not really a good solution, we have lost the thread of what is happening with key actors like the US and the UN.Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

International reactions 2

Hi!, I wanted to point out the terrible biased POV of Wikipedia by removing reactions from so-called non-influential countries and leaving only the powerful's reactions. It is a sad attempt at how US- UK- and UNSC-centric this website has turned into. No offense intended, but what makes the UK more important than Chile or Japan more important than Argentina makes no sense to me. CoryGlee (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add more international reactions, please do so on the new international reactions article. X-Editor (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There is limited space in any Wikipedia article. The consensus solution appears to be to give all responses over at International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and in this article list responses from countries that have some broad link to the parties/conflict.

The UK response could have more weight because it administered the area under the UN Mandate, likewise the Jordanian response might be included because of the country's historic involvement in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Weight is given to the United Nations Security Council because in theory the body is responsible for ensuring international peace and security.

If it appears that the article gives greater weight to great powers, this may be because they have historically exercised more influence outside their own borders and thus have greater links to the conflict and the parties. However, if there are any instances of direct bias without a good historical reason to include the response then please do highlight this. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Second on this. There should've been at least consultations and consensus before the mass removal of many nation's statements on the matter. If an Extended Protected editor restore the edits by ProcrastinatingReader until we can have consensus on what we should do first, then it'll be much preferred. Otherwise, this is leaving out many countries' statement on the matter and building on the impression that a few countries have only voiced out on the issue. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone else has already moved all the reactions from 2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#International to International reactions to 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis and added a link to that here. Whether any reactions from there should be listed here, which those should be, can only be resolved through further discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the full list into that article, however. Hope that might address your concern of selectivity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Add China's reaction to the international reactions section

As of right now, it seems the list is a bit arbitrary? In any case, I think China's reaction should also be listed, as it is a notable UNSC member who has attempted to take action on this issue:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-calls-for-calm-restraint-amid-israels-jerusalem-attacks/2236116

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-urges-united-nations-to-act-on-israel-palestinian-conflict-2440924

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-calls-restraint-after-israel-palestinian-clashes-2021-05-12/

https://english.cctv.com/2021/05/13/ARTI774r9itTg6GCWE4oWJrN210513.shtml

https://english.newstracklive.com/news/china-pushes-for-united-nation-to-act-on-israelpalestinian-conflict-sc57-nu318-ta318-1159701-1.html

--2601:644:8500:A520:6CCB:BC53:F108:EDC8 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Logically yes. But these responses are mechanical, and unbelievably tedious. No one reads them but the editors who add these tidbits. No mention is made of the hugh outpouring of cheering squads among journalists recently reported by Gideon Levy. I.e.

“Two Arabs were killed in Lod by a missile launched by Hamas. I call that poetic justice. … Too bad it was only two,” tweeted journalist Shimon Riklin on Wednesday regarding the killing of two Israelis, a father and his daughter. “Ben Caspit, on the other hand, is presumably a centrist journalist, and he screamed at the imam of Lod: “We really have to hit you hard, and show you who’s the boss here, show you that you don’t burn anything belonging to Jews in Israel.”Gideon Levy, 'Those Who Thirst for Blood,' Haaretz 13 May

That sort of material tells you far more about the rage (we already have quotes from Palestinian groups calling for violence) than a roster of 'names' or countries just tweeting or announcing the usual vapid 'statements'.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" section

Grammar and clarity in "Arab localities in Israel" subsection, the first paragraph repeats some things in the second, and the grammar is off. I can propose replacing:

"During the evening and night of 10 May, Arab rioters in Lod threw stones and firebombs at Jewish homes, a school, and a synagogue, later attacking a hospital. Shots were fired at the rioters, killing one and wounding two; a Jewish suspect in the shooting was arrested.[63]

Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks were thrown at Jewish apartments. Some Jewish residents were evacuated from their homes by the police. One man was seriously injured... "

With:

"Widespread protests and riots intensified across Israel, particularly in cities with a large Arab population. In Lod, rocks and firebombs were thrown at Jewish apartments, a synagogue and a school. Staff at a local hospital were also attacked, while in some neighborhoods shots were fired at rioters, killing one and injuring two. A Jewish suspect int he shooting was arrested. One man was seriously injured..."

I noticed that the usage of "mob" was being actively discussed in the talk page, not sure if "rioters" is better. Maorbs (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you realize that in Lod Arab residents are denied the right to build bomb shelters. I.e.

Two Israeli Palestinians were killed in a neighborhood of Lod: because it is “unrecognized” under racist Israeli regulations, its 600 residents may not build bomb shelters to protect themselves and the municipality refuses to do so.' Richard Silverstein, ‘Hamas Fires Iranian-Made Cruise Missiles for First Time, Five Israelis Killed’ Tikun Olam 11 May 2021

Of course that is a blog, and cannot be used. But Silverstein has excellent contacts with some Israeli security sources, and a mainstream source should be sought for this interesting detail.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Economic Losses

Israel :

https://kwinews.com/the-manufacturers-union-reveals-the-losses-to-the-israeli-economy-due-to-the-gaza-missiles/ ($50million - $160million)

Hamas :

Price per missiles : https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/graveyard-shift-for-islamic-jihad-a-visit-to-a-gaza-rocket-factory-a-531578.html (600$)

Number of missiles fired : https://mobile.twitter.com/IDF/status/1392614050341793798 (1500+ idf claims)

600 * 1500 = $900,000 Blazeken93 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not that experienced, but here's my 2 agorot:

This makes sense perhaps as a subsection of the larger Israel-Palestine Conflict, as well as perhaps with respect to the Iron Dome missile defense system. It certainly is an interesting comparison (it is much cheaper for the Palestinian militants to attack than for Israel to defend, and this may be an issue in using any missile defense system in this manner).

• Are economic losses normally included in articles of this kind?
• This looks like an analysis, so there should be reliable sources for this comparison and its relevance. Discrete sources that build up the facts would make the comparison more like original research.

RebBlumstein (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Names of the Casualities

Al Jazeera and many prominent sources have reported the names of the children killed in both the clashes and the airstrike. I noticed that under the tag Casualties, the articles doesn't name the victims, but just leaves it as a statistic, which said "83 Palestinians had been killed, including 17 children, and more than 480 others wounded". In comparison, the next two paragraphs not only names the Hamas Members, but also defines their roles as commander or militants, while the fourth paragraph, is more sympathetic to the isreali victims. The word 'civilian' is used only once to describe two people killed in Dahmash, while a third women residency is mentioned to where she lived.

Not too say that the article is biased, but there isn't any sympathy to Palestinian victims, and again reduces them to a statistic. By doing so, the article imply both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed might be Hamas members (One can assume that no women were killed either.)

Link is also here if you want to add their names. https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/palestine-know-their-names/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.2.98 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who to ping here, so I'm just gonna address this generally. The reason we don't put names under the casualties section is because no article on Wikipedia does. If we only put the names of Palestinian victims on the list, then the article would be inherently biased as it would imply that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice.

Furthermore, I could argue that Al Jazeera is partisan when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as noted in the summary of Al Jazeera here, and that the source you've listed for the names is partisan as it attempts to paint Israel as inhuman. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If the reason is to avoid the implication that Israel is killing innocent civilians while Palestine/Hamas/PIJ are simply retaliating against an injustice, then shouldn't it be true for the opposite as well, instead of saying "while two more civilians from Dahmash and a soldier died the next day", we state that "three Isreali's died". Allow me to assure you, I don't want to do that because that also reduces the victims to a statistics, but if one is fair for one, then that makes it unfair to the other.

Also by saying, you want to avoid implying that "Israel is killing innocent civilians", isn't that already admitting a bias against Palestinians. In which case my above assumption is true, that the article implies both directly and indirectly that all Palestinian killed are Hamas members, with no civilians.

And while I agree that Aljazeera does have a possible leaning to the Palestinians, the same portion of the article uses extensively Ynet, which, while not present in the WP:RSPSS is known to be on the right of the Isreali Political Spectrum and also has a stronger bias for Isreal.

While I do admit that that puting names may drift the article to one side, merely reducing them to a statistic and only mentioning Hamas commanders and militants also biases the article.

Clarify Ben-Gvir's political party/ideology?

It's not *wrong* to call him far-right but that can come across as vague in the context of Israeli politics (does it mean an ultranationalist or a religious zealot? A Yisrael Beiteinu supporter? Even a Likudnik?) and the article twice uses the term to refer to him. I think it'd be more informative for at least one of the references to be to his political affiliation in Otzma Yehudit, and/or to describe him as a Kahanist. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For English WP, the expression "far-right" is self-explanatory and I would think it covers all your use cases.Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The all Arab-Israeli article should be indefinite move protected

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/requests, i propose the amendment about existing arbitration enforcement about Israeli-Palestine articles that would ban any users except administrators to move any article subjected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, i can't do it because i don't know about how to file arbitration amendment. Can someone help me about it? Are there have a chance that unregistered user like me can enact the amendment request? 36.65.44.100 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your best shot would be to enlist the assistance of someone sympathetic to your request. It is not that long since the last round of Arbpia discussions, I don't know when the next one will be.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, I saw your informed contribution on the move debate on the Arbitration Committee ruling, do you know how to advise here? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This would probably have to be filed at WP:ARCA as a request to amend the WP:ARBPIA4 case. I suppose no rules stop the IP from filing it (it's unclear whether a non-EC user filing an ARCA for the topic area would be violating the 500/30 rule, but I'd imagine not). I don't really think this would be a good idea though. Page moves are normal, and often the initial title of a page is not the right title, so a topic-wide page move ban seems excessive IMO. In any case, if such a request is made it would be a good idea to supply evidence of sufficient disruption to the point where there is a need for such a restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion came up at the VP recently about (more generally) non-confirmed users filing arbitration requests. I believe the consensus was that it's permitted. If one has troubles they could request clerk assistance at WP:AC/CN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all advice. 180.242.50.216 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictures for use

• 
• 
• 
• 

Taken in Kfar Saba, north of Tel Aviv.

Israeli civilian population targeted by terrorist bombings. More if needed. Faithfully --YeudiGH (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding these images to commons. I have, on commons, created a category for them. --Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"hitting" vs "targeting"

Introduction, second paragraph:

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings.

This difference in wording (hitting vs. targeting) should be justified. Not saying that it's not, just wanted to be sure. Maybe double-check that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andibrema (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(if I'm wrong, someone please feel free to correct me): Hamas rockets are fired indiscriminately towards civilian areas, without specific targets (they're not very advanced pieces of technology, so the harm they cause is more random). In this case, the homes and school in Israel were not specifically targeted. The IDF airstrikes targeted specific residential highrise buildings in Gaza, which is why there's a difference in verbiage. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Rockets fired from Lebanon?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306183

Wait for other media sources to validate...

Supposedly there were four rockets, fired from Palestinian insurgents

Casualties

Shouldn't there be a sentence in the Casualties section about Israeli casualties? Right now, the only info in the Casualties section is about Palestinian casualties. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I gave up paying attention to that section, probably you are better off with the infobox, that seems to be always current, if not entirely accurate.Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ref controversy

The choice of Al Jazeera for the death count lack coherence with the neutral point of view principle.

For example precisions about death toll etc is necessary.

An example to add : https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/palestinian-group-at-least-some-gaza-child-victims-killed-by-failed-rocket-fire/

--Sandtransman (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s safe to say neither group is going to be neutral for reporting causes of death and the casualty section is iffy until we have neutral parties ruling on it. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:98 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Times of israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:3663:2b00:e553:701b:a29d:f4a8 (talk • contribs)

It might be good, might not, the DCIP website can be read by anyone but ToI is saying "The veracity of the group’s reporting is not known." so who knows? Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I was checking that earlier:

• The New York Times says Two days of Israeli strikes on Gaza, which is controlled by the militant group Hamas, have killed at least 53 Palestinians, including 14 children, and wounded more than 300 people in Gaza by Wednesday afternoon, according to Palestinian health officials. [3].
• Reuters say At least 53 people have been killed in Gaza since violence escalated on Monday, according to the Palestinian territory's health ministry. [4],
• The Washington Post says Some 48 Gazans, including 14 children, according to Palestinian health officials, and six Israelis, including one teenage girl, according to Israeli emergency response officials, have been killed [5]
• AP says The death toll in Gaza rose to 48 Palestinians, including 14 children and three women, according to the Health Ministry. More than 300 people have been wounded, including 86 children and 39 women. [6]
• the Wall Street Journal says Israeli strikes and Hamas rocket fire have so far killed 56 Palestinians, including 14 children, and six Israelis, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials. [7] and
• the BBC says At least 53 Palestinians and six Israelis have been killed since Monday. That includes 14 Palestinian children caught up in the conflict. [8]

I propose we say that "As of the 12 May, 53 Palestinians had been killed, including 14 children, according to Palestinian officials.", sourced to the NYT, Reuters, and the BBC. JBchrch (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, there is no consensus that "Times of Israel would clearly be far more bias than Al Jazeera" as Selfstudier said above. I agree that the statement you proposed is well supported and should be in place, JBchrch. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I did not say that, it was an unsigned edit made by some one else.Diff And that's the second time now that you have made misleading statements about what I have said.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has a known biased against Israel and is known to report things that did not happen,i but it is no surprise this page is using it as a source given the Anti Israeli bias in this page. 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

"far-right"

in the intrudaction is says that the flag parade was organized by far right jewish natiolists. its not true. is an annual parade citing the day Jerusalem was united during the six days war. please remove the "far right" from the intrudaction?--Haya831 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

From the NYT source in the article: [9] The unrest was long predicted to come to a boil on Monday, when far-right Israelis were scheduled to march through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City. Is this controversial or disputed by other reliable sources? If so we could attribute it to the NYT, but in general I don't think they need attribution without good reason. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

here is a source from bbc [10]. The flag parade is never was organized by far right movemants in Israel. I live in jerusalem since 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haya831 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your living in Jerusalem isn't a source. All or almost all sources maintain the actions in Jerusalem were ultra-nationalist or far right. FerranValls (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is simply a lie. The annual parade is not held or led by far right people. But who can argue with New york times, they never lie ... Matanya (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Far Right is simply a smear used by media groups who could themselves easily be construed as far left, and yet are the usual sources of highly contentious material posted to Wikipedia by its clique of extremely politicized administrators and privileged editors who get to go behind the many locked pages on the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Palestine seems to be winning the edit wars - probably won't win on the ground and in the skies though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.236.50 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Causes

I disagree with this edit which adds to the infobox:

• Palestinian frustration with Palestinian President's decision to postpone the 2021 elections

Sourced to The Guardian and AFP. The infobox should only have the core causes. This rationale does not appear to be widely supported by the HQRS, and there is a lot of speculation on wider causes. The Guardian specifically gives half a dozen causes, including The Trump Administration, the Israeli elections, the restrictions in the month of Ramadan, communal violence in the streets, and Israelis nationalists waving flags in the Old City, all of which aren't mentioned.[11] It's completely arbitrary to include the Palestinian elections being delayed (and omit all the others) unless widely supported by HQRS. The infobox only needs to have the core factors which HQRS agree on, not the speculated factors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Afaics, sources that mention it, do not say it is causative but only another factor adding to Palestinian frustration. Probably one could make a lengthy list of such things.Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This goes in and comes out with regularity. Clearly it is too much to say that this is a primary cause, sources are near unanimous that Skeikh Jarrah is the flashpoint, so the debate is only whether it is a contributing factor. I also doubt that Palestinians all think exactly the same way about this issue.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Issue with the lede, the sentences claims the police forces "stormed" the mosque. This is highly biased and incendiary language, and is not what the source claimed. Moreover, it should be noted the REASON for the necessary raid, the mosque being the place where protesters/rioters hid after attacking police, as per several Israeli sources. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the guidelines at the top of the talk page, please provide a reliable source for the change you want made, and also a more specific wording suggestion. Otherwise, it is unlikely your request will be granted. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not incendiary language, it is a factually neutral description of an incendiary event. I do not think the neutrality of this wording is legitimately in dispute. A term like "raided" (while also factually accurate and readily sourced ) is as or more "incendiary". As stated above, please provide sources. I suggest removing the parenthetical about neutrality. WillowCity (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. A police raid is the correct technical term for this type of police action. No police themselves (for example) would say that they "stormed" a building. FerranValls (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Include info criticizing media coverage

Not sure if this source is reliable, but it seems to do a good job at summarizing criticisms of the media coverage of this incident. X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In determining whether the source is reliable, a good guide is WP:Newsorg and WP:Questionable. The article itself reads more like an editorial or opinion piece, though I admit that the content is interesting. I am just concerned that the source is not one readily known as being reliable. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia and its “editing” mafia is now riddled with extreme Zionists ...

Article neutrality

After reading the article and looking at it's recent edit history, I see a clear bias against the Israeli side, or in support of the Palestinian side. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC) For example: https://i.imgur.com/MRTKIiJ.png . This is clearly from a non-neutral point of view

You must be joking. Unless you think that reporting on the events as they occur is "biased towards Palestine". 2607:FEA8:A4C3:BF00:4151:63EE:92D9:4A84 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit using reliable and ideally, independent sources with due weight, etc etc. That usually fixes things after a while.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to edit this page. Just my observation. --WindowGuy87 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You may ask for edits to be made using an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We had seen with responses of Nableezy and others, half truths (about the lynch attempts of Jews) in this very page, this articale now is a joke and filled with factual erros from the lead to the internel sections favoring the Palestinian side. It says Palestinian Civilians when even the sources does not say they had been civilians, Original Resarch and outright lies are ok as long it is favoring the Palestinain side. Not a word about the waves of lycnh attempts against Jews nor the rocket attacks before this clashes. A lie that Ben Gvir opening his office in Sheikh Jarah triggered clashes while he moved his office there AFTER daily attacks and lynch attempts against Jews. The fact that Palestinian militants had been doing agro terrosism BEFRE the event is not even covered and it looks as if it started with the clashes, a date is selected about Sheikh Jarah when since April there had been attacks by Arabs against Jews 2A00:C281:1575:CC00:DA7B:5CB4:5930:3298 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources to back up your claims? X-Editor (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to make fun of people ? it takes like 5 minutes to google and see that Ben Gvir moved AFTER attacks against jews after a several days of clashes That was first google results,anyone who would have done a simple search would see that with what we have here it seems it was intetnional because it was easy to select that day as a start for the clashes, but I'm sure editors of this page would find some exuse why continue with the false information in this very page (like Ben Gvir causing the clashes when he moved there after weeks of clashes, he must be some kind of time traveler or something like that ?), what excuse would be use ? it's written in Hebrew ? not RS because it's Israeli sources ?. maybe how the articale cover Palesinians as "civilians" when the cited sources are not saying they are civilians example "https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/gaza-health-ministry-says-126-palestinians-have-been-killed-in-operation-guardian-of-the-walls/" does not say they had been civilians but it used as a refernce for "126 civilians and militants killed, 950 wounded". How NOT one of the phrases that mentioned dead Paelstinain children had described that at least in some of the case they had been killed during PALESTINIAN ROCKET ATTACKS which fell inside gaza > what excuse will be given to that ? because it's in hebrew or because it's rotter one of the oldest reporting sites in Israel ? or because it's ynet ? You want links to Palestinians using different attacks since April here is an entire section for that ! and here a citation , And you don't need to have a citiation for something which can be seen in the history of this talk page 2A00:C281:1577:1400:9B7B:BABE:2F74:4445 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, reliable sources are virtually unanimous in taking the Sheikh Jarrah events as a flashpoint, I could be disabused of that thought but I'd like to see the evidence. Otherwise anyone can pick any event all the way back to (some date, 1948, 1967, Oslo, etc) and say that was where it started. Anyway it is not at all clear what edit you want made to the article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In such case you should check little bit more what RS sources you are selecting and what they are actually saying, you had been presented by RS that Ben Gvir had arrived AFTER the clashes had started to bring police into Sheikh Jarah. The RS which are used in this very page state it started before Ben Gvir had arrived.

The request is simple - remove any case where it says Palestinian civilian when the ref does not use Palestinian civilans , change the line that Ben Gvir causing clashes to "Ben Givr had arrived after daily attacks against Jews to force police to maintain the order" (like the RS which had been presented in this very page says). Replace the phrase "Israeli settler was killed" and use what RS had described there (Three Israelis were wounded, one critically, in a suspected shooting attack at Tapuah Junction in the West Bank. Yehuda Guetta, a 19-year old yeshiva student, subsequently dies of his wounds) use what RS had said about the Palestinain who had been killed on that day and write his affilation and actions (saying he was just a "boy" and not menionting he was part of a mob while he was partipating in attempted murder just show the bias of this page).2A00:C281:180A:E900:CEB:9F43:782B:5C1E (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Request to change the name to 2021 Israel-Gaza War or 2021 Israel-Palestine War

The following discussion 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.

---

Akin to the last time something like this occurred - 2014 Gaza War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.150.215 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose There are no reputable sources that are calling this a war. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Ground forces have not crossed, except for a few insurgents from Gaza crossing the border. There is no ground assault. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Support AP has begun referring to it as a war, why not follow reputable sources? https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-israel-israel-palestinian-conflict-7bba1abb8a7bd0aadc2e796275ecb469 ; "Despite the toll and international efforts to broker a cease-fire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled the fourth war with Gaza’s Hamas rulers would rage on." 19:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.37.164 (talk)

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.