Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

1 sentence in lead for background

I added a sentence in the lead for background:

Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinians clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin had killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis.

All the sources for this sentence are regarding the current war. They all use a variant of this sentence to give necessary context for the war. Since it is only a sentence I don't think its UNDUE. Nor is it POV, since it simly states the fact and no opinions.VR _talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) VR _talk 14:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the citations may be excessive. FunLater (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I just put them in there so people wouldn't question whether its WP:DUE, because it obviously is given the sheer number of RS that mention this in their coverage of the war.VR _talk 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

support. the pre-war related incidents that contributed to its occurrence need to be mentioned, similar to any other war on wikipedia Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. For the lead of Six Day war we have an entire paragraph on pre-war events.VR _talk 14:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note:

- How much of Israel/Palestine conflicts are directly attributable to this 2023 war? Technically you could argue the entire 70+ year long conflict contributes to this war, but I don’t think summarizing all that is the right thing to do.

- The more direct background I see is the Hamas, their 2 decades of conflict with Israel, and the fact that they planned this attack for 2 years (see my comments in this section below) Merlin^sorca 18:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• A few more sources that mention this: The Hindu[1], Japan Times[2], L'Orient-Le Jour[3]. BBC coverage said "For months, it has been clear that there was a deepening risk of an explosion between Palestinian armed groups and Israel....Armed Palestinians, especially those operating out of the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus, have attacked Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers. The Israeli army has mounted dozens of raids. Armed settlers have taken the law into their own hands, with reprisals against Palestinian villages."VR _talk 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vice regent thanks for pointing me to this discussion and for your edits. cc @Alexandria Bucephalous @Makeandtoss

I would also say linking to one of the clashes is enough, and we can avoid including any sort of casualty figures (for instance, see how we mention 9/11 in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article lead).

Even so, considering this was a highly planned and coordinated attack, I think it’s a mistake trying to tie this attack to any one of the 2023 events: Reuters says this attack actually took 2 years of planning. I think we should mention this "2 years of planning", as well as the broader conflict, and deemphasize the 2023 events - but I’d keep the Al-Aqsa mosque for now, even though since they planned it for years, Hamas may just be retroactively citing that as a cause for the attack.

Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades. Months prior to the war, tensions rose between Israel and Palestinians due to clashes, like at the Al-Aqsa mosque, but Hamas remained quiet.[4] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack for two years, and surprised Israel.[5] The attack itself... Merlin^sorca 17:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas have happened for nearly two decades, but in the two years leading up to the 2023 war, Hamas refrained from making attacks.[6] Hamas was actually planning their 2023 attack, and surprised Israel.[51] The attack itself.. Merlin^sorca 18:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have strong enough evidence that this attack was 2 years in the planning. Some sources say "weeks", some say "months". Also, the casualty fiures are there to give some indication as to how serious the conflict had gotten in 2023. Otherwise if we just say "tensions" that is vague.VR _talk 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not planning the attack for 2 years, but it seems that reliable sources, like the Reuters source I linked, use the same anonymous Hamas source that says Hamas for years deceived Israel by pretending to be more interested in economy.

Just note the distinction between Palestinian militants and Hamas specifically, as well as Palestinian territories and Gaza. This article is focused on Israel and Hamas.

What about this:

Fighting between Israel and Hamas has happened sporadically since 2006. Months prior to the war, clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from attacks against Israel. The attack from Hamas surprised Israel, beginning in the early morning... Merlin^sorca 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. But from what I've read Hamas did attack Israel before the attack. Israel killed a Gazan on Sep 20[7] and there's indication that those fired upon Israeli soldiers in Jenin in Sep 2023 may have been affiliated with Hamas[8] but the source doesn't directly say this.

How about this:

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months leading up to the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 247 Palestinians and 32 Israelis.. I think the "surprise" part can be mentioned below as part of Israel's intelligence failure - by now there is international consensus that Israel's intelligence failed to predict this.VR _talk 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Then let’s mention that Hamas didn’t make any "major" attacks, or "participate in major engagements". That would be more accurate, and I strongly feel we should be talking more about what Hamas was doing as they’re one of the two main subjects of this article, rather than focusing on other conflicts with Palestinians - which are relevant, but they are not the ones at war with Israel now.

In the previous discussion, there was agreement that background events themselves should not be given too much specificity (meaning, if we include links, don’t include casualty numbers - people can view the articles for casualty numbers of the background events).

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times. In the months before the attack, Israeli-Palestinian clashes intensified, such as at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin, and Gaza, but as they had been doing for two years, Hamas refrained from participating in major engagements. Merlin^sorca 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, three things:

• Are there a LOT of sources that say Hamas refrained from doing so? It seems like a controversial claim to make and let me dig up sources that say the opposite. It might also be undue for the lead because there are lots of other facts that are more widely covered in RS (like blockade of Gaza, occupation since 1967 etc).
• I think including casualty count is important because it demonstrates significance. Israelis and Palestinians clash on a daily basis in the territories, but 245 Palestinian and 32 Israelis killed is a big deal. Its also mentioned by more than a dozen RS
• We should take 2-3 words to mention the occupation or blockade here. That's the whole reason why clashes have been happening and this connection hve been made by a lot of RS, see this section.VR _talk 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. "Hamas stayed out of two fights in the past year, allowing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a smaller armed group in Gaza, to take on Israel alone. Last month, Hamas leadership also ended a period of rioting along the border, in an agreement brokered by Qatar, giving the impression that it was not looking for an escalation."[9] "This ongoing absence has raised questions about the motives behind Hamas’s self-imposed neutralization, and whether these motives stem from actual convictions or from political calculations and internal shifts within the movement"[10]

2. My point is that Palestinians are not Hamas; why do we need to provide specificity to non-Hamas conflicts? Again, we didn’t need to tell readers about the number of deaths on 9/11 in the war on Afghanistan article, despite previous terrorist attacks in the U.S. not killing as many people. Readers in this war article can go click on those background events.

3. I would consider mentioning the blockade because it directly involves Gaza, which Hamas governs. Just note we do mention and link to the blockade in the paragraph below. Merlin^sorca 20:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Ok, thanks, but Washington Post paints the opposite picture (emphasis added):

Just last month, Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules Gaza, appeared to be on the brink of war. Israeli border agents found explosive material hidden in a shipment of jeans and halted all exports from the Gaza Strip. Hamas put its forces on high alert and held field exercises with other armed groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The drills included practice rocket launches, ambushes and the “storming” of settlements, local media in Gaza reported, in an apparent preview of the attacks launched on Saturday. Hamas also allowed Palestinians to begin protesting again along the separation fence between Israel and Gaza, where young demonstrators have faced off against Israeli soldiers. On Sept. 13, five Palestinians were killed when they attempted to detonate an explosive at the barrier wall. “It has been quiet, but it is beginning to boil,” Basem Naim, head of Hamas’s Political and International Relations Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post in September. “There is a lot of pressure under the water.” The tensions in Gaza followed a violent summer in the West Bank, where tit-for-tat attacks flared between Palestinian militants on one side and Israeli forces and Jewish settlers on the other. Israel staged multiple military raids in the city of Jenin, where it said militants were planning attacks on Israeli troops and civilians. On June 19, Israeli forces raided Jenin and killed at least five Palestinians, deploying Apache helicopters in the West Bank for the first time since the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which lasted from 2000 to 2005. The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis. And on June 21, hundreds of Israeli settlers rampaged through Palestinian villages — including Turmus Ayya, where one person was killed — torching homes and cars, as well as shooting at residents...

How can we reconcile these sources?

2. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the 9/11 casualty figures at War in Afghanistan but I suspect thats because everyone knows how big 9/11 was. Most readers won't know about these specific incidents. And tbh, each of the specific incident isn't that big, but together they show a picture that many RS say is significant. Keep in mind that Hamas doesn't just care about Gaza as they've repeatedly made it a point to attack Israel when they feel upset about what happens at Al-Aqsa mosque or West Bank.

3. Yeah we just to figure out what the best wording is to mention the blockade and occupation without bloating lead. Maybe we can start with something like "Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks." This is balanced and mentions the grievance of both sides and provides context as to why Israel and Hamas keep going to war.VR _talk 21:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. That’s a good find and I think it contains lots of info we should include in the lead. The source says "the brink", "beginning" to boil, "it has been quiet" which means no direct violence, but a buildup. We also see Hamas practicing ambushes and storming settlements, which is also great background info. I say this does not paint the opposite picture; in fact it supports my earlier argument that Hamas did not engage in any major engagements, because while there is noticeable buildup from Hamas in 2023 and minor clashes, those do not constitute a major engagement.

2. Al-Aqsa is the one I could consider keeping linked because I know there’s a source for Hamas explicitly referencing it as a cause of their attack, but AFAIK that is not the case for the rest, and including them would be WP:SYN

3. I like the new wording you’ve proposed.

How about this?

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. Hamas refrained from major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023,[11][12] when clashes between Israel and other Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. [13] Merlin^sorca 23:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

to be more comprehensive (since not every clash is a war) the first sentence could be:

Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have engaged in several conflicts; Merlin^sorca 23:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but I'd still prefer war, because they have indeed engaged in several full blown wars. The minor clashes they may have engaged it in are not even lead worthy, but the wars are. Still I'm ok with your proposal.VR _talk 04:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Any opinions from @Alexandria Bucephalous:, @Makeandtoss: or @Selfstudier:? VR _talk 04:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent I have added the content almost exactly as in the original version I suggested (a few minor improvements to reduce wordiness). There is room for further revision but we’re on the right track with this prose. Merlin^sorca 05:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Same, I like this proposal the best (but prefer "war"). It's broad, which it should be, because many readers won't even be familiar with the basics of the I-P conflict. Practically all Western news outlets had to run 'explainers' when the war broke out, and this does a good job. DFlhb (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note @DFlhb and @Vice regent, both KlayCax and I thought the sentence Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. was problematic.

The problem I see is that it attracts editors and readers to add bloat to the lead; I saw someone add "Israeli settler violence" to the sentence within minutes. You can imagine editors from all sides of the issue trying to add more and more grievances of the side they support.

To stop this I made the sentence neutralized: Israelis and Palestinians in general held grievances toward each other since the mid-20th century.

In that sentence we can maybe wikilink to one of the broader conflict articles, or even to the article’s background section.

I just don’t want to keep maintaining the original sentence when it gets out of control with grievances. Merlin^sorca 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

If we reach consensus on keeping the original sentence (the one in the diff I linked), then we can revert changes, and add an invisible comment stating that it shouldn't be changed without new consensus. 1RR would be an obstacle but it's doable. But I'm not opposed to this compromise. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to the generic statement of "held grievances towards each other". It's incredibly vague and doesn't convey the gravity of the situation. I agree with DFlhb that once we reach consensus on this we can prevent others from adding bloat to this.VR _talk 12:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to what you reverted this to, and if you can help maintain this version as is, I am in support.

But just a couple of things:

- the point generic statement of "held grievances towards each other" is exactly to be generic, and neutral, while linking to the background section where we can go into full detail.

- This version of the sentence is almost like an invitation for editors of both sides to engage in edit warring and add more and more grievances. Think about our strategy for maintaining this not just days, but months down the line. Future editors will very likely say:

"I found sources that document war crimes caused by Israel, I want to insert war crimes as one of the grievances"

"What about Israel airstrikes? Let's add indiscriminate air strikes killing civilians as another grievance"

"There's the source about the 2023 clash at the Mosque, and Hamas referenced that specifically, so let's also add that to the list"

"Aren’t we showing bias by listing the grievances of one side first? Why not list Israel first?"

"Why do Palestinians get two grievances, but Israel only gets one? Let's balance it out!"

"So many reliable sources are calling Hamas terrorists, so we have to include anti-terrorism in the list for Israel!"

...and on and on and on. It’ll never end. Merlin^sorca 12:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You restored it without the links; was that intentional? DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'll add the links now. I'll also add a note pointing people to the talk page. VR _talk 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be a high level summary of Background section.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would oppose to this change. This is a variety of WP:SYN. Such change implies that there is a casual connection between the Hamas attack and these previous recent events. There was none because the militants were working to prepare this attack during 2 last years according to publications. Everything is connected to everything, but one needs RS which explicitly make such connection. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with @My very best wishes’s sentiment - we can’t just reference any recent Palestinian / Israeli conflict and imply that there’s a relationship between this war with Hamas. Otherwise, we would have to summarize the entire history of Israel / Palestine going back 70 years. I’d prefer to focus on Hamas. Merlin^sorca 19:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we should go back 70 years, RS are not doing that. But many RS have cited this conflict going back to 1967. Would you agree that RS have made a connection between the occupation and the current war?VR _talk 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The inserted text says: Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds.... First of all, the "clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin" are linked to year 2023. Do majority of sources makes an unequivocal connection between this particular attack by Hamas war and these specific events? I do not see it. Actually, the attack by Hamas was completely unexpected. Secondly, everyone knows about the conflict in general. Why repeat it here? Also, see my comment above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you see the 11 sources I cited at the top of this section (+ WashingtonPost source just a few minutes ago) that mention these attacks as relevant context? Second, whether the attacks are expected is disputed. A piece in Foreign Policy written by a Harvard professor says the Palestinian attack was "provoked" by Israeli occupation. A Princeton University professor wrote in the Washington Post that the attack "should not have surprised anyone" given events this year at Al-Aqsa mosque. It is way too early to draw a specific connection, but RS are already trying to provide necessary context and so should we.VR _talk 22:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the context is relevant. However, it needs to be explained (as in the article by WaPo), which we can not do in the lead. Rather, we should just focus on the subject/summary of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I linked the Gaza blockade and added Israeli settler violence per WSJ and another source I can’t remember, make sure to link these if your re-editing them Bobisland (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion in the lead as well. It was added in without consensus. Can someone revert it temporarily until we get a consensus on this? The new wording has significant problems.

It's 1:41 AM here and I need to go to bed. @My very best wishes: @Vice regent: @Merlinsorca: KlayCax (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I believe the above discussion is about opposing the text Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed hundreds

Which is why we rewrote most of the paragraph with new prose that is very different: Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths.

Rather than requesting to revert the entire paragraph worth of changes, please quote the specific text that you find problematic and propose your suggestions. Merlin^sorca 06:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks. Seems a bit sweeping.

• Various jihadist (and arguably Hamas) want Israel totally destroyed. Not just the settlements/settler violence being abolished and/or ending.
• Marxist-Leninist Palestinian groups see Israel as a settler colonial state.
• The meaning of "Palestinian" and "Israeli" is unclear here.

I'd be okay with the other parts remaining. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree that the sentence is problematic, but mainly because it attracts editors to add bloat.

Palestinians aim to end the blockade of Gaza, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, while Israelis aim to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.

Someone already added "Israeli settler violence" to our original sentence, and I can imagine other editors repeatedly adding more and more grievances on both sides to make it more balanced in their eyes.

Note, it seems two of your reasons are ideological; let’s try to keep the discussion on the merits of producing a quality article. Merlin^sorca 07:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

to trim the announcement to why a war started which makes one side look bad seems like whitewashing and people aren’t adding grievances they’re adding Hamas statements which is cutting off a very notable portion of the war, if the fear is perpetual bloating then consensus can be met to ensure it isn’t expanded upon a certain point Bobisland (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bobisland If it were "Israeli settler violence" alone, it would be fine to include in the lead section, but Hamas and Palestinians in general have a list of justifications for this war: the clash at the mosque, the blockade, the occupation / seizing of land, etc. and now it seems editors want to list all of those individually in the lead section.

Now other editors may want to list, 3 or 4 items on the Israeli grievances side to try and keep it balanced.

This is not sustainable, is too much for the lead section, and seems ripe for edit warring, but I would fully support all those details being outlined in the background section. Merlin^sorca 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we pick the most notable issues historically, according to RS and we form consensus.VR _talk 12:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I restored the agreed upon text above, with "blame" instead of "aim". Otherwise, please respect the agreed upon text.VR _talk 18:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to consensus in this. What's more the text you're proposing is problematic for three reasons. First off it conflates Hamas with Palestinians, but while Hamas are Palestinians clearly not all Palestinians are Hamas and would probably be horrified to be characterized as such. Second it tries to divine Hamas' motives in a single sentence which is also highly problematic because we don't know Hamas' motives and alot of reports say that it wasn't even all of Hamas but just sections of their military wing that was even aware this would take place. Finally, the prose honestly don't sound so great and it doesn't read well in the section people try to insert it in to in the lead. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Clashes before attack

Merlinsorca, I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this: Hamas avoided major engagements with Israel in 2022 and even most of 2023, when clashes between Israel and Palestinians led to hundreds of deaths. Instead, Hamas appeared to prepare for their major offensive, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This attack began in the early morning with...

I'd replace it with: Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinain clashes, including those at Al-Aqsa mosque, Jenin and Gaza, killed 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; Hamas' role in these engagements is debated. On Oct 7, Hamas launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, which it says it had been preparing for two years, with a rocket barrage...

Here are my reasons:

• We shouldn't state in wikivoice that Hamas prepared the attack for two years as it is too early and there is still contradictory information coming out. Let's attribute it to Hamas.
• Above I pointed to RS that showed Hamas militants opened fire earlier in 2023 killing 4 Israelis in one incident alone. That's not insignificant. But since other RS do say Hamas didn't engage then we can say the issue is "debated".
• A minor thing but clashes should not be called between "Israel and Palestinians" because some clashes happened with Israeli settlers, who don't act on behalf of the Israeli state, so "Israeli-Palestinian clashes" is better and more concise.
• Also minor, but I replaced "hundreds" (which is vague and could mean as high as 900) with the exact figure.

VR _talk 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent I oppose rewriting it with that new version. I argue we already include specific death tolls for the 2023 clashes inside a note, which is more than sufficient. It’s better to list and link to all those individual background conflicts in the background section (see my previous comments for that, and other arguments).

But I support immediately making this change:

- using the phrase "Israeli-Palestinian clashes"

Merlin^sorca 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your opposition so that I can then address them and propose a new version?VR _talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the rewrite because:

- merely saying "debated" is inaccurate - I thought we reached consensus when we both reviewed sources indicating the lessened activity of Hamas in the time leading up to the attack. I haven’t seen enough RS actually debating this. The Wikipedia articles on Mosque clashes doesn’t attribute the clashes to Hamas. Jenin apparently only had one Hamas militant. Perhaps use phrasing like "there was less involvement from Hamas"

- I thought you disagreed on the phrasing about "preparing for for two years", which is why I used "appeared to prepare" - if you think RS now describe two years of preparation I would support that as well.

- I also want to avoid both linking each background event and including death tolls because that detail belongs in the background section, as per my previous comments

Thanks for the discussion and your work on this article Merlin^sorca 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

1. I think I missed one of your comments above, that's my fault. But as I said Hamas did make at least one major attack[14]: "The next day, Hamas gunmen opened fire at a hummus restaurant outside Eli, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, killing four Israelis". By contrast the Palestinian 2006 Gaza cross-border raid which sparked Israeli Operation Summer Rains killed only 2 soldiers. Killing 4 Israelis is usually treated quite seriously by Israel.

2. I was objecting to saying preparing in wikivoice. But I'm ok to say "it says it had been preparing for two years" because that is attributed.
3. I can agree to not linking each background even (though I think linking the Al-Aqsa one might be quite relevant given Hamas choice of name for its operation), but I thought you agreed on including death toll below ("I support being more specific with the death toll...").VR _talk 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support being more specific with the death toll, but the problem I want to avoid is the wordiness (using the word Israeli and Palestinian too much)

when Israeli-Palestinian clashes led to 277 deaths. Merlin^sorca 14:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about "when 245 Palestinians and 32 Israelis were killed in clashes." This is not wordy, and its pretty obvious that clashes were between the two communities.VR _talk 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I support that version, thanks Merlin^sorca 14:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Apartheid

KlayCax I noticed you added[15] "an Israeli policy of apartheid". I think that is quite controversial. While the Israeli occupation and blockade are universally accepted facts, apartheid is not.VR _talk 18:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, I'm aware. The wording is intended to say that they view it that way. Not that Wikivoice is necessarily saying that it is.

I personally don't think it should be in the lead. But it's a more common justification than settler violence. KlayCax (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax I don't think settler violence should be in the lead either. If you're not so sure, can I remove it?VR _talk 18:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, although I'd prefer the reasoning is left to the background section. :) @Vice regent:. KlayCax (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This new completely rewritten block isn’t what we agreed, and expanding this to broad groups like Muslims and political left is irrelevant. It also requires us to be wordy, repeating "what they viewed" "what they viewed" "what they viewed". Can we revert? @KlayCax @Vice regent

Many Muslims and those on the political left supported the war against Israel, citing what they viewed as an Israeli policy of apartheid, the Egyptian-Israeli blockade of Gaza, and what they viewed as an illegal occupation of the territories for the violence, citing the Palestinian militants goals as a application and example of decolonization in action and a form of indigenous struggle against what they viewed as a settler colonial power Merlin^sorca 18:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note @Vice regent, as I argued previously, trying to list the grievances of both sides is an invitation for edit warring - as editors try to add more and more grievances.

The problem is specificity without being comprehensive. If you say Palestinians want A, and Israelis want X, then that doesn’t paint a full picture in the eyes of editors, who will invariably edit war to make it "Palestinians want A, B, C, and Israelis want X, Y, and Z", and on and on. KlayCax here even tried to expand to include Muslims in general, and the political left.

Remember that this is about a war between Hamas and Israel. Merlin^sorca 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The old wording also has problems, however. Who are the "Palestinians" in question? In contrast, many Muslims and some on the political left have directly supported the actions of Palestinian militants.

The previous wording comes across as too vague. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Muslims" and "the political left" are far, far more vague than "Palestinians". Please discuss such drastic edits before committing to them. Merlin^sorca 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why "Muslims and those on the political left" (presumably worldwide, not just in Gaza) are presented as background/context for this war. This seems to be an oblique reference to post-attack reactions, and should be reverted. DFlhb (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. VR _talk 20:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Muslims and leftists and lions and tigers and bears, oh no. Agree. This is absurd. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

People think a lot of stuff. What matters is what both sides said, without making a first this and then that. The best is what was previously mentioned: "Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m restoring this version because it seems to have the most support here, but like I argued in my previous comments, I think this wording of "Palestinians want A" and "Israelis want X" is just an invitation for edit warring, as editors will invariably come to add more and more justifications: "Palestinians want A, B, C" and "Israelis want X, Y, Z".

If supporters of this wording want to maintain it, then please do, but If I see it getting bloated, I will change it to what I prefer - a generic sentence about conflict that does not list specific grievances. Merlin^sorca 16:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It was changed again; the invisible commnt could have been clearer; also Israeli occupation and blockade of Gaza remained unlinked when re-added to the lead. DFlhb (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Poorly worded sentence in recent timeline entry for Oct 14

I notice the recently added entry in the timeline states the following for Oct 14:

"It also announced a six-hour window lasting from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time for refugees to flee south along specified routes within the Gaza Strip. One of these safe routes specified by the IDF was hit by an airstrike in the same day."

IMO this wording heavily implies that the airstrike was counter to the IDF's assurance of safety. But the source for this last sentence states that the airstrike occurred after the stated time window (also, not clear from the article, but it sounds like it could even be that the airstrike occurred before the route was designated as a safe route?)

I think it's important to discuss that there is confusion among refugees about safe routes, but also to not suggest that the IDF declared a route safe and then proceeded to immediately bomb it. 71.182.180.159 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the article, "Shadows and the position of the sun suggest the attack on the civilian convoy occurred at about 5.30pm" Seffardim (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I'm referring to. The safety window was announced as 10 am to 4 pm, and the attack occurred around 5:30 pm.

Furthermore, the next sentence says "At 6.03pm, in social media posts, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) identified the exact same road in an infographic as the safe route to follow" which suggests that maybe the route wasn't even identified as safe until half an hour after the attack occurred? This part is unclear since the route may have been designated as safe before the infographic. But either way, it seems straightforward the attack did not run counter to the IDF's safety assurance. 71.182.180.159 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the time of the explosion. Alaexis_¿question? 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (2)

Change "Israeli military units [are] striking Gaza are equipped with white phosphorus artillery rounds" to "Israeli military units striking Gaza are equipped with white phosphorus artillery rounds" Seffardim (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas code worlds

https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/defense/568408/

In a Hamas document published by the news company, there were code names that Hamas gave to possible activities in the field, apparently so that the command would know about what was happening there. For example, the word "Aswad" (black) was a code name for the murder of all the hostages. The word "Ahmar" (red) is the fall of a prisoner from Hamas terrorists, the word "bus" is a code name for the use of hostages as human shields. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:F99D:93CD:8F40:5F83 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Appears to be an Israeli state run site. Something this contentious needs additional sourcing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a national broadcaster like BBC, I see no problems with citing them with attribution. Though I'm not convinced this is WP:DUE. What exactly does it tell us in addition to all other atrocities they've committed that are already described in the article? Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (5)

In the first sentence, insert bold text: "The ongoing military conflict between Israel and Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas began on 7 October 2023, with a rocket barrage of at least 3,000 rockets launched from the Gaza strip against Israel. Readers should be informed where the rockets were launched from. Seffardim (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:NOBOLD.(bojo)(they/them)(talk) 23:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood my request, the text is in bold here only to show what text should be added. Of course the text should not be in bold when you add it. Seffardim (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Seffardim:  Done, and thanks, that makes sense. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (6)

In the third paragraph, change:

• Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.

To:

• Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have gone to war several times; Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza, while Israelis wish to end Palestinian violence including rocket attacks.

Indeed the link to rocket attacks is already included in the previous paragraph. Seffardim (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (7)

In the sentence "Israel denied the Report" there is no reason to capitalize the last word, it should be written "report". Seffardim (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Czello ^(music) 23:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nature of Palestinian attacks

There is basically nothing in this article as to the nature of the Palestinian attacks. Thay should be characterized properly as surprise attacks against Israeli civilians. It might be going to far to describe them as "cowardly". However, it should certainly be clear that they were unprovoked surprise attacks aimed not at the IDF, or at least not only at the IDF, but primarily at civilians. TiltonHilton (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

They have specifically taken over military bases and captured soldiers, so that is not a correct assessment. And "unprovoked" is the overstatement of the ages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas militants gunned down civilians intentionally. These attacked were not against the IDF - they were trying to kill Israelis whether they were soldiers or not. TiltonHilton (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned. Their targets are mainly military and directed at the IDF but there have been civilian casualties (Re’im massacre). This isn’t just hamas though, basically all of Gaza is invading with various militias so it’s best not to put the blanket of “hamas” over all of them, which is what the IDF is doing The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I understand Hamas interviews they seem to insist that there are no civilians in Israel, only settlers, which they say allows them to attack them. Borgenland (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The rationale, whatever people think of it, is that all Israelis have served in the IDF and are eligible for call-up as part of the reserves, so therefore "all Israelis are soldiers". For what it's worth, Israel considers all men from 18-60 that they kill to be "terrorists" so Israel does the exact same thing. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting that second statement? eyal (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The targets weren't mainly military. The Palestinian terrorist groups carried out massacres at several kibbutzim & a music festival. The large majority of the people whom they killed were civilians. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

TiltonHilton it would be actually appropriate to call these attacks "cowardly" with attribution and probably in the reactions section. For example, "X condemned the attacks as 'cowardly'."VR _talk 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

“Unprovoked” surely they just attacked Israel out of the blue, surely Israel had not done anything the Palestinians to warrant all of this The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

These people hate Palestinians and think that Israel should "get rid of them", so of course they do things like ignore the entire history of the conflict. 2607:FEA8:A4E1:BC00:4807:859:2490:54CD (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and what did those music festival goers do to provoke Hamas? Were they firing missiles into Gaza in between DJs? Beating up Palestinian children in the moshpit? 2604:3D08:7F7D:54C0:99EB:132D:7DCC:B5B (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Don’t even bother, these dudes will do anything to distance Hamas from their obvious barbarism. HailSatanLightbringer (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Did I mention the massacres specifically at all? He also claims it wasn’t against the IDF when many of the targets were The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria By your faulty logic, nothing can be "unprovoked" because there is always some historical antecedent. For instance, Nazi Germany was "provoked" by the European powers due to the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. If we pursue that logic, we cannot truly hold anyone accountable for committing atrocities because someone else always "started it". Users who can't put forth a serious argument or counterargument should recuse themselves from this discussion. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t even know if I’m supposed to be on the talk page, every day I get told aboout 14 new Wikipedia policies but I’ll say this: is the 20 year old harsh treaty in any way comparable to what Israel has done to Gaza in the same period? I’m not just talking about hamas like people try to put in my mouth, I’m talking about the strip in general The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That comparison is irrelevant because the example I gave merely serves to illustrate a point, which is that anyone can deny accountability by claiming that they were provoked by someone else. The PA in Gaza can launch any attack on Israel and claim that it was provoked by years of occupation or this or that event; literally, they can cherry-pick the most convenient event to justify their attack. And we would of course have to accept it as a statement of motive, but we cannot accept at face value that something was "unprovoked" just because a justification was provided. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo correction: "cannot accept at face value that something was "provoked" just because..." 38.23.187.20 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Then the Napoleonic wars would have been a better example of your point than Nazi Germany… The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously not unprovoked, but "reliable sources" call it that, so that's what Wikipedia shall call it too. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that it's "obviously not unprovoked" is not backed by any evidence or argumentation. Perhaps you should reflect on why "reliable sources" call it "unprovoked", considering that they choose their words carefully. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The argumentation here is that the context of sanctuary violations that took place in the days that preceded the attacks, the calls for humanitarian prisoners action that were met by denial, and by the violence that Palestinians are facing, provide grounds that the attacks are not unprovoked. Talalnablus (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The provocation isn't just something that happened in the past. Israel was and still is actively engaged in an occupation and blockade. Awjohns5 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence for your claim that the attacks where "unprovoked"? I know so little about this whole situation. Most of my evidence is from my mother who worked for the UN which is obviously second hand information, but from what I know Israel has been withholding a lot from the Palestinians and most of this war started because Israel was attempting to get a hold of Palestine. I know that Palestine has committed a lot of atrocities as well, but I very much don't believe these attacks were "unprovoked". But this is all from second hand information so a source to give me more context would be wonderful! House in the trees (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of provocation is challenging to provide, since it is in the eye of the provoked, not the provoker.

For example, when a dog bares his teeth and attacks a human being, the human may have tried to hurt the dog, or the human may have been approaching to give the dog food.

The main provocation you mention - "Israel was attempting to get a hold of Palestine" is way beyond the scope of this little "talk" box. And if I may suggest, in order to get a better understanding of the geo-political reality in this tiny area of the world within the context of world history, to start with the article on the Holy Land, and from there learn about the never-ending wars fought over this area of the world.

In this current war, all that can be provided on the issue of "provocation" is provide a list of excuses the Hamas has used historically to attack Israel and it's people.

1. Israel jails murderers, or people who tried to murder others. Some of these prisoners have been tagged by Hamas as "freedom fighters" and call their incarceration a provocation. This is their main excuse for the current atrocities.
2. The holiest site for Jews, and one of the holiest sites for Muslims, sits on top of a relatively modest hill in the Judean hills. The Muslims call this site "Al-Aqsa", and claim that the State of Israel is limiting access to this site. The wiki article on this issue is in Temple Mount entry restrictions

Ettig65 (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The death at west Negev

"Yehuda and Shimon, also members of the military rabbinate, added: "It's hard to describe. There is a lot of work. It is important to us that before Shabbat all the bodies are removed and that the team is involved in the removal. These are things that are better not to talk about. We saw from shaved heads to bound women and bound children". https://news.walla.co.il/item/3615942 2.55.164.196 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreign and dual-national casualties

The table also needs a total row. I know all three columns contain unknown entries. But we can still have a confirmed total row. Also, why has the row for unverified foreigners (which had 2 deaths) deleted now? Are they now verified? Aminabzz (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like this part to be edited with another verified dual-national casualty. There was a Israeli-Lithuanian policeman killed in Hamas attacks, his name was "Martynas Kuzmickas". He was a Lithuanian person, who emigrated to Israel after 1995 and had a dual Lithuanian and Israeli citizenship, and he served in the Israeli police. Source: [16]https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2095071/israeli-lithuanian-policeman-killed-in-hamas-attacks KOSOTA LT (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting reports about Baby Beheadings

The reference to Mondoweiss could either be removed or rephrased to include other sources perhaps. — hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

— hako9 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page hasn't incorporated the more recent reports on how the beheadings were unconfirmed. There are two locations to state they're unconfirmed. Hovsepig (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

An IDF spokesperson, following a coroners investigation, has confirmed that Hamas militants beheaded babies at Kibbutz Be'eri. On the BBC's live feed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of conflicting reports on this matter being updated frequently. See this CNN article. Question is - given the current uncertainty regarding this, should we wait until there is consensus by these sources? B3251 (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden, Netanyahu, celebrities and columnists have rushed to condemn rape. But the IDF does not yet have any evidence it happened Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would then be wise to state that there is conflicting reports and that it is not currently confirmed out. The article currently does that. However, the article doesn't state *why* the allegation has been difficult to confirm -- because it mainly started out as hearsay at a massacre site, but then it spread through media channels. Right now today, it seems that

1) the Jerusalem Post has said they've seen photo evidence of it happening. But there's no article about that, but just a tweet saying they've done a verification: https://x.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1712460425529372821?s=20 s

2) the Israeli Foreign Ministry published photos that they state is from the beheading victims. But again, the source is only at tweet without an article to talk more about it https://x.com/Israel/status/1712500162864480490?s=20

I'm not sure if tweets (even if from newspapers or government agencies) count as reliable sources if there's no accompanying published text that talks about the event in depth.

At this point, I think the beheading story should be it's own section or page because it's a quite serious allegation with a lot of conflicting reports, and right now it seems that more weight is on how *it did happen*. The infamy of this event is causing a significant level of disinformation and attention on social media -- and having a paragraph talking about the social media 'viral'-ness would I think be important to document because the beheading seems to be becoming a core aspect of the current war. Hovsepig (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian impact

Specific humanitarian impacts of the conflict have been scattered all over the article making it very disjointed. Suggest that a separate section be made to consolidate them within the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that consolidating specific humanitarian impacts into a separate section would improve the article's organization and readability. It would make it easier for readers to access this critical information. StarkReport (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Will make an empty section. I hope others can have the time to move specific info to this. Borgenland (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Made and expanded already. Borgenland (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

USA has joined in the fight against Hezbollah

so why not add them to belligerents? PixelThePro (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Source? Parham wiki (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Countries offering specific aid have that aid mentioned, generally aren't belligerents. – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an exact definition for "belligerents" on military conflict infoboxes, but generally speaking countries that merely provide aid are not considered belligerents. AstralNomad (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (4)

This page mentions "Palestinian terrorist groups" when this is subjective as Israeli military can be designated as a terrorist group as well. So this is a controversial subjective opinion from an editor. To ensure this is unbiased, I would like to change this and only put "militant groups". Jarif123 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Idk who thought to add terrorist in there but it is POV and against MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting an error when I change anything in the lead, which uses a template (Why?). Does anyone know how to fix it? FunLater (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@FunLater: It's because of the #invoke:transcludable section template. If you're editing on desktop, you have to switch from the visual editor. Yue🌙 20:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. Can you add a comment for other editors about that? Right now, I'm on mobile, where I don't feel comfortable making big changes. FunLater (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)