Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Background info on Hamas in lead section (continued discussion)

We have previously discussed the presence of background info: [1] including with @Vice_regent @DFlhb @My very best wishes @KlayCax

I removed the following: The operation was named the "Al-Aqsa Storm" by Hamas. It was claimed by Hamas that the Al-Aqsa Storm responded to the Egyptian-Israel blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (possibly in April 2023), Israel's attacks on women, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza.

But it was restored by this edit: [2]

@Corriebertus I removed this text because:

• We are giving too much weight to the justifications of this conflict of one side.
• This wording will invite edit warring. If say "Hamas blames A, B, C", then some editors will think that's not enough and add more "A B C D E", some editors will want to remove, and others will want to do the same for Israel: "Israel blames X, Y, Z", giving us a very bloated lead section.
• Hamas says a lot of things. Generally, sides in conflicts say a lot of things about the other side. But is it notable? If so, we could fill paragraphs upon paragraphs about what Israelis and Palestinians say about each other. Rather, let's examine the true actions and cause and effect like how War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) we simply state that Bush demanded Al-Qaeda, how the Taliban responded with a denial, and then what Bush did in response - start the war.
• In this case, Hamas appeared to be preparing for attacks for around two years (even lessening their activity to lull Israel into a false sense of security). In that case, how can 2023 events be the cause for the attack that they prepared two years ago?

Merlin^sorca 11:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity, "Egyptian-Israel blockade on Gaza, continued settlements, Israeli settler violence, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (possibly in April 2023), Israel's attacks on women, and restrictions on movement between Israel and Gaza." have been complaints for a long time not just 2023 (not sure about the attacks on women). Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but those are all things that fall under the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I would rather link to instead of listing all out in the lead (which leads to bloat). After all, the conflict is 70+ years old. Merlin^sorca 23:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of RS have connected the attacks to various things like the occupation etc, see most of the sources in this section. We should briefly mention them in the article in accordance with WP:DUE.VR _talk 05:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So the info can go inside that section instead of the lead. Instead in the lead, we can provide a brief statement about the blame on Israeli violence. The text is currently

…in response to Israeli settler violence, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem as well as Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades.

The list of reasoning keeps changing.

@Alcibiades979 also provides a source that also references Hamas’ own charter which espouses antisemitic views and calls for killing all Jews and wiping out Israel. So should we list that too to give due weight? This brings me back to my argument about edit warring and the endless listing of rationale. We should really just mention the wider conflict. Merlin^sorca 07:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here. The motives (“background info on Hamas…”, as you call it, seems misleading: a motive freshly stated is not ‘background’ of the organisation stating it), named by Hamas in October 2023, go back (most or all of them) much further than 2023 or last two years. Blockade of Gaza (and settlers’ violence) and restrictions on movement: decades. Attacks on (their) women: I’ve no idea, but I fear, also long-standing. Desecration of Islamic holy sites (like Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem): CNN themselves points to such possible desecration in April 2023 (see given CNN ref sources) but that doesn’t mean that 2023 was the first time such things happened (in the perception of Hamas). So, the “2023 [attack-evoking] events”, in Hamas’ view, probably were, mostly or all, repetitions of similar events in the last 75 years. Is it “notable”? Yes, a declaration of motives for an (escalation during a) war is relevant, because it includes clues for the other side (and for observers outside the two warring parties) as to how the conflict might ever be reconciled. If Hamas now listed these (rather comprehensive) six motives, I don’t expect them to come up with motive 7 or 8 or 9 (but if they would, it would perhaps further clarify the existing conflict). Israel’s motive is stated and is clear: retaliation. So, the reasons (which is not the same as ‘justifications’) for both sides, for recent escalation, are now mentioned in the lead; that those reasons for one of the parties take up more words than for the other party doesn’t mean we consider them more important or more convincing than those of the other party. Eventual further, older, motives for both sides, dating further back, can be found by our readers, by clicking on the two wikilinks that you gracefully added in the lead section, today, 10:48. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Merlinsorca. I also think it's WP:CHERRY. I mean according to The Atlantic article here :

"First, there is Hamas’s notorious charter, a Frankensteinian amalgam of the worst anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the modern era—the very same that have motivated numerous white-supremacist attacks in the United States. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious,” the document opens. “It needs all sincere efforts … until the enemy is vanquished.” The charter goes on to claim that the Jews control “the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others.” According to Hamas, the Jews were “behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about,” as well as World War I and World War II. The charter accuses Israel of seeking to take over the entire world, and cites as proof the most influential modern anti-Semitic text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian fabrication that purports to expose a global Jewish cabal.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it,” Hamas declares in its credo. “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews.” In case anyone missed the point, the document adds that “so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” In 2017, Hamas published a new charter, but pointedly refused to disavow the original one, in a transparent ruse that some respectable observers nonetheless took at face value.

In any case, Hamas communicated its genocidal intentions not just in words, but in deeds. Before it took control of Gaza, the group deliberately targeted Jewish civilians for mass murder, executing scores of suicide bombings against shopping malls, night clubs, restaurants, buses, Passover seders, and many other nonmilitary targets. Today, this killing spree is widely blamed for destroying the credibility of the Israeli peace movement and helping derail the Oslo Accords, precisely as Hamas intended. And it did not stop there. Since the group took power in Gaza, it has launched thousands of rockets indiscriminately at nearby civilian towns—attacks that continue at this very moment and that have boosted the Israeli right in election after election."

In the words of Sigmund Freud sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The passage Merlinsorca quotes almost reads like a very rose tinted explanation for a group that is completely open about the fact that they don't want peace and their ultimate goal is the annihilation of Jews and Israel. I realize that the Israel Palestine situation as a whole is enormously complex, moral grey areas, yada yada yada. But Hamas is pretty open about what it is, and why it does what it does. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The main issue I have is that if we list Hamas’ motives of 6 things, it’s going to be too long for the lead. We can just provide a brief statement and link to the a section below, or a separate article.

As for creating new motives like 7, 8, 9 - my point isn’t that Hamas would do that, but that other editors would because they feel the original 6 is not comprehensive. @Alcibiades979 brings up a source showing that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill jews, so does that mean we should add those 2 motives to the lead? It’ll never end. Merlin^sorca 07:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Why exactly Hamas has attacked is very much relevant, but we do not know exact answer. It seems that another country (Iran and/or Russia) helped them to plan the operation during two years. Therefore, I agree with the removal by Merlinsorca. We do not need misinformation statements in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of killed Palestinian children and women in infobox

In the infobox under "Casualties and Losses" there is a note (d) that mentions the number of women (936) and children (853) killed; This is a vague unclear notion (WP:VAGUE) and should be highlighted as such. What is "children"? Are young males aged 17-18 or 19-21 also deemed children?

Also, under Islamic law, a married 14-year-old girl can already be called a woman. Therefore the same vagueness can be also argued for the number of women killed. Deerove (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The source which it comes from states that the women and children were civilians. The numbers could be added up and placed as civilians instead. However that would make it synth as there is likely to be additional civilians who were adult males. Ecrusized (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a clear definition in the source provided by Hamas of what constitute women, children, adults and men either. Therefore I assert that the notion of "women" and "children" should be highlighted as vague (WP:VAGUE) by Wikipedia's standards. Deerove (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

do you have any secondry/tertiary source confirming that(not directly the religious book as primary source cannot be taken) or is it your personal opinion that married 14 year olds are called women in islam? if you have nothing to back it up then its clear case of islamophobia(not racism as islam is not a race like some jew factions(eg:ashkanazi and sephardic jews have their own genetic markers and judaism is the only major religion which is also sometimes considered as a race)).but in any case, these statements are inflammatory and of no relevance in deciding what modern world considers women or children. Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What is this bullshit about under Islamic law? Is nobody else going to call that out? Whatever you assert do it on a blog, we follow the sources not some Orientalist propaganda. nableezy - 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The user above attempted to walk back that racist bit of propaganda while also modifying my comment. Needless to say I dont take that vandalism as a serious constructive attempt at discussion. nableezy - 12:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

So many discussions that weren't concluded were archived

Giving a single day for a discussion to be concluded before being archived seems excessive Bobisland (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar concern. I was addressing one in particular that was still an open concern (though it didn't seem to warrant an article change), and it was archived as I was writing the reply. The discussion was only a few days old. I get that the talk page was getting pretty heavy, and in some places chaotic, but the archiving at least in that case seemed too hasty. entropyandvodka | talk 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar; a question was asked of me at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Archive 17#war crime section and before I had time to respond the discussion was manually archived. I think the one day auto-archive is fine, but given how short the archive period is I don't think editors should be manually archiving discussions unless they have obviously concluded. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the talk page has been autoconfirmed-level protected for a week, I don't think it should be too much of a problem to raise the time-to-archive bar a little. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would rather see what happens when the protection expires tbh. Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the feedback here, I've changed the archive time from 1 to 2 days. Let's see if that helps and re-evaluate as needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also pinging the most active users of OneClickArchiver on this Talk page – @Chessrat and WWGB:. Can you folks slow down the archiving of threads as a number of them were archived less than 24 hours, and many of them did not have a natural conclusion? The are concerns above that they are going away too quickly, and I have to say I was surprised when the Requested Moves disappeared so fast as well. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking I've only archived discussions after less than 24 hours if the discussion has obviously come to a conclusion (e.g. answered edit requests) or been definitely closed; when a topic hasn't even been addressed at all I've left it for more than 24 hours. Now that things are relatively less hectic it's probably worth extending Lowercase Sigmabot's auto archival time from 1 day to 2 days and in general not archiving before 2 days unless the discussion is obviously over. Pinging @Riposte97: as the main person who has been archiving this in the last several days. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it was probably me archiving things while still underripe. Happy to let the bot take over now the page is more manageable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's archiving way too fast. -- Veggies (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

From now on I'll only archive discussions after 48 hours of no messages, or when it's been definitively closed. Hope this sounds good to everyone. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If the protection on the talk page is lifted as scheduled, and the pace of posting picks up to an extreme again, I think it may be reasonable to pick up the pace of archiving again. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Source for Syria in "10 October outside the conflict zone"?

In "10 October outside the conflict zone" it says "Shells from Syria struck Israeli positions in the Golan Heights. Israeli forces returned fire, targeting the launch sites."

I think there should be a source for this sentence. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid from U.S.

The U.S. and President Biden has announced $100 million in U.S. aid to Gaza and the West Bank for humanitarian relief. Should be added to the humanitarian section.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/18/biden-humanitarian-aid-gaza-west-bank-00122212 AstralNomad (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Gutierres

@Borgenland: I don't get why this was removed or the edit summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It was placed under the subsection events outside the Gaza Strip, Still figuring where to place it in the article. Borgenland (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just tweaked and moved to Humanitarian situation, subsection healthcare Borgenland (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it might be worth holding off on reactions until the dust settles on the Al-Ahli "strike"—especially if they're based solely on journalism that simply parroted Hamas misinformation. It seems increasingly certain that a Palestinian rocket—not an Israeli "missile" or "strike"—was responsible for "the largest loss of life in a single event in Gaza since 2008." ElleTheBelle 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not increasingly certain. NYT full article

"Many questions about the blast remained on Wednesday. Neither side’s claims about who was responsible had been independently verified." Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add this information under reactions>international>selected timeline

CAN someone summarise and add this to the section where different countries "airlifting" their citizens is reported: On October 12, Indian students in Israel received a mail, informing them that the Ministry of External Affairs would run a chartered flight from Tel Aviv to Delhi.As fighting in the Gaza region intensifies and death count nears 4,000, New Delhi launched Operation Ajay to airlift Indian citizens. On October 14,The second flight carrying Indians stranded in war-torn Israel arrived in New Delhi. About 235 Indian nationals, including two infants, arrived safely via the special flight organised as part of ‘Operation Ajay’. On October 18,the fifth flight under Operation Ajay landed in Delhi carrying 286 Indian including and 18 Nepal citizens.Upon their arrival, the citizens were received by the Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting and Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, L Murugan.Speaking to ANI, the Minister said, “Wherever Indians are stranded, our priority is to bring them back. We have successfully conducted Operation Ganga and Operation Kaveri now under Operation Ajay we are bringing people back from Israel. This is the fifth flight, and we have already brought 1180 people back home. We are the first country to start the evacuation, and we are also bringing people belonging to our neighbour (Nepal) countries.…"

sources:https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/israel-gaza-war-israel-hamas-war-indians-in-israel-operation-ajay-operation-ajay-first-flight-to-evacuate-indians-from-israel-tonight-4473665

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/in-focus/story/operation-ajay-second-flight-carrying-235-indian-nationals-arrives-in-new-delhi-from-war-torn-israel-401976-2023-10-14

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/israelhamas-war-5th-flight-under-operation-ajay-carrying-286-passengers-including-18-nepal-citizens-arrives-in-delhi-11697589210674.html Codenamephoenix (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done partially. It might be a good idea to include the past Indian operations, Ganga and Kaveri, and emphasize that India has been at the forefront of evacuations, helping people from neighboring countries, per "Back Back Israel-Hamas war: 5th flight under Operation Ajay carrying 286 passengers, including 18 Nepal citizens arrives in Delhi". mint. 18 October 2023. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I had to trim it here because it was relatively too heavy when you pair it with other countries evacuations. You can expand it in the International reactions article there is a section on evacuations there. Borgenland (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

well its not india's fault other countries are not going "too heavy" for their citizens and i agree with @Infinity Knight that it should be mentioned that india is also doing evacuations for neighbouring countries(nepal). Codenamephoenix (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Separate civilians from soldiers in Israeli casualties

"1400 killed" paints the wrong picture when 90% were murdered civilians.

Only 286 were soldiers. Source: https://www.idf.il/59780?q=&page=1 Raymond Saint (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, say most Wikipedians, a footnote is enough!

This was brought up a week ago. They added a footnote. I agree it's not enough. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be "At least 1,400 Israelis were killed, mostly civilians" Seffardim (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the 2300 Gazans killed say mostly civilians too? nableezy - 15:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If there's adequate citations then yes the number of civilian deaths on both sides needs to be mentioned. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update from today: 306 IDF solidiers lost their lives, do the math. Soruce: IDF Operational Recap: October 18, 2023 Raymond Saint (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox militants killed

Inside Israel 1,000 militants are said to have been killed (independent of the undifferentiated overall kill count figures for Gaza). Why is there no parallel reference to 301 soldiers and 55 policemen killed inside Israel, in clashes with those militants. Are they to just be dissolved in the overall Israeli casualty figure? Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They were there once, idk what happened to them. Perhaps because the narrative runs that it is a terror attack and not a military operation? Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably the same reason we aren't differentiating inside Gaza.

Regarding the 301/55 figure; do we know if they were all acting as soldiers and policemen when they were killed, or were some of them functionally civilians? It appears to include reservists who were working as "local security officers", suggesting that the latter is true. BilledMammal (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When Israel wiped out a whole school of police graduates in a graduation parade in the first hour of a prior war, Operation Cast Lead in 2008 they were classified by the IDF/Israel as Hamas militants, along with 251 policemen in stations throughout the strip though technically police are not part of any army. That was exposed quickly enough, but stuck. Here you are suggesting that even soldiers were 'functionally civilians', when something similar happens to Israelis. The important thing is to muddle the details.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"It stuck"? Did it? Have you looked at the infobox for the article you linked? Operation Cast Lead? It sure LOOKS like it specifies 255 police officers. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Under international law, demobilised reservists are civilians; at the time of the incursion, Israel’s reserves were not mobilised.

If Operation Cast Lead classifies police officers as militants and the Gaza police are not gendarmeries, paramilitaries, or similar then we need to correct that as well; errors in other articles don’t justify errors in this one. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-17/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-first-hours-of-the-israel-hamas-war-what-actually-took-place/0000018b-38bc-d0ac-a39f-b9be58df0000 while not a complete account as yet, makes it clear there were soldiers, eg, "Many of the kibbutz guards were killed, as were soldiers from the Paratroopers’ Brigade and the Golani Brigade stationed in the south of the country to guard the communities." Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There were certainly soldiers present, and some of the victims were soldiers and thus legal targets. The issue with Nishidani's source is that it doesn't differentiate between demobilized reserves and soldiers. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-names-another-31-soldiers-killed-since-saturday-taking-confirmed-military-toll-to-220

"IDF names another 31 soldiers killed since Saturday, taking confirmed military toll to 220" seems clear enough. Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It only matters what the sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Most wars involve both terror and military operations, that's what Shock and Awe, which legitimized the confusion, underlined. I don't edit here also because the wiki page is swept up in the war of representations and therefore is a part of the war it ostensibly describes. An Israeli friend in battle formation tells me a friend was killed by 'friendly fire' and a nearby group of comrades was almost wiped out by the same. That will take a long time to be reported. In any case, the erasure of that parallel is simple text manipulation for the official POV to prevail, and as such, must be reverted, whoever did it.Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

By the Israeli government - Indiscriminate attacks - Additional subsections

Currently, we have two sub-sections for this, "Al-Shati refugee camp airstrike" and "Jabalia camp market airstrike", each of which with a paragraph of coverage?

This seems excessive; are we also going to create subsections and add paragraphs for each of Be'eri massacre, Ein HaShlosha massacre, Holit massacre, Kfar Aza massacre. Kissufim massacre, Nahal Oz massacre, Netiv HaAsara attack, Nir Oz massacre, and Re'im music festival massacre?

If we keep the two subsections and paragraphs for the airstrikes, then to comply with WP:DUE and WP:BALASP we would need to add them for each of the massacres; I think this would be excessive. I think we should remove them; we currently have the airstrikes linked under "Further information", and we do the same with some of the massacres. I think such links are sufficient.

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux:, I see you added these subsections? BilledMammal (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can remove them. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of other issues I see with this section.

1. The phrasing: "Indiscriminate Attacks" do we have any reliable sources that say that Israel is just carpet bombing and attacking randomly? If not then we can't put in Wiki voice that they're attacking indiscriminately.

2. Every time something tragic happens someone says "This is awful, it must be a war crime", and it gets listed under Israeli War Crime section without regard to what War Crimes actually are. A good example is the hospital explosion, according to the Economist: Some open-intelligence analysts posited that it happened when a Palestinian rocket exploded mid-air—perhaps intercepted by Israeli air-defence systems—and the warhead fell onto the hospital. If such is the case then the Hospital Explosion is tragic, but not a war crime. The Economist had a great article here about what war crimes are and whether Israel has committed them. The wiki article should put much more thought in to what's included particularly in regard to what sources say, rather than compiling a list of all the tragedies that have occurred because otherwise this is just our opinion of what a war crime should be. Alcibiades979 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The allegations in multiple RS say indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks don't mean carpet bombing (although those are indiscriminate attacks, if not deliberate/direct attacks); it means attacks that fail to distinguish military objectives from civilians or civilian objects, ie, attacking both. It is a distinct crime from deliberate attacks on civilians, in which the civilians themselves are the targets. The latter category we don't have a section for in the present war, though the UN fact finding mission has found Israel to have committed that crime in the past, and it may require a separate section if RS come up making that allegation as well. entropyandvodka | talk 03:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"disinformation"

The story about beheaded babies was not "disinformation" -it was a journalist reporting what IDF officials had told her, which is standard warzone journalism. No news outlet claimed to have seen any videos, photos or any evidence confirming this report, although more than one journalist has[3].

In an age when "fake news" accusations are thrown around all too casually, this is not a small distinction to make. There is a vast difference between a journalist reporting what soldiers on a battlefield or government officials have told her vs people deliberately fabricating information and sources with the purpose of manipulating people. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The information about decapitated babies has been reported by reliable sources and meets the standard for inclusion in an article as it is notable and properly sourced. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

“We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can’t definitely say it was from beheadings. Heads can also be blown off due to explosive devices, missiles, and the like,” Kugel said. Renee Ghert-Zand, Foreign media given unprecedented access to forensic institute to witness atrocities Times of Israel 17 October 2023. All multiple media reports go back to one comment made by a West Bank settler noted for his hatred of Palestinians, as reported by one journalist, who works for a pro-Netanyahu TV. It may be true. But so far we have nothing but hearsay.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

About the settler as a source, I believe you're paraphrasing an article in the The Grayzone which was reviewing the i24 report. The person in question is not the only source for beheading claims, neither the only source for beheadings of infants or children. A separate individual was interviewed by CBS for instance and the military forensic report made similar claims. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, okay. And even if that's true, a journalist reporting what she's heard from a soldier or military official is not "disinformation" -it's how most information is obtained in a warzone.

And more than one reporter claims to have seen evidence of this, networks based in multiple countries (see Snopes article linked above). Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to people above, as discussed already e.g. [4], we have to establish a uniform way of getting facts from references. At the moment, we have an increasingly widespread double standard where reports made by Israeli sources are placed under headings like "disinformation" and "unconfirmed claims", while reports made by the Palestinian Health Ministry or Palestinian individuals are placed directly under the war crimes heading.

To be clear, the article rightly attributes those accusations to the sources within the "war crimes" section, the issue is the placement: Equivalent claims by the Israeli side are placed under the "unconfirmed reports" section. This current arrangement violates WP:STRUCTURE. eyal (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree and that's why I raised this issue. This article is clearly taking a side. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza hospital bombing

according to these sources:[5][6][7][8][9], at least 500 civilians were killed in an airstrike by Israel. This should have more than just a sentence or two talking about it Abo Yemen✉ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on at the linked article, the IDF say it was a failed Hamas rocket launch, early days yet. Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an article about it? can you send its wikilink here please Abo Yemen✉ 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's linked up above the sentence or two you mentioned. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

oh okay found it Abo Yemen✉ 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoever killed them, a lot of civilians were killed. This is happening in all war zones. Since the entire Gaza Strip has become a war zone, it would be an imperative to urgently allow all civilians to leave this area if they want (sure thing, lots of them want it). Not allowing their entrance to Egypt (as they do so far) would definitely be a war crime. That should probably be noticed on the page, but I am not certain what would be the coverage of this in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo

The article says: "[Netanyahu] lost in 1999 but twenty years later in 2009 ...". This should be corrected to "ten years", obviously. I can't edit myself because the article is protected. ראובן מ. Reuven M. (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas flag

why and when and how did the flag of hamas change from this to this Abo Yemen✉ 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

nvm i fixed it Abo Yemen✉ 14:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

White phosphorous use does not violate protocol III

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International's Crisis Evidence Lab have reported that Israeli military units striking in Gaza and Lebanon have employed white phosphorus artillery rounds; Israel denied the report. White phosphorus burns carry an increased risk of mortality, and international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."

The issue, as I outlined in another response but will repaste here, is that this is false and not supported by the sources cited. Article II of protocol III states "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.". It specifically leaves out ground delivered weaponry, which is what the human rights watch source concludes and admits was used here. See this document, which specifically calls for the closing of this "loophole" and "Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles." (source), meaning they're not air delivered and therefore not a violation of protocol III or international law (at least not under protocol III).So we really shouldn't be saying that "using these weapons in densely populated civilian areas is a violation of protocol III" because it factually is not unless those weapons are air delivered, which these aren't.

They also said in that cited source that "Human Rights Watch also reviewed two videos from October 10 from two locations near the Israel-Lebanon border. Each shows 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles being used, apparently as smokescreens, marking, or signaling." - also not a violation of protocol III (source) which states that "b.) Incendiary weapons do not include:(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems", so neither of these are violations of protocol III as well.

Therefore the statement made in the article about the violation of article III is disproven by it's own sources and should be removed.

Chuckstablers (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Without that violation of protocol III, I see no reason to include it in the war crimes section as well as it's inclusion there seems to rest solely on it violating protocol III Chuckstablers (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). While the protocol contains weaker restrictions for ground-launched incendiary weapons..." admission from the source cited in support of that statement ([10]) Chuckstablers (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All that above is very interesting but all we need is reliable sources saying that the Israeli usage (which they deny) is all legal. Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the point; the problem is with international law forbids its use in populated areas under Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether it violates protocol III, Time magazine's HRW interviewee says it "should" be illegal, not that it is, and HRW themselves say it's unsettled and the legal loophole should be closed. The legality of Israel's use of white phosphorus is a separate question, and HRW uses international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk as the basis for it being a crime, not Protocol III. Chuckstablers, please stick to analyzing sources we cite and not primary sources, it helps keep discussions productive. DFlhb (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers, DFlhb, Selfstudier: The law, for reference, can be viewed at [11] and [12]. It says:

• 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. (my emphasis).
• "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

I think the key point here is air-delivered. I'll add that. Andreas JN466 16:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer sources that have already consulted the legal treatises. Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier WaPo says, Aerial incendiary weapon attacks primarily designed to set fires and burn people in civilian areas are prohibited under the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III, but Israel has not joined, and it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by this agreement.

Note however that the UN clearly classifies white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon: "Incendiary weapons are weapons or munitions designed to set fire to objects or cause burn or respiratory injury to people through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, resulting from a chemical reaction of a flammable substance such as napalm or white phosphorus. ... In 1980, the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects was adopted with the aim to ban or restrict the use of certain types of weapons considered to cause unnecessary or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to indiscriminately affects civilians. Protocol III of the Convention restricts the use of incendiary weapons. The Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III) aims at protecting civilians and civilian objects from the use of this type of weapons. It prohibits targeting civilians and restricts targeting military objects located within populated areas. The Protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on forest or other plants unless the vegetation is used to conceal military objects.”" Andreas JN466 16:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Andreas: no, that's WP:OR. Check all three citations we currently use: HRW gives us a legal analysis, and says it's illegal for reasons other than Protocol III. WaPo says it's unclear whether white phosphorus falls under Protocol III. My comment stands.

The fix is simply to replace and international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (a misreading of the HRW source) with and "violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life", according to Human Rights Watch. Protocol III is about regulations specifically on incendiary weapons, that's not the rationale HRW is using there. DFlhb (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed in this diff. WaPo appears to be the only citation we use that addresses the question of whether it's a war crime; HRW focuses on the violation of humanitarian law. DFlhb (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm more comfortable with that being there as it is currently, thanks for the change. I can understand why we'd put it under the war crimes section, but I still have reservations on why a "potential" war crime is included in the same section as the mass murder of civilians for which we have thousands of pieces of direct evidence (and which nobody denies). Kind of gives a false balance, but ultimately if we're fine with it I'm fine with it at this point. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, I read the law. There's no claim the civilians were the TARGET of the attack here, it was an attack on the port (I saw the video) so Article 2-1 of Protocol III does not apply ("It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons", the part you put in bold).

You posted the summary of Protocol III but ignored what the human rights watch source actually said; which is that Protocol III doesn't prohibit ground launched incidenary munitions, which is what human rights watch says was used (they call it a loophole and advocate for closing it) (see my original comment where I point this out). It only covers air launched munitions; in this case these were not air launched munitions.

Finally; it's OR. We don't need to even analyze what Protocol III says. We only need to analyze what the HRW source says. Which is that it doesn't actually violate Protocol III. That's why the change was made, and the text as it currently reads accurately represents what our sources say. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers @DFlhb Several points.

1. The part I put in bold was not what you quote, Chuck, but It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
2. HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions. Please have a look at the HRW article we cite. The lead image of that article shows a white phosphorus airbust. It is followed by multiple references to airbursts. (Airbursting of white phosphorus projectiles spreads 116 burning felt wedges impregnated within the substance over an area between 125 and 250 meters in diameter, depending on the altitude of the burst, thereby exposing more civilians and civilian structures to potential harm than a localized ground burst.)
3. HRW also says in that same article: Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording as it stood after my edit. For reference, that wording was: international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

It wasn't me by the way who introduced the reference to Protocol III originally, but many sources covering this do mention Protocol III, including Reuters, so I think a mention of Protocol III is due. Regards, Andreas JN466 07:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW does not say that Israel used ground launched munitions Correct

I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording It's not indistinguishable because HRW don't say that "international law forbids its aerial use [...]", they say there's a loophole, and WaPo says: it is a legal uncertainty whether white phosphorus is covered by [Protocol III]. DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

But Protocol III is international law ...? The loophole is about this, according to HRW: Protocol III applies only to weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires or cause burns, and thus some countries believe it excludes certain multipurpose munitions with incendiary effects, notably those containing white phosphorus. There is more about white phosphorus and Protocol III from HRW here, and from the UN here. I confess I am quite baffled, reading those two pages: the UN – or at least the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs – flatly states white phosphorus is covered by its Protocol III (as does Reuters: "White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons."), and HRW states it isn't (or that there are loopholes). --Andreas JN466 08:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a useful Q&A on reliefweb.int, a site administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), that goes into the details:

• Questions and Answers on Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and Lebanon

Andreas JN466 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the UN republishing a HRW article, and it says the same thing, analysing legality in terms of: violates the requirement under international humanitarian law that parties to the conflict take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life, and concurring with the Amnesty Int. guy we quote that White phosphorus can also be used as an incendiary weapon and When used as a weapon, munitions with white phosphorus are considered incendiary weapons in other words that whether it's an incendiary weapon (= against Protocol III) depends on how and why it was used.

The UNODA link you give is a primary source, requiring WP:OR. Now what we should be on the lookout for is new publications by experts that analyse what the intent was, how it was used, and whether it was a war crime in more detail; not trying to analyse primary documents. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. (Note that I was wrong in equating airburst and air-delivered. Air-delivered means delivered by plane. So while an airburst from a WP projectile fired from a mortar is different from a groundburst it is not classified as air-delivered. So mortar-fired munitions would not fall under Article 2.2. but under 2.3. of Protocol III.) Regards, Andreas JN466 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. We're doing a lot of WP:OR here, while we've got this exact quote from Reuters:

"White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it."

Currently, the article states in Wiki voice:

"Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits its use against military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory."

It should be pointed out that Reuters isn't claiming white phosphorous is explicitly covered under Protocol III, but saying white phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, and incendiary weapons are explicitly covered under Protocol III.

Perhaps the line should instead state this, or something amounting to it:

"White phosphorous is considered to be an incendiary weapon, and Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory." (cite Reuters).

That may be too close to the exact statement from Reuters to not put it in quotations, but at any rate we shouldn't state in Wiki voice that Protocol III prohibits white phosphorous explicitly. entropyandvodka | talk 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Protocol III is 463 words long. Of that, the relevant section, Article 2, is 177 words long.

I would like to advance the controversial opinion that we do not in fact require a reliable source to tell us what the equivalent of 177 words of text say (i'm being a bit cheeky here I know, but seriously). "Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on military targets located among civilians," is pretty close to the truth, but it's wrong. Objectively wrong in the way that saying 1+1 actually equals 3 is wrong.

Article 1 of protocol III defines the terms used, Article 2-1 prohibits making a civilian object the target of an incindenary munitions strike, Article 2-2 prevents air launched incindenary munitions from being used on military targets in civilian concentrations, Article 2-3 prevents any other type of incindenary munitions from being used on milittary targets in civilian concentrations EXCEPT when that objective is clearly separated from the civilian concentration and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize civilian loss of life. Article 2-4 prohibits the use of incindenary munitions on forest/plant cover except when the enemy is using it. That's it; that is all of Protocol III. Read it if you want, it's here https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-unoda-site/pages/templates/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/PROTOCOL%2BIII.pdf.

My point ultimately is that the statement currently is wrong is an objective meaningful way. It's relevant because it implies that using white phosphorous was an automatic violation of Protocol III by Israel and that's not the case. We're saying something that's wrong in an objective, structural manner (the words themselves do not say that). I'd agree this is OR if there was any interpretation, or requirement for logical deduction/reasoning that leaves room for differing opinion, but there's literally not. It's just factually not what Protocol III says. We need to accurately represent reality to the best of our ability here. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466

Here's Human Rights Watch saying the thing you said they didn't say.

"Human Rights Watch reviewed the video and verified that it was taken in Gaza City’s port and identified that the munitions used in the strike were airburst 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles. Other videos posted to social media and verified by Human Rights Watch show the same location. Dense white smoke and a garlic smell are characteristics of white phosphorus."- quote from the HRW article

Artillery SHELLS are NOT air launched. Artillery is ground launched. Shells rely on spin stabilization, imparted from a long tube with rifling and grooves on the shell. Otherwise they would tumble end over end. Israel is not launching artillery shells from planes. That would actually be brain dead.

AIRBURST refers to the DISPERSAL mechanism. Much like a cluster munition airbursts to deliver it's bomblets, white phosphorous rounds AIRBURST before hitting the ground to DISPERSE the fragments of flaming metal over a wide area. If you want I can share some links explaining the terminology to you.

"Attacks using air-delivered incendiary weapons in civilian areas are prohibited under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). I find this is indistinguishable in meaning from the wording as it stood after my edit. For reference, that wording was: international law forbids its aerial use in populated areas under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons

The issue was it's irrelevant as it wasn't air delivered and we have a reliable source proving it. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read Protocol III more than once. Regarding 2.2, this is probably part of the controversy in how this particular international law is interpreted. Some almost certainly argue that air-burst artillery shells amount to air-delivered, with the concern of the law being about the diminished accuracy or larger spread of air-delivered attacks (ie, vs a soldier on the ground with a flamethrower or incendiary grenade directly attacking a target). Putting that aside, 2.3 is probably the bigger problem, in that it doesn't matter for 2.3 if it was air-delivered, and the nature of the attack shows a large dispersal of white phosphorus in a location that might not be "clearly separated from the concentration of civilians" or have taken all measures to the extent it outlines to protect civilians; but this is all WP:OR and speculation on our part.

I did change the line so that it doesn't state white phosphorous is explicitly a violation of Protocol 3 (in which we were agreement on needing changing). It now reads:

"White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, and Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits their use against military targets located among civilians, although Israel is not a signatory."

(note "and" and "their", and how those alter what explicit propositions are being made in Wiki voice)

We also have later in that section that whether this specific use of it may or may not be a war crime, with an attributed quote. I think in this particular case, we have to be very careful to only summarize, or give attributed statements or exact attributed quotes that stick with RS. entropyandvodka | talk 03:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers You must have missed my post 11:48, 17 October above. The article currently says:

• Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits their use against military targets located among civilians.
• The source for this is Reuters, which says:
• White phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon under Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although Israel has not signed it and is not bound by it.

So what we are saying is a very, very close paraphrase of what Reuters is saying. I think we're good. Regards, Andreas JN466 09:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza death toll

The reference for the death toll is a publication widely regarded as a propaganda arm of Hamas, using numbers directly supplied by Hamas, and especially in light of the controversy around the al-Ahli hospital explosion's death toll, the fact that the claimed numbers are from a Hamas-controlled source should not be relegated to the notes. I suggest it say "Gaza Strip (Hamas claim)" or "(Gazan claim)" just as it currently says "(Israeli claim)" at the Palestinian deaths within Israel. THMWikiAcc (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Each side provides its own casualty numbers. For Gazan casualties there's a footnote saying they're sourced to the Gaza Ministry of Health, there's no need to repeat that on each line - DFlhb (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The death toll by Hamas is seriously questionable. War casualties are notoriously unreliable, even if they're not released by Hamas. They're extremely difficult to count or estimate and belligerents on all sides have an incentive to nudge the numbers every which way, even now there are fierce debates on the casualties of decades old battles.

Why can't we redirect the "Casualties and losses" to the body of the article, similar to the Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox? Instead of just stating the number as fact. I guarantee the vast majority of readers who got here from Google just looked at the number and not the footnote. Meeepmep (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I most definitely support this. THMWikiAcc (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations

What's up with those excessive citations? Can someone take care? Beshogur (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We are close to a limit: Post‐expand include size: 1816947/2097152 bytes, so it can only increase 13% before loss occurs. Perhaps we only need one reference to confirm something instead of multiple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Now: Post‐expand include size: 1925158/2097152 bytes so only 8.3% space left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate sources have also been an issue. There's software available that can merge duplicates, but I have no experience with using it. entropyandvodka | talk 03:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Only a small increase today: 1941743/2097152 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone either removing my tags, or adding more and more sources. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Fatah involved?

I saw Fatah appeared in the infobox. Wasn't president Abbas that said a few days ago that Hamas' war doesn't represent the wish of the Palestinian people? Weren't pro-Hamas Palestinians in West Bank revolting against him? RAMSES$44932 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RAMSES$44932 I was the person who pushed for Fatah to be included.

To answer your question, elements of the military wing of Fatah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, have been actively involved in this conflict since it began, both in Gaza and all across the West Bank. It is unclear to me whether or not they are acting independently of Abbas or Fatah. Until references emerge that make this more clear, the best solution may be to list the military wing under the belligerents section instead of the political wing.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@RAMSES$44932:

I have located a reliable source cited in our article that confirms the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades operate independently of Fatah and Abbas, going so far as to call him a "legitimate target" for military action if he fails to relinquish the nominal control he apparently has over one of their departments.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-edit request, October 18

Please add Fatah and its military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades to the "belligerents" and "units involved" sections of the infobox. The Martyrs' Brigades have taken responsibility for artillery attacks on Ein HaShlosha and Sderot, per the Institute for the Study of War. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Parham i actually think you should have a serpate column for miltary groups who have bombed israel, but not being involved in fighting so you could look at something like this

Belligents

Islamic Jihad

Hamas

Involved.

Hizbolah

Fatah.

i'd do it but i'm wait for a user-extended confirmation which i hope to get. Infomanfromearth (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Infomanfromearth: You can do this. Parham wiki (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks Infomanfromearth (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Parham wiki. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

New request: Please move al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades from the units involved to the belligerents section of the infobox.

I have recently learned that Fatah is not warranted to be included as a belligerent because the brigades operate independently of the political party.

Even though the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades appear to be operating as an independent entity without a parent organization, this still warrants their inclusion in the belligerents section rather than the units involved section, as they cannot reasonably be considered a "unit" of Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, or DFLP.

Pinging @Parham wiki and @Whatever748 for discussion - thank you both for your previous edits involving the groups

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Drug

Israeli Channel 12 reported that Hamas militants were on the effect of Kaptagon drug in the October 7 attacks. Aminabzz (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No reason to include this unless it was a pattern. A similar report appears in Jerusalem Post, but cites that this was simply found in the pockets of some dead Hamas members. Meaning it could have simply been a personal choice to carry or use it. Completely trivial. VintageVernacular (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Question and edit regarding the lead

Am i allowed to edit this “block” in the first few lines lead ? I don’t know what that is or if am i allowed to edit it or not, this is the first time i see it on wikipedia.

i want to replace the part that says “some 2,500 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier and massacred civilians in neighboring Israeli communities..” With “some 2,500 Palestinian militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier and attacked several IDF military bases and neighboring civilian areas”.

as the current lead doesn’t mention anything about that, while in fact, palestinian militants even captured entire IDF military bases like reim military base. Stephan rostie (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you're extended confirmed, so you can boldly edit - just be warned someone may revert you! Riposte97 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaked documents

There's a leaked document reported by Iran Inrernational that Hamas militants knew before their October 7 attack that nearly all residents in kibbutzim are civilians (20 military personnel for every 1000 civilians). Aminabzz (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"forensic reports"

Why is a former chief rabbi being quoted in the forensic reports section? nableezy - 12:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Because he saw the bodies of some of the victims, for the purpose of helping identify them. He is quoted about what he saw. Animal lover |666| 12:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But he has no expertise in forensics? That isnt a forensic report. nableezy - 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The IDF rabbinate is responsible for identification of bodies, it is one of its main functions, and a rabbinate officer has extensive knowledge of this. [13] Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Im not questioning the identification of bodies, Im questioning his usage for things outside of that area. nableezy - 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So not a forensic expert. Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a report from a source within or directly supporting a forensic team, the forensic team can make various forensic and non-forensic reports. I see no issue. Aeonx (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But it is not a forensic report, he is saying things that a coroner or a medical doctor would be an expert on, not a rabbi. nableezy - 16:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

i agree. also "white phosphorus " section should be moved to "unconfirmed reports" as idf denied the claims and no forensic, chemical expert or medical expert team was utilised to investigate and publish the premature report. Codenamephoenix (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious expert in forensics and corpse ID. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

How? He is quoted a former chief Rabbi, thats it. nableezy - 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Chief army rabbis are in charge of forensics, it was his job. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Says who? Id imagine the person quoted as head of the forensics lab is in charge of forensics. But Id be happy to see some source outlining the chief Rabbi of the armed forces forensics responsibilities. nableezy - 19:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Rabbi Weiss is identified in the press (the link above, the cite in the article) as a leader of a team identifying bodies. He is quoted in his capacity as the leader of the team. Maybe the heading shouldn't be called "forensic reports" or maybe this content should be moved to a different section, and WP:DUE is another question, but if we're attributing statements made from that team, it doesn't matter if their spokesperson/leader is a Rabbi or the Pope or a professor or what. It doesn't matter if it's "forensics" or if he's an "expert" (under any definition of those words)... this is basically an attribution to the Israeli government, as I see it. "According to Israeli government agents identifying bodies, the bodies had these kinds of injuries..." is the gist, as I take it. And if it's widely enough reported (I'm not sure, haven't checked), then the attributed statement is probably WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah I haven’t removed it from the article, I’m not questioning if it can be used. But in a forensics report section there should forensics reports not non expert non medical reporting. nableezy - 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Announcement of Humanitarian Assistance to the Palestinian People to be added

On October 18, 2023, the President of the United States of America, Joe Biden announced that the White House would send $100 million american dollars to the Palestinian people residing in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Between 2021 and 2024, the US will send a total of $500 million american dollars as aid to civilians. This and future information regarding the aid of foreign countries to Palestine should be mentioned in the main page. Potestade (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Could be added to International aid to Palestinians article, not really relevant to this article afaics. (Fyi aid of foreign countries to Palestine links to US support only) Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You are right. In fact, I see that it has alredy been added on said page. I don't know if this entry on this Talk page can be deleted. Potestade (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

IDF and settlers bind, strip, beat, burn, urinate on 3 Palestinians in West Bank

Add this to the article:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-settlers-alleged-to-bind-strip-beat-burn-and-pee-on-palestinians-in-w-bank/ Chafique (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Threshold for Infobox Inclusion

I’m not strong on including the USA in the infobox, but an argument can be made that since the U.S. has taken military action by shooting down missiles headed for Israel. Can we establish a consensus on what inclusion is appropriate for the infobox? KD0710 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest the threshold would be direct and successful strikes - for example, if the US bombed Hezbollah militants we would add the US, and if the Houthi missiles had hit Israel we would add the Houthi's. BilledMammal (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Israel was reportedly beyond the range of these missiles, we do not even know if it was the target. As about US engagement in this area, and especially in Syria, they have been involved all the time, but this is not a part of the war Israel-Hamas war. Yet. Some experts think that any mobilization of forces (such as bringing the aircraft carriers) is already a part of a war, but this is hardly a direct engagement at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Add more details about HAMAS war crimes in the war crimes section

I do not think that this page is biased or anything, but I just think that there should be more detailing of HAMAS war crimes in the according section. More than half of the section is about Israeli war crimes, and I do not think that that should be removed, but it just seems disproportionate. It would be nice and would provide a less biased view to the reader if there was more info on the Palestinian war crimes. RealNuclearFish (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess part of the issue is that there's not much else to say about them. I'd agree that maybe we could expand on it a bit. The issue is that the TYPE of war crimes committed were fairly limited, and the depth of analysis by reliable sources on it was less than Israeli war crimes (which require more legal analysis and application of international law).

For example, chasing down civilians in pick-up trucks, shooting them in the head, and stabbing/beating them to death is obviously a war crime. I don't really know what else should be said there; maybe cite specifically what international laws are being broken? But even that would be kind of unnecessary; it's OBVIOUSLY bad to chase down civilians and kill them. The issue at this point is really that these war crimes occurred in a couple of days, whereas the Israeli ones have been happening for longer at this point. The SCALE or number of people killed in war crimes might be comparable, but there's just more to talk about when it comes to Israeli ones.

I do agree it presents a bit of a false balance, though. I don't know what the solution really would be. We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We also can't just arbitrarily pad out the section for Hamas's war crimes. Suggestions? Chuckstablers (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There isnt much more to say is the point, Hamas's violations of international law in targeting civilians and taking civilian hostages are documented, as are accusations against it for the use of rockets that cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets. But thats the end of the story there, and while rockets continue and that can be noted the coverage of the ongoing Israeli strikes and siege and the war crimes involved have become more and more widely covered and discussed. If Israel is accused of even more war crimes that section will grow. If Hamas is accused of more war crimes, then that too will be covered. nableezy - 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue at hand stems from contrasting accusations of war crimes. In one case, there are allegations of war crimes, such as the controversial 'white phosphorus' incident, where sources were misrepresented (see the earlier discussion about this where it was shown that the reliable source cited was misrepresented, resulting in a change in the section). Just now, for instance, it was claimed that Israel used 'white phosphorus on a children's hospital' based on an unreliable source, the Egyptian Times, quoting the Gaza government. However, despite this allegedly occurring on October 13th, reliable sources on white phosphorus use make no mention of this potentially severe war crime, even when published two days later. Despite this, we're stating that this happened in wiki voice?

This inconsistency is the crux of the issue. While reliable sources reporting IDF statements on decapitated babies were insufficient to make a claim in 'wiki voice' regarding Israel, in the case of Palestine, it seems acceptable to assert in 'wiki voice' that Israel bombed a children's hospital with white phosphorus. This assertion is made despite the absence of reliable sources supporting it, with the only reliable sources available (from human rights watch for example) not saying a word about this despite being published 2 days after the alleged use of white phosphorous on a childrens hospital. The unreliable source reporting on this in any case is just citing the statements of the palestinian health authority in gaza, part of the government that is a belligerent in this conflict. But when a reliable source reports the statements of the IDF, also a belligerent in this conflict, that's not enough to say in wiki voice that babies were decapitated. Which I agree with. It's this double standard that is why we have an NPOV tag, and why it's probably not going away anytime soon unless this changes. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If a source is misrepresented it should be fixed. If a source is attributing something to the Ministry of Health in Gaza then so to should we. I dont see how that is the case with the war crime section though. Everything there is from third party sources. nableezy - 22:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It specifically said, in wiki voice, that a childrens hospital was evacuated following an attack by a white phosphorous projectile. It didn't attribute it at all to who actually said it; part of the government of Gaza. We would've needed a reliable source stating it, and it's pretty obvious propaganda. Israel is striking childrens hospitals with white phosphorous now? The source cited claimed 70 people, mainly children were killed. And nobody reported on that apart from a paper owned by the government of Egypt (with spelling mistakes and clear alignment with the egyptian governments take)? That's the issue. That this kind of stuff is being added and would stay unless someone fights it is why we have an NPOV tag. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That was in a subsection that I did not notice, I fixed it. And put the CNN source that reports on it. nableezy - 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

All we have is a claim by the palestinian government in Gaza about it's use. The cartoon villian levels of evil are mirrored in the decapitated babies claim. We also had reliable sources REPORTING on what the IDF had said about that. We are not including that in the Palestinian war crimes section. My issue is that we are reporting on things that are only sourced from the government of gaza. There's a double standard there, that's the issue. If the decapitated babies thing doesn't go in palestinian war crimes, why do claims sourced solely from a belligerent in the conflict belong in the Israeli war crimes section? When there's no evidence it happened other than they said it did. Because again; that's all the CNN source says. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Especially when we have reliable sources that would've confirmed it had it happened given that they reported on it's use when nobody was alleged to have died, and didn't report on it's use when 70 people allegedly children died. Because we have three reliable sources earlier on in the section that notably don't mention it despite being published after it was initially reported. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Um the article says Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. That is based on Israeli government reports. nableezy - 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem with the Kfar Aza part. Israel kinda did a PR offensive, Bucha massacre style there. Loads of independent reporters went there, checking things out and talking to the rescue workers. So we can tell in wiki voice what these reporters reckon they saw and attributing what the rescue folks are saying since those are associated with the Israeli government, right? Going into all the gory details of how those brave folks caused these little ones to pass on might not be super necessary, I reckon." Infinity Knight (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What independent reporter said that they found babies beheaded? Because all the sources say that is from an IDF soldier telling an i24 reporter that. nableezy - 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You know, I'm not entirely sure. I'd kinda expect to hear that info from the rescue workers, but you know what, there were tons of TV crews out there, check it out. This might be a good kick-off point; you'll find some solid sources there. It's just a thought on how we might handle the Kfar Aza stuff, delving into the nitty-gritty of how those brave souls caused those little ones to meet their maker ain't all that necessary, I'd say. Infinity Knight (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Im not going to watch hours of video to look for a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist. If you find one youre welcome to bring it. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just trying to assist, but when you say "a source that Im pretty sure doesnt even exist" does that mean you want to get rid of all the Kfar Aza content? Infinity Knight (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable for a claim, new sources must be found or it must go. That is policy. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the primary reliable source for bodies condition, independent of the Israeli government, would be Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, which according to their page ZAKA prefer to call the organization and their work Chesed shel Emet (חסד של אמת‎ – lit. 'Kindness of truth'), because they are dedicated to ensuring that the bodies of Jewish victims are buried according to Halakha, Jewish law. After acts of terrorism, ZAKA volunteers also collect the bodies and body parts of non-Jews, including suicide bombers, for return to their families. The phrase Chesed shel Emet refers to doing "kindness" for the benefit of the deceased, which is considered to be "true kindness", because the (deceased) beneficiaries of the kindness cannot return the kindness. he's talking about what's happening in other villages too, and because of his position, he probably has the answer to your question. There's that i24 source, which seems pretty reliable to me, and also a Reuters source that doesn't dive into as much detail. I wouldn't be shocked if he's given more interviews to reliable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't just arbitrarily remove war crimes that Israel committed to make the lengths the same. We can, however, be more concise; there are a lot of quotes in the section that merely restate what has already been said - we can and should remove those, as they don't add anything to the article but do cause it to violate WP:BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You have, once again, merely asserted the balance of sources is not followed, and you have, once again, provided no evidence for that assertion. Repeating the same false statement does not make it more true. nableezy - 02:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And you've asserted that they are being followed. But lets try to get some evidence. I searched Google news for Israel Hamas war "war crimes" and opened the first 20 articles:

1. Wall Street Journal: The Siege of Hamas Is No War Crime
2. The Conversation: How the ‘laws of war’ apply to the conflict between Israel and Hamas
3. Time: Atrocities Seeks Extreme Reaction. Don’t Give Hamas What It Wants
4. Reuters: What war crimes laws apply to the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
5. Sydney Morning Herald: A war crime is still a war crime, even in retaliation
6. Al Jazeera: Israel-Hamas war updates: Iran tells Israel to stop before ‘it’s too late’
7. Times of Israel: Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts
8. Washington Post: Have war crimes been committed in Israel and Gaza?
9. The Guardian: Israel-Hamas war live: latest news and live updates
10. Asia Times: No winners so far in Hamas-Israel PR war
11. SBS: Which war crime laws apply to the Israel-Hamas conflict?
12. Financial Times: Rules of war: international law and the Israel-Hamas conflict
13. The Guardian: Progressive Democrats bring resolution calling for ceasefire in Israel-Hamas war
14. Atlantic Council: Hamas’s actions are war crimes. Israel should not respond with further war crimes.
15. Associated Press: Experts say Hamas and Israel are committing war crimes in their fight
16. Amnesty International: Israel: Palestinian armed groups must be held accountable for deliberate civilian killings, abductions and indiscriminate attacks
17. The Strategist: The spiral of violence that led to Hamas
18. The Nation: We Must Not Let the Truth Become a Casualty of This War
19. DW: Are war crimes being committed in Israel-Hamas conflict?
20. NDTV: Explained: What Are War Crimes And Are Israel And Hamas Committing Them?

These results are biased, as most of the war crimes against Israel were committed over a week ago and Google News preferences recent results, but they're still a reasonable estimate. Reviewing them I find that the coverage given to the actions of Hamas and the actions of Israel is roughly equal, although the wording is different - sources are consistently unequivocal that Hamas has committed war crimes, but they are not consistently so about Israel.

As such, to comply with WP:BALASP we should provide roughly equal prominence; at the moment we have 510 words for the actions of Hamas, compared to 1024 for the actions of Israel. Either we need to expand the former, or shrink the latter; I suspect the best option is to do both, by adding quotes to the former and removing quotes from the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no planet in which you counting 20 google news results makes it so your estimate of sources is accurate. For example, HRW or the WHO or any UN agency for that matter is not in your list. Google news is not the only reliable source repository. Hell your first result is an op ed. And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal. You can ignore what you want to, but I don’t need to, and I’ll make sure coverage of Israeli actions is consistent with the sources and push back on any attempt to wave over them because a user doesn’t like the amount of coverage given to them. nableezy - 05:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You asked for evidence, and I provided it; A random sampling of sources is the best way that we will be able to get an estimate of the depth of coverage we need to provide to comply with WP:BALASP, and I can't currently think of a better way to obtain that random sampling than something along the lines of "first 20 google news results from a fair search query".

And your second result, despite the dishonest sources aren’t unequivocal about Israeli violations flat out says the siege is illegal What I said is that they aren't consistently unequivocal. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy perhaps provide an analysis of your own if you wish to dispute these findings? I, for one, consider the cold blooded murder of civilians in broad daylight, happily celebrated, to be a far more important event than a unconfirmed report that someone used white phosphorous artillery (which is legal, by the way). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those are war crimes. We say so. So is the intentional starving of 2.2 million people. So are indiscriminate attacks and disproportionate attacks. The idea that Hamas is bad so we cant say Israel did anything bad either is both stupid and in violation of our policies. And the sources quoted above do not back uo BilledMammal's view, because the amount of space is not based on which crime is less disputed, its based on which is discussed in reliable sources more often. And every single one of them discusses Israeli war crimes, with some giving arguments they are not. But if you are under the impression that your personal outrage meter is what determines Wikipedia content you are wrong. nableezy - 11:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

And the sources quoted above do not back uo BilledMammal's view, because the amount of space is not based on which crime is less disputed, its based on which is discussed in reliable sources more often. That's what I said? BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

But they all devote significant amount of space to Israeli war crimes, and they continue to do so. Lets take another look at google news results for "war crimes" israel gaza

1. AJE: US weapons used in Israeli ‘war crimes’: Expert - Biden is expected to request approval for $10bn in weapons for Israel during a national address tonight, as the White House continues its “extraordinary effort” to bolster support for Israel, says Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University’s Justice and Peace programme.
2. AJE “Targeting churches and their institutions, along with the shelters they provide to protect innocent citizens, especially children and women who have lost their homes due to Israeli airstrikes on residential areas over the past 13 days, constitutes a war crime that cannot be ignored,” the patriarchate said in a statement.
3. HRW Hamas, Islamic Jihad: Holding Hostages is a War Crime
4. Op-ed in Guardian by Prof Lyla Mehta (Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex) and Dr Alan Nicol (Researcher in international water policy) Cutting off water to Gaza is a war crime
5. The Intercept - Israel has invoked that right in its assault on Gaza, which has already killed more than 4,200 Palestinians and displaced more than 1 million. But collective punishment — including measures like Israel’s blockade on fuel, food, and electricity into the occupied territory — and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians constitute war crimes under international law. A number of legal experts have argued the actions may also amount to crimes against humanity and genocide, as defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention. On Thursday, a panel of U.N. experts issued a separate statement that condemned the bombings of schools and hospitals in Gaza as crimes against humanity and warned that there is a risk the crimes might escalate to genocide.
6. AP: Hamas and Israel have both been accused of breaking international law during their latest conflict, and the United Nations says it is collecting evidence of war crimes by all sides.
7. WaPo: Well, the Hamas attack is clearly a crime against humanity, meaning a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. Taking hostages is also a war crime. It’s also possibly genocide because Hamas has the intention to destroy Israelis. ... The problem is that the response from Israel … it’s complicated. Just the blockade of Gaza — just that — could be genocide under Article 2(c) of the Genocide Convention, meaning they are creating conditions to destroy a group. ... You have to discriminate. Israel cannot pretend it’s just destroying Hamas because in the meantime it is killing masses of civilians. That is a crime for a crime. ... These are war crimes, possibly a crime against humanity. And then there’s the starvation in Gaza, also possibly a genocide.
8. CFR: Mostly focused on Hamas's war crimes, cautions Israel against pursuing some of the policies it has enacted as potential war crimes
9. Jacobin: only in headline
10. UN: condemns Hamas war crimes, condemns siege and withholding water
11. Reuters: same quote on Patriarch on leveling the church as AJE above
12. NPR: discusses both

The evidence does not show that war crimes by Hamas have received more attention in reliable sources, in fact as time has continued forward from October 7, the ongoing accusations that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes grows to be a larger and larger proportion of the coverage of war crimes. nableezy - 13:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "israel gaza" in the search; it's Hamas/PIJ/etc committing the war crimes, not Gaza.

However, even using your sources, the distribution is as follows:

• Approximately 3500 words covering both
• Approximately 4000 words covering Hamas
• Approximately 3500 words covering Israel

This does include the entirety of the problematic Jacobin article, despite it continuing to blame Israel for the hospital explosion, but does not include any words from the Intercept article, as I did not have access to it. For articles reporting about events generally, I only counted the paragraphs that were discussing war crimes, broadly construed.

This reinforces my previous statement, that the two have received approximately equal coverage in reliable source, and thus we should give them equal coverage in our article in order to comply with WP:BALASP.

Given your comments (But they all devote significant amount of space to Israeli war crimes, and they continue to do so., The evidence does not show that war crimes by Hamas have received more attention in reliable sources), I am wondering if you have misunderstood my position; I'm not saying that Hamas has received more coverage, I'm saying that it has received equal coverage, and thus to comply with BALASP we need to provide equal coverage to each in our article - something we are unfortunately not currently doing, with 703 words for Hamas and 1238 for Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The BALASP argument is not at all persuasive, the whole idea of word counts needing to be the same is nonsense. We go by the sources, editors bring non repetitive sources and it ends up where it ends up. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Word counts is how we determine, within our own coverage, how much weight we have given an aspect relative to other aspects - and from there, whether we have given the correct relative weighting in line with BALASP. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Uhuh, the weight we give is determined by the sources...duh. As I said below, I am not particularly fond of what amount to lists of war crimes, if that is going to be the way it works then Israel will come out with lots more words simply because it has committed a lot more crimes, even the argument that the initial attack was awful now pales when you look at the number of dead in Gaza. Genocide is now being openly spoken about when it was at least in part, taboo, before. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Uhuh, the weight we give is determined by the sources...duh. I agree. And assessing the sources, we see they give equal weight to each topic. It doesn't matter whether we believe Israel has committed a lot more crimes or not - it doesn't even matter if that belief is true - all that matters how much coverage reliable sources provide. BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I submit that any conceivable article on war crimes by Hamas, PIJ, or random Gazan will include the word "gaza" in the article. Making your first point about search terms completely moot. Second, that is not what BALASP means. It means opposing viewpoints need to be given the same prominence in our articles as they get in the sources. But Israel committed war crimes is not the opposing viewpoint to Hamas committed war crimes. The arguments for and against the accusations are the opposing view points. All of that is a part of WP:BALANCE, which opens with Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. You are treating different parts of similar topics as though they are opposing viewpoints, and they are not. And the proof of that is that the very same people are saying Hamas committed and is committing war crimes are also saying Israel has committed and is committing war crimes. The idea that the section covering war crimes by Hamas has to be balanced by war crimes committed by Israel, or vice versa, is completely divorced from our policy. Those two things are not competing viewpoints, they are not things that are balanced against one another. nableezy - 14:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not just that it will exclude results; because we are only sampling the results and not doing a complete review we also need to be careful how our search causes results to be prioritized. Part of how search algorithms work is term proximity; documents where the provided terms are closer together are ranked higher than documents where they are further apart.

Because Gaza is where Israel is committing the actions, we expect all three of the terms - "war crimes", "Israel", and "Gaza" - to be in close proximity when discussing Israeli actions. However, because it isn't directly involved in actions committed by Hamas, we would only expect "war crimes" and "Israel" to be in close proximity for those.

Thus, the results provided are biased; discussion of Israeli actions are prioritized relative to Hamas. Meanwhile "war crimes", "Israel", and "Hamas" are less biased, because even when discussing Israeli actions we would expect "Hamas" to be in close proximity as the nominal target of those actions.

Those two things are not competing viewpoints, they are not things that are balanced against one another.

The basis for my position isn't that they are competing viewpoints. BALASP says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

If these aspects are given weight equal to each other in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, then as part of treating these aspects with a weight proportional to its treatment we need to give these aspects equal weight in our coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

One more time, a. it is not true they are given equal weight in the sources, b. that isnt relevant as these are not competing viewpoints. BALASP is about balancing competing viewpoints. These are not competing viewpoints. There are full length papers on specific Israeli orders and how they are war crimes here. You would say "thats one source" and it is balanced by another source that has a paragraph about Hamas war crimes. Im sorry, but that is not how the math works here, and the idea that you can say we should not cover this topic as much as we do because there is not as much to say in this other related but not equivalent topic is not grounded in our policy. If you are of the belief that war crimes by Israel is a "minor aspect" then you can hold that belief, but the article doesnt have to follow it. nableezy - 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it is not true they are given equal weight in the sources On what basis do you say this? Every piece of evidence so far - even the evidence you presented - has said that they are.

There are full length papers on specific Israeli orders and how they are war crimes here. You would say "thats one source" and it is balanced by another source that has a paragraph about Hamas war crimes. That's the exact opposite of what I said; I counted the words in order to address that. For example, I included every single word from the Jacobin source.

BALASP is about balancing competing viewpoints That isn't accurate; BALASP is about balancing aspects. At no point does it even mention viewpoints, let alone competing viewpoints. Consider the example of an entrepreneur who has been arrested; BALASP tells us how much coverage to give their arrest compared to their business ventures, even though they aren't competing viewpoints.

If you are of the belief that war crimes by Israel is a "minor aspect" then you can hold that belief As I've said repeatedly, I am of the belief that it is an aspect equal in weight to the aspect of the war crimes by Hamas. I'm not sure where you are getting the impression that I consider it a minor aspect - unless you consider the war crimes by Hamas to be a minor aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Those aspects are not opposing, and as such they are not balancing one another. Where I got the impression on "minor aspect" is that you quoted An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. None of these are minor aspects. As far as how is it not true? We have 2000+ word count articles devoted to specific Israeli orders. Now lets look at a reliable expert source, Amnesty International. There articles on Israel and the Occupied Territories can be found here. Of the results since October 7, we have as follows (excluding a couple calling on European countries to safeguard the right to protest):

1. Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
2. Israel/OPT: Appalling Gaza “evacuation order” must be rescinded by Israel immediately focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
3. Israel/OPT: Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza as power plant runs out of fuel focused nearly entirely on Israeli war crimes
4. Israel: Palestinian armed groups must be held accountable for deliberate civilian killings, abductions and indiscriminate attacks focused nearly entirely on Palestinian group war crimes, slightly more background given of Israeli war crimes than in the above gives to Palestinian ones
5. Israel/OPT: Civilians on both sides paying the price of unprecedented escalation in hostilities between Israel and Gaza as death toll mounts Discusses both

So how is it that sources are giving equal attention? Even if that mattered. nableezy - 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

BALASP doesn't qualify what it applies to, such as by saying ...treat each opposing aspect with a weight proportional...; it just says ...treat each aspect with a weight proportional.... Consider the entrepreneur example; if reliable sources gave equal weight to their arrest and their business ventures, but we gave twice as much weight to their arrest, then we would be in violation of BALASP despite the aspects not being opposing.

Further, I would argue that makes sense; our article would be biased against the entrepreneur if we gave disproportionate weight to their arrest, just as our article is biased against Israel because it gives disproportionate weight to Israel's actions.

So how is it that sources are giving equal attention? Because a single source is not representative, particularly when the single source is selected rather than randomly chosen. Even a group of selected sources would be problematic - we need a fair way to select a representative group of sources, and that fair way is not for you or for I to manually select the sample. BilledMammal (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not manually selecting anything, we can do that with any expert source on international humanitarian law you like. News articles are considerably worse sources than views by established experts. nableezy - 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources like Amnesty are sources we can and should use, but there is no basis in policy to consider them considerably better than sources like the BBC, Reuters, or the New York Times - indeed, my reading of their RSP ratings suggest we prefer those three to Amnesty.

We can and should consider academic sources more reliable, but they aren't going to start coming out in any significant numbers for months at best. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International is an advocacy group that has a particular mandate and often does good work but certainly has certain biases (towards the issues it advocates) and is hardly a particularly "established expert." Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes they are biased against war crimes. See the RSN discussion for how highly regarded the community thinks of them. Of course there is a basis to consider experts in a field more reliable than news reports. Amnesty's reports are frequently cited in scholarly literature, scholarship treats them as experts in the field as well. nableezy - 17:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that this initially started out straightforwardly and then both sides have taken to competitive editing so as to make the other side look bad and their side look less bad. The high point is that both sides are likely guilty of war crimes, there is no dispute about that and that is what is in the lead.

Now the body, we can go for more detail and then it is just a question of reporting what sources say, quotes ought not be necessary (usually). I dislike this split between the sides, instead of making what amounts to lists of war crimes, better would be prose combining both in a sensible way, articles like the WSJ/ToI/time above are unlikely to be helpful in that whereas the FT, Amnesty, AP, WAPO articles covering both, probably would be (judging by the headlines). Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No, both arent "likely" guilty. One side has been accused of war crimes (Israel).

The other side has not only absolutely committed war crimes, but proudly declared it themselves. (Hamas)

Our response cannot be a simple "both bad", it draws a false equivalence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Selfstudier. We are not here to make judgement calls. Let's just document from reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesnt disagree with what I said. If you are contesting my reading of the sources as for the extent of guilt, please explain in more detail. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just go with the sources else it is just a personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with us making any assessments of our own. And I do not know that there is a false equivalence in treating both sides in the same manner. I certainly do not believe in doing a simplistic Google search. I'm not even certain at what time period we begin. "ABABABABABAB". Does A follow B or vide-versa. Both sides always say the other side started going back one incident. Like two quarreling siblings. Nor do I know the sides. Is Israel fighting Hamas, Palestinians, or Gaza? Sure looks like they are fighting all Palestinians to me. But, that's just a personal observation. Until we have documentation of the long view in RS, let us be careful about drawing any conclusions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We make assessments of our own based on the sources, it is absolutely necessary. See WP:SUMMARY. And treating both sides similar is a fine argument, but it does not follow that their crimes, which are represented differently in RS, should also be treated similarly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"A war crime is a war crime" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I did not read this discussion (tl;dr, sorry), but I agree with the initial suggestion by RealNuclearFish. The extremely bloated Israel section seems to be highly problematic to me. Consider "Forced evacuation" as an example. So, it would be better for these civilians to stay and die? Removing civilians from war zones is a good thing. That was done during all wars, e.g. by Ukrainian authorities during the Russo-Ukrainuan war. This is not a war crime. Starting war in Gaza might be, but it was not Israel who started this war. But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not enough bloat yet, "Amnesty International said it had documented five “unlawful Israeli attacks” using testimony from survivors and eyewitnesses, analysis of satellite imagery and verified photos and videos. Agnès Callamard, the group’s secretary general, said the research "points to damning evidence of war crimes in Israel’s bombing campaign that must be urgently investigated." per NYT (and the report is at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/). Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you can get past the paywall, there is a lengthy discussion of the laws of war related to forced displacement in Gaza at: [14] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are providing personal opinion, not reliably sourced material. You are objecting that actually knowledgeable sources disagree with your unsourced assertions. Reliable sources on the topic of international law say the order to evacuate amounts to forced removal and is a war crime. You say it is not. Guess which view should be in the article? The International Committee of the Red Cross or User:My very best wishes? nableezy - 19:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Background vs. Historical Context (and deleting Historical Context)

All the pertinent information in Historical Context is covered in Background, only better and more concisely. Historical Context is five enormous paragraphs and they're not well written: For History we should have published and peer reviewed sources so that we can write clear and concise information in wiki voice. Historical Context is five huge paragraphs of quotes and according tos. If there's anything worth salvaging from it, let's add it to Background then delete the Historical Context section. As is the article is way too long, it seems like this is a low hanging fruit for clearing it up. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This article is gigantic and this is a plan to start reducing the size. KD0710 (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It was initially inserted incongruously in the Analysis section so I moved it nearer to the Background so that others could see what could be salvaged if it came to this. Borgenland (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland was there a talk page discussion about recreating it and inserting it in the humanitarian situation section? I couldn't find anything but noticed someone did this. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a misleading title though. As User:Alcibiades979 mentioned it sounds like a more concise version of the background and an unnecessary duplication. The last thing we need is someone to make a historical context of every section in this article from casualties to war crimes citing its insertion into the humanitarian context. Borgenland (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Right? Like what does a section talking about "a 2020 U.S. State Department report said Iran funnels roughly $100 million a year to Hamas" have to do with the humanitarian situation in Gaza during this war? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was done here [15] by Timeshifter with the edit summary of "per talk." Where was the talk discussion to move it into the humanitarian section? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It is truly ridiculous that the inline comment mentioned by the restorer is defeated by the content inserted in this "humanitarian"-only section. I'd have more respect for this edit if it were moved into the casualties or the war crimes section. Borgenland (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Should I ring them in here? Borgenland (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. I don't agree with this edit. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Timeshifter please address these concerns stated above. Borgenland (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

. See #All info on living conditions in Gaza before the war has been removed

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Image

Hi, @CarmenEsparzaAmoux:. Why did you revert this? KlayCax (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds of individual rights experts, and all the major international human rights bodies (Amnesty, HRW, UN, B'tselem), and even heads of state are describing Israel's actions as "war crimes." It neither makes sense nor is it appropriate to lead the section with a giant image of a single UN rapporteur. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add Chicago Stabbing Incident in "Outside the conflict zone"

The unfortunate incident of Stabbing of an Palestinaian-American boy which has ikipedia Article as Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume should be included in 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Outside_the_conflict_zone section as there are mentions of 2023 Alexandria shooting and Arras school stabbing already. Thanks. SwapanZameen (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s already there. Borgenland (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can somebdoy also add the shooting that killed 2 people in brussels? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that links the 2023 Brussels shooting to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Pmokeefe (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, is it coincidental that an Islamic terror attack was committed on the "day of rage" announced by Hamas? Anyway, I found this BBC source that claims that they cannot exclude the possibility that the attack was related to the war. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67131128 . We can add that it is suspected to be related at the very least. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

war plan

Outline of the war plan to change the situation in Gaza. Commentary by Ron Ben Yishai.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skvr6rcbt שמי (2023) (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli officials just clarified their plans: [16],[17]. However vague, there are certain key points. For example,

1. We are in the first phase, in which a military campaign is taking place with [airstrikes] and later with a [ground] maneuver with the purpose of destroying operatives and damaging infrastructure in order to defeat and destroy Hamas,” A ground maneuver [in Gaza]. Meaning the ground operation.
2. He says the objectives include eliminating the Hamas terror group by destroying its military and governmental capabilities, and completely removing any responsibility Israel has over Gaza by creating a new “security regime” in the Strip. "completely removing any responsibility Israel has over Gaza", that's the key. here is my understanding: perhaps this will be a no man's land after the operation, but this will not be a responsibility of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

   Rather vague. It looks like Israel plans to create a no man's land 1-3 kilometers wide along the Israeli-Gaza border, within Gaza, where the IDF can enter but not Palestinians. Presumably whatever is there will be leveled. Which is to say effectively annexing more land. It also appears that Israel will install a new government to rule Gaza. But, that's my reading and could very well be incorrect. Anyhow, I don't see adding this until it is better understood. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

   I already made a section, Israeli war aims. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

   That should be placed in the "Reactions" section. Should it not? NesserWiki (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely not "Reactions", I moved it to another section. The reality will probably be very much different from their plans. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"Date" outside the conflict zone?

Is there a reason the subsections in "Outside the conflict zone" also have "outside the conflict zone" in their subheaders? It seems a bit redundant. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one should remove "outside the conflict zone" from all these subheadings. But I am not sure that creating whole big section "Outside the conflict zone" was reasonable. There is no such thing as a narrowly localized conflict zone right now. The content of section "Outside the conflict zone" proves that the war is already much wider than just Gaza Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed this. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)