Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Background on prisoners

I added a section on Palestinian prisoners, that includes the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, Hamas statement that they abducted Israelis so they could exchange them, and Hamas' previous abduction of Gilad Shalit and the subsequent prisoner exchange. Most of the sources I used mention these facts in their own reporting of this conflict. Is there any issues with covering this in the background? VR _talk 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Noticing this claim by Hamas on the page is fine, but it does not mean we should include such large sub-section in "Background". As written, this sounds like a justification of the hostage-taking by Hamas. When the actual process of prisoner exchange will begin, we can include such info in the section about prisoners exchange. In brief, this is hardly relevant in that section and therefore reads as anti-Israel propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

THEY Justified. Its the point (or one off) for crossing the strip to do so. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I think that by making such large irrelevant subsection in this place, we make the point that the vengeance/hostage taking by Hamas was just. To be clear, this info is well-sourced. It just should not be in that section right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not for us to OR. That is what the actors in the situation literally said and sourced by him above. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I just said above, this is not OR. This is merely an irrelevant information, clearly placed to paint Israel in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: we can't exclude information from a page simply because it "paint Israel in a negative light" as wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We similarly wouldn't exclude any information that painted the Palestinians in a bad light. We state the facts.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is information on Palestinian prisoners in Israel relevant? Yes, as various RS have covered Palestinian prisoners in the context of this conflict:

• Al Jazeera: "Four in 10 Palestinian men spend time in Israel jails. Hamas says it wants to exchange captured Israelis for them."
• CBC News: "[Islamic Jihad] said hostages would not be released until all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are freed, referring to Israel's detention of over 1,200 prisoners, mostly Palestinians, without charges."
• The Economist: "Before October 7th Hamas held just two Israeli captives, plus the bodies of two soldiers killed during the 2014 war. Now it has scores of them, both alive and dead. Addameer, a Palestinian ngo, estimates 5,200 Palestinian prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, including more than 1,200 in so-called “administrative detention”—held without charge."
• Washington Post: "Hamas already has said it seeks the release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails — some 4,500 detainees, according to Israeli rights group B’Tselem — in exchange for the Israeli captives. The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has. Israel sees them as terrorists, but Palestinians view detainees as heroes."
• BBC News: "Such incursions would give ample opportunity to capture Israeli officers and soldiers...According to the latest report by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, there were 4,499 Palestinians in prison on what Israel defined as “security” grounds in June. That number included 183 from the Gaza Strip. Several hundred more are being held for illegally being inside Israel."
• Reuters: "The Palestinian Prisoners Association puts the number held in Israeli jails at about 5,250. If Israel agreed to releasing all of them, it would be a huge win for Hamas and other militant groups..."
• Al-Ahram: (published on 9 october) "Since 1967, Israel has detained approximately one million Palestinians in the occupied territories, including tens of thousands of children. Currently, there are 5,000 Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli prisons. Among them, 160 children and around 1,100 detainees are held without charge or trial, according to a UN report."
• NY Times "Thousands of Palestinians are being held in Israeli prisons, many of them convicted of security offenses or involvement in terrorism. Muhammad Deif, the leader of Hamas’s military wing, cited the detention of thousands of Palestinian militants in Israeli jails as one of the reasons for Saturday’s assault."
• Middle East Eye: "In Palestine, the fate of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel is also an important issue, increasingly so under the most far-right government in Israel's history. Over the past year, Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has sought to clamp down on the rights of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. From limiting family visits to moving dozens of Palestinians to Nafha prison, widely considered to be one of the most notorious in the country, Ben Gvir has adopted a policy of making the lives of Palestinian prisoners incrementally more difficult. There are around 5,200 political prisoners in Israeli jails, including more than 1,264 administrative detainees, according to Palestinian rights group Addameer. Under Israel's discriminatory system, Palestinians tried in military courts have a conviction rate of 99.7 percent, while Israelis are very rarely convicted over attacks on Palestinians. About a quarter of Palestinian prisoners are held without charge or trial in a controversial practice known as "administrative detention"."
• ABC News: "[ Mustafa Barghouti said 'Hamas is ready to release all the civilians, all the women in exchange for releasing 40 Palestinian women who are in Israeli prisons. I think it will be time to release the 5,300 Palestinians who are in Israeli prisons, including some who have been there for 44 years' "

So I think its fair to say that the issue of Palestinian prisoners is relevant to this topic.VR _talk 12:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I've also added the Israeli POV to that section. I had previously not done that, that was my mistake. I've added that many of the prisoners were convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and that while Palestinians view some of the prisoners as heroes, Israelis view them as terrorists.VR _talk 15:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure, this info is sourced, exactly as I said above. This is not an issue. And yes, painting Israel in a highly negative light (it seems we both agree about it) is not a reason for removal. The reason for removal is different: such info (whole big subsection) is hardly relevant for the Background. This page is about Israel-Hamas conflict and Gaza. The included text is about some generic Palestinian prisoners, not Hamas members (that would be more relevant). In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion. Such info can be provided in a relevant section about prisoners exchange (if there will be one), not as a part of the general Background about this conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly? The Hamas leaders explain why they believe it was just for them to take Israeli hostages. I do not think we should create a subsection that makes such point. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It says:"Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners". Yes, they stated it, but this does not belong to Background as something what had happen after the beginning of the events. Same with content of many other sources cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"In addition, this page is not about prisoners, this is just one of many aspects of the invasion." Shouldn't all major aspects of the invasion be discussed?

"The sources above do make the connection, but what is it exactly?" The connection is that Hamas took prisoners as bargaining chips in a possible prisoner exchange. Whether that prisoner exchange happens or not is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that 100+ Israelis have already been abducted for a particular goal.

Except for that last sentence (which we can drop if you like), all the other sentences are about events that happened before the invasion, hence appropriate for "background".

But the most important thing is that dozens of RS treat this information as relevant background to the war. So I don't understand why you're going against them?VR _talk 00:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I saw you moved the content to "Palestinian reaction" section. This really isn't the right place at all, as of the above 10 RS I quoted, only 1 is based on Palestinian sources. And none of this is a "reaction" given that its covering events preceding the war.VR _talk 02:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Going through the sources listed here, adding some lines about the prisoners, as the bargaining chips would be a development. I prefer the text to be the source voice, not solely what Hamas states. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I just tried to follow the edits. @MVBW: the added portion is certainly not a reaction, as your edit implies. They are portrayed as a background by the utilized sources. Is there any substantiated objection against inclusion of this introductory text? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The text includes the following: Hamas stated that it had abducted Israelis to secure the freedom of Palestinian prisoners. This is an important part of it because it connects the entire text to the subject of the page. But this is not Background. This is a claim/reaction by Hamas made after the attack [1]. Therefore, I object including this to Background section. Some other sections - I am not sure. Yes, if it fits context. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But I already accepted that Hamas' reaction should be in the Reactions section, but the rest of the text should be in the Background section. Consider that Washington Post [points out that "The fate of prisoners for Palestinians is perhaps just as emotional as it is for Israelis. With an estimated 750,000 Palestinians having passed through Israel prisons since Israel captured the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, most Palestinians have either spent time in Israeli jail or know someone who has." This is referring to a long-term trend in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not just a reaction to the current events.

Secondly, roots of a conflict are always put in the background. Consider Six-Day War#Background or 2014 Gaza War#Background (which mentions the prisoner issue, albeit to a much lesser extent since no Israelis were captured by Hamas during that war).VR _talk 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the article in WaPo and this page. The article in WaPo is written on a different subject: the hostages. If this WP page was about hostages, then yes, such background info would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Hamas' view to the "War crimes" section

Would it be ok to add the following "War crimes" section:

Hamas claimed it did not deliberately target civilians, and things "went out of control"[2]. Israeli sources said that survivor testimonies belie this claim.[3]

VR _talk 17:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent See MOS:CLAIM Parham wiki (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the MOS:CLAIM comment, otherwise fine. Note also

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-deputy-chief-lies-we-dont-target-civilians-we-only-attacked-idf/ – might be a better reference than the live blog. Andreas JN466 18:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

VR, what is your reason for wanting to add that? Is this widely reported? SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

My reason is WP:NPOV that we should report all significant views. This is just hot off the press, so news sources are only beginning to pick up on this.VR _talk 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hot off the press is not the right time to publish such content. When there are multiple high quality sources covering such a statement, we should then consider whether it has due significance for the article text. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a new talking point, and most reliable sources have been covering it as "Hamas refuses to admit it planned to kill civilians, or to show remorse"Economist, 10/10 – SJ + 21:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The views of the involved parties obviously merit mention, and this is indeed widely covered. nableezy - 22:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 (5)

Humanitarian efforts

In October 2023, the ICRC responded to the violent 2023 Israel-Hamas war that has killed thousands of civilians on both sides. The ICRC working closely with its alinged organisation has called the recent escalation of violence “abhorrent” and implored both sides to reduce the suffering of civilians. The ICRC is in constant contact with Hamas and Isreali officials to avoid further carnage. Fabrizio Carboni, regional director of the ICRC and ICRF for the Near and Middle East points at the impact of the war on residents of Gaza, who are now cut off from all food shipments, electricity and medical supplies, which particularly affects the functioning of local hospitals there. But he stresses that the taking of hostages is also prohibited under international humanitarian law. The ICRC as a neutral intermediary stands ready to conduct humanitarian visits and to facilitate communications between family members and hostages with the goal for their eventual release. At the same time, inhabitants of Gaza have to endure a lack of drinking water that was already problematic before the onset of the hostilities. The ICRC working closely with Red Crescent partners has a neutral, independent and exclusively humanitarian mandate during such escalations of violence in the Middle East and urges all parties to protect the lives of civilians, to reduce their suffering and protect their dignity. 2A02:AA14:C482:A980:3DA6:26E0:283D:B18F (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What is your request? Yue🌙 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The "Analysis" section should be integrated in "Background"

The analysis section should be integrated to background. The Israeli intelligence failure, the context of the occupation, the Saudi-Israeli negotiations, Netanyahu's preoccupation with the judicial reform protests, are all suitable for the background.VR _talk 20:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources cited and the content of that section discuss those topics after the beginning of this war. The only topic that really gives background information to the start of the war is the context of the Israeli occupation. Yue🌙 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between political commentary and what is happening so I disagree with this as it tends to push political narratives Bobisland (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes

Who replaced "Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have characterized both Hamas' and Israel's conduct as war crimes" to this ambiguous sentence "There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes."? There many sources to support the first version. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sentence in the intro? entropyandvodka | talk 05:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd propose changing it to: "There were widespread deaths of civilians, and allegations against both Hamas and Israel of war crimes." There are now more sources than Human Rights Watch and the UN making those characterizations, which is well sourced in the section. entropyandvodka | talk 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead at made the change. I forgot to add a change description to the change, but it was for the reasons in this talk. entropyandvodka | talk 17:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please self-revert and wait for consensus on your proposed text. 8 minutes is not really enough time to get editors' reactions, pro and con, or to workshop your proposal to its best consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

your article is mentioning very clearly that what hamas did was a war crime, but when it came to Israel which is still bombing Gaza and killing innocent civilians and children there as “complicated legal matter”. Can you be a little less biased that your page doesn’t look like a propaganda news article published in Israeli newspaper? 2001:999:580:32C7:4868:BA6B:2D07:4BA9 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"There were widespread deaths of civilians and allegations of war crimes against both Hamas and Israel" would be better. Seffardim (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the current wording in the lead is clear and sufficient. Riposte97 (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International has also joined in.

References

is

Article Title Suggested Change to Israel-Palestinian Armed Resistance War

It’s clear that Hamas is not the only active militant group in this conflict, from both other groups’ outlets and general reporting on the conflict it looks like an umbrella coalition of Palestinian Armed Resistance Groups has formed and are co-organizing. 2601:644:8584:2800:4182:6770:BC4D:D34B (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's awkward and clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Hamas is the governing body of the Strip and evidence indicates they took a leading role in the organization of this, so the title as it stands is fair. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't do that. It would require that a preponderance of reliable sources use the term. WP:RS O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

These random (Redacted)-adjacent IPs are starting to become a problem. There is no credible source that calls it that. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please strike terrorist. This is a massive WP:PA violation. Besides, civility works better here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Please refer to the last two move requests at the top of this talk page. We have discussed the name of this article at legnth and the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS policies. Search for "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." – Fuzheado | Talk 07:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Armed Resistance Part would launch a fury of angry comments here especially once other users would start bringing out the music fest and other massacres. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change the subtitle "war crimes"

While violence against civilians and other acts that violate the laws of war by both sides is widely reported on international media, these have not been verified by an international court. As far as the author of this proposal can see, there has not been an admission of guilt by either side.

Another problem is that the term "war crime" refers to individual acts that violate the laws of war and is different than "crimes against humanity", which refers to a systematic attack against the civilian population. It is semantically wrong that a section titled "war crimes" should discuss "crimes against humanity".

So, we should change to subtitle to one of the following:

• Civilian atrocities
• Atrocities against civilians
• Violence against civilians

Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point; sides have accused Hamas in particular of committing not just war crimes but also crimes against humanity. I think "Atrocities against civilians" would be reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes can be committed against combatants, too. Relevantly, the use of white phosphorous does not necessarily seem to have targeted civilians, but is a war crime regardless. Riposte97 (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The use of white phosphorus is not a war crime unless it is used on people, which it is not. Even the source cited in the article states that.

I think it should be removed from the page.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/jus-bello-white-phosphorus-getting-law-correct#:~:text=White%20phosphorus%20munitions%20are%20per,civilians%20or%20launch%20attacks%20indiscriminately. TheRoyalMe (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Our article states that International law forbids the use of white phosphorus munitions in populated areas. This is cited to TIME Magazine, which says: international law forbids its use in populated areas.

The law, for reference, can be viewed at [4] and [5]. 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.

Andreas JN466 13:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity can occur within or without a war, they can also be war crimes, so no they are not different or distinct, they can overlap and during an armed conflict would overlap. Beyond that, accusations against Israel for committing crimes against humanity are also available, for example the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council said

“Besides this appalling language that dehumanises the Palestinian people, especially those who have been unlawfully “imprisoned” in Gaza for 16 years, we condemn the withholding of essential supplies such as food, water, electricity and medicines. Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity"

The rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons said of the "evacuation order"

Forcible population transfers constitute a crime against humanity, and collective punishment is prohibited under international humanitarian law

nableezy - 14:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Palestinians using civilians (both domestic civilians and hostages) as human shields be mentioned under "war crimes by palestinian militant groups"?

"Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian areas to use civilians as human shields, in violation of international law."[6]

The Israeli military has “this challenge where you have one of the most densely populated places on Earth where you have a combatant hiding behind and firing from those positions, using the civilians as human shields,”[7]

In previous conflicts with Israel, Hamas used civilians as human shields, operating from schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. Despite Hamas’ warnings and calls by international diplomats for Israel to rescind the order, Gazans fled en masse to southern Gaza throughout the day.

“John Kirby, the U.S. National Security Council spokesman, was correct today when he said that Hamas’ urging of Palestinians in Gaza to remain at home means Hamas is using these civilians as human shields. The use of human shields is a war crime. Hamas is engaging in this war crime in order to facilitate falsely accusing the Israel Defense Forces of engaging in war crimes, such as the deliberate killing of civilians.” — Orde Kittrie, FDD Senior Fellow

“Despite suffering the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Israel is doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it’s the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist organization committing more war crimes by using civilians as human shields — and the government of Egypt that won’t open a civilian corridor. Every death in Gaza is more blood on Hamas and Iran’s hands, not Israel’s.” — Richard Goldberg, FDD Senior Advisor

[8]

Tdmurlock (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is proven that hamas used civilian shields in this war, by actual sources and not the IDF or US politicians. “Israel is doing everything to do to minimise civilian casualties” is definitely one of the understatements of all time. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick search for recent sources finds the following, among many more:

1. The Independent
2. ABC News (David Crane, expert opinion)
3. JNS
4. Washington Post
5. ABC News
6. The Conversation

BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tdmurlock Yes, but under the condition of attribution in the text. Parham wiki (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hamas deliberately embeds itself in civilian areas to use civilians as human shields.... Are there any areas in Gaza that aren't civilian areas? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess there aren't because of Hamas strategy of using them as human shields. Hamas is asking Gazans to stay put at their homes although there's a humanitarian call from IDF for them to leave their homes in order to not get hurt. Gabi.guetta (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  The point @Tdmurlock makes is that Hamas intentionally conducts military operations (e.g. missile strikes) from densely populated areas within urban centers. The Gaza Strip itself is not uniformly populated by civilians; in fact the areas outside of Deir al-Balah, Gaza City, Khan Yunis, and Rafah have low population densities. Military bodies conduct operations far away from civilians when possible, rather than within markets, mosques, and schools as Hamas has been doing for years. Noleb (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In that case any arrest of Palestinians within the West Bank should also be labelled as a war crime, all to be fair and unbiased 2607:FEA8:AA0:4000:107B:ED9B:FB2B:41C6 (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Human sheild

Hamas routinely uses civilians as human shields as part of its fighting method. This is reflected, for example, in digging tunnels under civilian places and firing rockets from civilian places (which reach civilian targets such as the Bedouin diaspora: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/mayor-of-southern-bedouin-town-says-at-least-4-killed-by-rocket-fire/) or near to this places. In this case, also regarding the kidnapped people (according to the Telegraph). Thus according to what is written in isw: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-october-13-2023 This testimony: https://news.walla.co.il/item/3615626 The article is from December 2022 https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-releases-photos-showing-terror-groups-put-rocket-launchers-next-to-gaza-schools/amp/ This article https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1696753484-hamas-plans-to-use-israeli-civilian-hostages-as-human-shields This article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/08/hamas-scatters-hostages-gaza-deter-israel-invading/ A law passed in the United States regarding: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5427087,00.html A tunnel from 2017 under a school in Gaza: https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/unrwa-discovers-hamas-tunnel-under-gaza-schools-496394 Another tunnel https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/hamas-prevents-un-team-from-working-near-terror-tunnel-by-school-report-676400 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A898:B2DC:56E4:2D45 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Human shield thing is already a part of article and I think this whole myth should be totally removed. Hamas and other militia groups are from the Gaza strips and they have no where else to hide. This is straight out of Israeli propaganda news.

Also, Israel has been known to drop bombs deliberately on schools and hospitals even if there really wasn’t any hamas hide out there revealed later.

I am assuming that you know this isn’t the first time Israel is doing what it’s doing. More highlights to the preceding everyday genocidal events of israel and its war crimes and genocide of Palestinians need to be highlighted more in the background section. 2001:14BB:AB:3B33:F980:F6C2:8B34:99DD (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

In the third paragraph the sentence "Palestinians wish to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation" should be rewritten as: "Hamas wishes to end the blockade of Gaza and the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories" because Hamas is not the same as Palestinians and it is misleading and non-neutral to write "Israeli occupation" without specifying which territory is being occupied. Seffardim (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Graphs Keep Being Added

There are two graphs, independent images, which aren't directly related to the article, which appear to be showing that the death tolls of both "sides" over the past decades of conflict, but the Y-axis are labeled differently, so it's completely misleading. Somebody keeps adding them, I don't know who because of how fast the edits are moving, but I'd like to get consensus to remove them without being in an edit war. If you want this data on the page so badly, make a single chart with a consistent Y axis. Miserlou (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You are breaking 1R, so you are already edit warring. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, so I'm prevented from contributing, the misleading images are back once again, and there's no discussion. The article is worse, but at least the rules were blindly enforced, so that's good, I guess.

I figured out that it's the User:Timeshifter who keeps adding the charts back with the comment "this is has already been discussed, check the talk archive", but I actually went back and read the discussions and they all said the same thing - these charts are bad and misleading! You, the person who keeps adding them back, are the only person who has expressed any notion that they're good, and multiple other people have been bothered by charts enough that they started talk topics about how bad they are! They're obviously misleading and there is an obvious fix, remove them until you make one that has a common y-axis. It's not like they're even relevant to the "analysis" section anyway. I don't see why you're policing this page to keep these misleading charts on.

Miserlou (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems as though someone has merged these into one graph on a common axis, resolving the issue. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (3)

in 14 october the idf announce that they killed Ali Qadi a senior hamas commander who according to the idf led hamas massacres on 7 october source1 ,source 2 and source 3 أحمد توفيق (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes wording in lead

Someone changed:

many allegations of war crimes

to:

many allegations against both Hamas and Israel of war crimes

The wording implies that the other Palestinian groups haven't been accused of war crimes. Can someone revert this back for the time being? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I made that edit per another talk, but it looks like there's three different talks going on about it now, two of which are about an outdated version of the line. Is there a less vague way we can phrase it that captures, in a succinct and neutral way, that allegations have been made against multiple groups on opposing sides of the conflict? I don't think the "many allegations of war crimes" version was reached by consensus, but could be wrong. entropyandvodka | talk 22:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason for the edit was to keep it more in line with how it was, but update it from the original phrasing that named only two parties making the allegations. Several more allegations were issued since then. The very short version seemed to omit information that summarized the content of the article. entropyandvodka | talk 22:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "many allegations of war crimes" version was reached by consensus, but could be wrong. That's correct. There's no consensus for this.

However, I think there's a general consensus among editors — including me — that war crimes should be mentioned in the lead in some way. There's just a remarkable lack of consensus on what the specific wording would be.

To me, the problem is the connotation, rather than the denotation. It isn't that the phrase is wrong in of itself. It's that implies to readers that there's a relative consensus that Hamas and Israel have committed a relatively similar amount of war crimes. The sentence (as you mentioned) also leaves out groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other fighters that have been similarly accused of war crimes.

I don't think there's a perfect solution to this. But there have been allegations of widespread human rights allegations committed by participants in the war would be phrasing I would be okay with.

Does the above wording work with you, @Entropyandvodka:? KlayCax (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I replied to a comment you made after this one in the RfC thread. It may be the case that this will require two sentences. Broadly speaking, I think the line or lines should establish which specific groups are being accused of war crimes, and who is accusing them. Personally I would want a little more detail, like what the major accusations are, but that would probably be too descriptive for the lead.

The concern with not naming the accused parties is that a reader who has only heard one or another thing comes along, only reads the lead, and misses important information that we can succinctly summarize; "there have been allegations of widespread human rights allegations committed by participants in the war" would be logically true if only one party was accused, if all parties were accused, if the accusations were few or many, if they were made by major organizations or smaller watchdog groups. I would want to hone it in to be more informative. entropyandvodka | talk 10:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been allegations of widespread human rights allegations committed by all major participants in the war work? KlayCax (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"All major participants" is better than not saying who the allegations are against at all, but I think it's still less informative than simply naming the major participants. I think you meant it to say "human rights violations" or "human rights abuses" (not allegations of widespread human rights allegations)? Human rights abuses or violations is also vague. Human trafficking is a human rights violation, for example. War crimes is more specific, and true of the allegations against the major participants. entropyandvodka | talk 17:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Better to keep this all in the RFC that has been opened for this, where the consensus is currently quite clear. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Would suggest closing this and redirecting other conversations on this same subject to the RfC. entropyandvodka | talk 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023 (4)

on 14 october egypt refuses foreigners passage from Gaza except as part of relief aid agreement.ahram أحمد توفيق (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Lebanon casualties

@EkoGraf: I had changed Hezbollah casualties from 4-6 to 5. They reported 4 fighters killed on 11th and another one yesterday, per the sources I found. Ecrusized (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: I also saw that initial Hezbollah report of 4 dead. However, they subsequently back-tracked on the figure to 3 dead. I provided the source/reference in the infobox beside the figure. See here [9], quote - "Hezbollah said in consecutive statements that three of its members had been killed in Israel's "aggression" on southern Lebanon on Monday afternoon. Two Lebanese security sources told Reuters two more Hezbollah members were killed." To confirm this, I checked Hezbollah's individual posts, since they name each of their fighters when they die. For that day, they named only three [10][11][12]. There was no fourth. See here the source for the back-track [13]. According to it, Hezbollah actually claimed up to five died, but went back to three later. Quote - "Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says only three of its members were killed along the border with Israel during an exchange of fire Monday. Earlier Monday, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group had said that five members were killed during Israeli shelling in southern Lebanon." In any case, by giving a range of 3-5 for that day, we still leave the possibility of the four or five even dying (not just three). EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case, per the Reuters source and per the Waka source we have a range of 3-5 dead. Hope this clears things up. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I see, good work. Ecrusized (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

War crime accusations removed from lead section

User:My very best wishes, you removed the following sentence from the lead section:

There were widespread deaths of civilians, with UN independent experts and human rights groups accusing both Hamas and Israel of committing war crimes during the conflict, ...

This is against current consensus at the above RfC.

Your edit summary said: (A distortion. Linked reference says: "Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide". Hamas. Welcome to rewrite and re-include.)

Note that the actual source this was cited to, a United Nations press release, was deleted in this edit by User:VintageVernacular.

Can we please restore this? The UN independent experts' and human rights organisations' views are important enough to be included in the lead section. Regards, Andreas JN466 13:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this again, that was my bad. VintageVernacular (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, Idk if it was a mistake but I also don't mind letting the RFC play out either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a full section on war crimes, it must be summarized in the lead, and one users demand that it not be is not going to trump that. I am returning it to the lead and there is a clear existing consensus in the current RFC for it. If that changes then the article can then change too. nableezy - 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israel–Palestinian War

Most biased Wikipedia article I've ever seen in a long time on this site and this is the most egregious case. From the Zionist propaganda term "2023 Israel-Hamas War to thinking this war started in 2023 and not 1917 and ignoring the years of settlers violence, the ongoing Nakba from 1948 to the present, occupation and genocide of the Palestinians just "started in 2023" because "the media told us so". Digusting. Gengeros (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gengeros I am with your opinion

The lines in the top section telling the one side story and hiding other related stuff of war like blockade of gaza and Killing of civilians and Children in homes and also in Hospital. Nauman335 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the current events. For the long term conflict see Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Seffardim (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I love how this talk page is flooded with claims of the article's blatant and disgusting bias, but all from different sides. "This article is so blatantly anti-Israel!" "No, it's blatantly anti-Palestinian! Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow Currently this page running Anti-Palestine Talks Nauman335 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some activists believe this was an act of resistance by Hamas. To most people it looks like a massacre. Hamas justified its violence against non combatants by claiming that no Jews living in Israel are civilians. This has been widely rejected, just as Israel's targetting of civilians and children would be rejected (but Israel does not officially admit to targetting civilians and more often has been prosecuting its own citizens when they take matters into their own hands). I expect it will be incorporated into the article somehow. Ben Azura (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Split content on Hamas atrocities to new article. Why so much content on Hamas' atrocities in an article about a war?

Split Hamas atrocities to 2023 South Israel massacre/ 2023 Hamas' atrocities in Southern Israel.

Why so much content on Hamas' atrocities in an article about a war?

In Hebrew there is a separate article , called 2023 Surprise attack on Israel also called Sukkot massacre.

https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%A2_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_(2023)

ALL the content about Hamas' atrocities should be copy-pasted to a new article called "2023 South Israel atrocities/massacre" 2A02:14F:173:62D9:0:0:B591:6BCB (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why? War crimes are a part of a war and it should be inclouded in the article. Also, the Israeli war crime section is much bigger than the Palestiniana one. Poles Ragge (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you really think that way then go ahead and Create a new article about Israel's attack 2A02:14F:172:9212:0:0:B594:5B33 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Israeli war crime section is much bigger than the Palestiniana one. That's actually a problem; it violates WP:BALASP, as Hamas' war crimes have received far more coverage in reliable sources than the allegations against Israel. We need to rework the sections. BilledMammal (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

as Hamas' war crimes have received far more coverage in reliable sources than the allegations against Israel, that may have been true on October 7, but it certainly is not true now. nableezy - 14:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It actually is still true now. Hamas' war crimes still receive way more coverage in reliable sources than the anti-Israel allegations. 2A02:14F:179:724F:0:0:B797:17AB (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Top Secret document

@David O. Johnson: The standard for including content in an article is that it comes from a reliable source. The rules for what counts as a reliable source has exceptions for breaking news: Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements. The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes. In short, breaking news is notoriously inaccurate on a good day, but especially during a war, and especially a war as rife with disinfo as this one is.

For posterity and people who come to this later, here is what I wrote when I deleted the paragraph: Almost certainly a hoax. The pages are pristine despite being on the bodies of people fighting in a war. The alleged plan to attack the school and take children hostage would have taken place on a Saturday. Arabic-speakers have said repeatedly that the Arabic in those documents is broken, as if machine translated. The documents are literally emblazoned with "Top Secret" like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. Wikipedia should be neutral, and this reporting does not pass the smell test.

Additionally, this report was an exclusive from NBC and the source was "Israeli first responders;" i.e., either ZAKA or the IDF. Unnamed IDF sources are quoted throughout to emphasize how bad the document is. The article suddenly shifts to talking about a completely different incident (that already happened) to muddy the waters before reverting back to the document. Even if we assume that the substance of the document is real, the text of the document is cartoonishly evil in a way that does not comport with the idea that it was a serious plan. Just the idea that a Hamas fighter went into a ground battle with these future plans on their person is suspect at best, even if weirder things have happened. The major news networks in the US have a demonstrable bias in favor of Israel.

This is almost certainly a hoax. If it had been independently verified by people who can actually read Arabic, I would feel differently, but it has not. Please provide another reliable source that is not merely regurgitating the NBC article or I will remove the paragraph again. lethargilistic (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A similar instructional map is found in this New York Times article, in a photo taken by Hamas themselves. I found the NYT article from this Haaretz article reviewing that and the NBC News one together. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing surprising about Hamas militants with maps, but the NBC report is absurd. Neatly folded, high-quality inkjet prints conveniently found by the IDF with hyperbolic instructions to attack children in schools during an attack that began on a Saturday? Was it not the case that wild accusations of the enemy's brutality spread around in the early days of the invasion of Ukraine? These "instructions" should be scrutinized and kept off the article for now (recall the "baby beheading" skepticism earlier in the week). ‒overthrows 05:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is "hyperbolic" in the report? What part about Hamas killing civilians, and taking them hostage, is so hard to believe? We already know that happened. The report doesn't even indicate they especially focused on schools, any more than any other aspect of the village at least. It just demonstrates that was one target among many, and that they meticulously planned a sweep of the whole area. VintageVernacular (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The question is not whether Hamas has ever killed or captured civilians; I do not dispute that. The question is also not whether Hamas fighters ever carry maps. What ticked my suspicion was that the document was for a future mission. The question is "Is NBC's endorsement of this document sufficiently reliable to overcome the Breaking News exception during a war, in light of the many signs that the map is a hoax?" I say it's not, for the reasons cited above. The map photographed in that NYT article is not the same map provided by NBC, so it's not a relevant verifying source. (Anyway, the NYT's pictured map is actually for the mission they were currently on.) lethargilistic (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed your second link. I don't think that suffices either. The challenge was Please provide another reliable source that is not merely regurgitating the NBC article, and that article is effectively a retweet. There is no analysis of the document. It merely repeats what NBC said it said without even mentioning, for example, the non-native proficiency in Arabic. (Also, I was under the impression that it was for a future assault, but NBC says it was obtained on Saturday, so I retract that. The only weird thing about Saturday was the notion that they were attacking the school to take children hostage on Saturday. I suppose you could argue they predicted the school would be used as a shelter?) This whole thing is murky, not reliable or verifiable. lethargilistic (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A very similar report appeared as an exclusive in the Wall Street Journal on October 12, before the NBC report, though for a separate kibbutz. Says a plan (in which one document is labeled "top secret") to raid the kibbutz included a map that "marks places with crowds, synagogues and kindergartens". VintageVernacular (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead map is inaccurate

I have not reverted the edit because I don’t want to violate another 15 policies without knowing what I am doing. The map indicates that all settlements have been retaken and completely lack any presence of militants. However this and the live map seem to have based this entirely off a claim by the IDF that all kibbutzim were retaken.

there is no evidence Palestinian militants have been driven out and I have made a more accurate temporary map, should it go to the lead until a better version of the current map is made?

the original map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_2023_Gaza%E2%88%92Israel_conflict.svg#mw-jump-to-license

the alternative map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gaza-Israel_war_2023.png The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really feeling this one. Regain of IDF control on the border region does not necessarily preclude lingering skirmishes, and evidence that militants are directly holding on to any span of land in the desert doesn't seem reflected at all in the current situation or by the body of the article. The SVG map was fine before. ‒overthrows 05:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hence I mentioned in the key “militant’s presence” instead of “occupied territory”. The original SVG map makes it look like there isn’t any militant presence in Israel The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no quantifiable militant hold on land in Israeli territory as the situation and the article indicates. A quantifiable blob of land on a map, like the ones on yours, suggest military occupation and not "a handful of prevailing militants sticking around and bothering the IDF". ‒overthrows 05:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That is opposed the the suggestion of the original SVG that Israel has completely pacified the border and all militant presence has been eliminated. I have relied on differing shades to indicate presence, rather than home territory or full occupation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There are days since Hamas terrorists have been repelled. IDF is at the border of Gaza ready to invade. This is well documented by all the major press, and IDF official spokeperson. What evidence are you still waiting for? 46.97.168.45 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

100% agreed. Enemies left behind advancing frontlines are characteristic of irregular/guerilla warfare, and does NOT indicate organized, systemic military/administrative control of territory. The alternative map is simply misleading. What's more concerning is that an user with a history of edit warring and limited proficiency in English reverted an edit to keep this map in place without consulting the talk page or any other editors, which was thankfully noticed by another user. Just my two cents. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

“A history” it’s one instance. If you’re going to bring up things against me then at least do it correctly. This still does not address the original map’s implication The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You should stop imposing your map on this article and reverting edits, as this can constitute edit warring. You need to achieve consensus before making potentially controversial edits, and that means leaving the page as it was, not as how you think it should be. And this edit is clearly controversial, since it runs contrary even to the Wikipedia source map cited here. As I have said above, presence does NOT mean control--it has little significance, and does not merit or warrant shading on the map, since it is simply misleading and conveys no meaningful information to readers. The original map needs to be kept in place before this is all sorted out, so please stop. 85.12.61.148 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s reverted, you can literally check the page and I haven’t implied control in my map (the key states lighter shades indicates presence). The original map does not depict any militants, which is already disproven by presence in zikim and sderot The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: There has not been any reports of clashes with militants inside Israel in the past 24 hours. The current map showed the presence of militants inside Israel where clashes where reported in the past 24 hours. Also, your map does not cite any sources. Ecrusized (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My map cites sources, it’s just in the description because I’m still having a hard time with uploading files and putting info in the boxes they are supposed to be in The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: The sources cited show the situation on 7 October not 15 October. And the rest is original research. Ecrusized (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I did mention a more recent source in the edit summary. The other map cites the template which is already another problem, one source that hasn’t been updated since the 10th, while the third is hidden behind a paywall so I cannot say anything about it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Your argument here seems like a snowball clause, four users in this discussion have opposed the suggested changes, it's unreliability and quality has been questioned. I suggest you stop trying to push this map into the article and stop further edit warring. Ecrusized (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am discussing it here and have not reinstated the map on the page, so I’m in the clear for now, though I still have major doubts about the original one where it makes it seem Israel has completely secured and neutralised border towns of all militants The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally to being original research, it is extremely low quality. The map does not show roads, urban density, military installations or heights. It looks like something that was drawn in MS Paint. Ecrusized (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned that it was meant to be temporary until the lead map is improved. My fault not every Wikipedia user knows how to use SVG’s perfectly The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracy request fix

In "§ Statements by governmental figures and polities", second paragraph: the first sentence is attributed to the UN Human Rights Council, cites REF380. The 4th sentence is also attributed to the UNHRC, same citation, and an additional incorrect citation (REF282, which is actually about the UN Commission of Inquiry, not the UNHRC). The quote in the 4th sentence is wrongly attributed to UNHRC but is from REF282, the UN Commission of Inquiry. Could someone please delete the 4th sentence as it duplicates the first and second sentences, and is a misquote? Feel free to also move the quote to the second sentence, with proper in-text attribution, if you prefer. I believe I'm at 1RR. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Link for convenience: § Statements by governmental figures and polities, second paragraph.

The problem is deeper than I thought. The first sentence attributes "clear evidence" of war crimes by both sides to the UNHRC, as the Al Jazeera citation does, but there's evidence to believe Al Jazeera got confused and was referring to the UN Commission of Inquiry, not to the UN Human Rights Council.

clear evidence is a quote from the UN Commission of Inquiry, see here. If you check the AJ article, in that same paragraph, they quote the UNHRC as saying "The Commission is gravely concerned". Al Jazeera just got the attribution wrong.

(This has already been discussed in the RfC above and fixed in the lead, it just hasn't been fixed in the body.) DFlhb (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Separation of combatant and civilian casualties

Since there is information on how many of the Israelis killed and abducted were civilians as listed in the notes, should they not be listed down under instead of within the column of one of the belligerents? Lightspecs (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Add information about the United States military deployment of an amphibious assault unit to the Eastern Mediterranean City to Israel

2023Edit

As of 11 October 2023, Bataan, with the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), along with USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) were ordered to leave exercises off Kuwait to potentially sail to the Mediterranean due to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. 96.60.168.239 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli army vs Hamas militants

Why are Hamas armed forces being referred to as "militants" which means radical, fanatic renegade terrorist, when Hamas is the elected governing body of Gaza? Crampcomes (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Altough Gaza along with west bank has been recognized as a non-member observer state by the United Nations since 2012, it currently does not have the status of a sovereign state. Professional armies are often bound by international treaties and agreements governing the conduct of warfare, such as the Geneva Conventions. Hamas has committed several violations of these conventions. additionaly, Hamas is not considered a professional army because it lacks the attributes and characteristics commonly associated with recognized military forces. Its status as a non-state actor, its methods of warfare, and its political agenda contribute to its differentiation from conventional, professional armies.

it does not mater if it was elected or selected. I can also win an election in my local community and form an armed group using people who voted for me to fight for what I believe in. It would be termed as militants only, regardless of how noble my intentions are. And yes, it would be termed as terrorism if I carry out acts of terrorism using that armed group.

i hope this answers your question Codenamephoenix (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic the Afghan Armed Forces also shouldn't be called "armed forces" and the Afghan Army shouldn't be called an army because no country has yet recognized the Taliban government as the official government. Crampcomes (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

but afghanistan is a soverign state and afghan armed forces represents afghanistan ,not taliban. also Taliban is not internationally recognized as a legitimate government. It is considered an insurgent group or non-state actor that opposes the Afghan government and has used guerrilla warfare and asymmetric tactics. The Taliban's military force does not have the same level of recognition, formal structure, or international support as the Afghan National Army.

So, while the Afghan National Army is referred to as a "professional army" due to its recognized status and formal attributes, the Taliban is often labeled as an insurgent or militant group because it operates outside the conventional framework of recognized state military forces. The terminology used to describe these groups is not solely based on their professionalism but also considers their legal status, organization, and recognition on the international stage. Codenamephoenix (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Afghan National army no longer exists [14]. The Taliban army is the Afghan Army Crampcomes (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, should we also not recognize Afghanistan as a country anymore because it has been usurped by the Taliban, a non-recognized entity? It's worth noting that the Afghan army will always be there, representing Afghanistan, regardless of who rules it.its name can change from afghan army to islamic army etc depending on the power that controls it. Please refer to the first statement: 'Afghanistan is a sovereign state.' It's just sad that the Taliban has taken control of it. As of today, afghan army or islamic national army is still differentiated from the Taliban force. However, if this differentiation is nullified by the international community, then things can change.

For that i recommend you make a formal appeal in united nations. Codenamephoenix (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)