Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

"Palestine Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Palestine Israel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Palestine Israel until a consensus is reached. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Israel Palestine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israel Palestine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Israel Palestine until a consensus is reached. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

This recent addition has resulted in the duplication of the Palestinian deaths in the first Arab-Israeli war. The infobox already includes the figure for the total deaths on the Palestinian side sourced to Laurence (2007), p. 194. It includes all the deaths caused by the war, including those of civilians (Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants). The Time writes about the same casualties (From 1947 to 1949, ... according to the West Bank-based Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics... 15,000 people were killed). Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis:Agree that the deaths are duplicated, however I have a question: why is the figure given by Laurens expressed as a range when he says 13k Palestinian deaths? Time says 15k, so the current range would be wrong. I also went through Google Books and found other figures like 15k, 13-16k, 12-15k, 13-16k, etc. Seems like 12/13k is the mininum, not the maximum. - Ïvana (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll remove the 3k figure, please feel free to add a range. Alaexis_¿question? 20:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Lancet article is poorly cited

The lancet report does not suggest that about 186,000 have already died in the conflict, like appears in your page, but rather that based on other conflicts, they believe that about 186,000 will eventually die because of indirect reasons. Read the report carefully here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext

Quote from the report: In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. 209.2.224.134 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Please add main article links for the 'Fatah-Hamas split' and 'Israel-Hamas war' subsections for ease of navigation.

For example:

Fatah–Hamas split (2006–2007)

Main article: Fatah-Hamas conflict

Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)

Main article: Israel-Hamas war

AlecCoates (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sailingsmooth5, why have you reverted my edit? Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Information I added

Hello BillHPike, I read your edit summary and I understood your intention and reasoning. I tried now to rebuild the part. I would appreciate if you could take a look! HaOfa (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is any salvageable content, I feel it be best to merge with the existing Economic disputes and boycotts section. — BillHPike (talk, contribs)

International law and the use of force

Regarding this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&oldid=1252596095

which removed the sentence "This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations." citing Erakat's book.

I'm pretty confident this is widely accepted and not the personal opinion of the cited author. I will check Aeyal Gross' work when I get a chance. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Palestinian right to resist and Palestinian right of armed resistance are pertinent. The revert is based only on the lack of sourcing for "academic consensus" so it can go back in either with a source saying that or similar else suitably worded so as to describe the level of consensus that exists. Also worth noting that it is a matter of academic consensus that an occupier cannot self defend (an oxymoron). Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet and Andrevan: Let's not be scrapping over trivia, see my comment above and let's fix the sentence up properly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, what are you thinking? Maybe I was too quick on the trigger given that that sentence is exactly the one from the Jpost article, and it's referencing not only academic consensus but international legal consensus - @Andrevan would you accept restoring that quote with a citation to the UN, which continually

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is the expression "academic consensus", if there is not a source saying that or similar, we need to specify more carefully who it is that hold the view in question. Let's hunt about and see what we can find. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'm missing something then - the line in question is

This is in contrast to the consensus in international law which allows for Palestinians, as a people under illegal military occupation, to use lethal force against Israeli military targets and installations

, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My fault for being unclear, Andrevan gave in edit summary "no academic consensus noted in source" which must refer to "the consensus in international law...". Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, that's what I assumed - so would an explicit reference to a legal (or several legal) sources pass muster, Andrevan? Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As Selfstudier says, per WP:RS/AC, a source must explicitly cite an international consensus or the wording should be changed. The UN would not be a source for that because it doesn't say that. Otherwise, it should be specifically attributed to the scholars or the wording otherwise changed. Andre🚐 18:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how this runs into WP:RS/AC, given that it's not an academic opinion, it's a legal judgement from the United Nations, sort definitionally an international consensus, right? Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, a consensus must be named such explicitly. Otherwise it should just attribute a legal judgment to the UN. Or if all the UN member nations voted for a resolution it should say that. Andre🚐 18:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I will do some digging for an explicitly named legal or academic consensus, in the short term how about:

This is in contrast to UN general assembly resolution A/RES/45/130 which reflects an international consensus (113 out of 159 voting nations voted in favor, 13 voted against[1]) explicitly allowing for Palestinians, as a people under foreign occupation, to use armed struggle to resist said occupation.[2]

[1] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/282163?ln=en

[2] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801 Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That would also be interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source so the contrast point seems to be WP:SYNTH. Need a secondary source making that interpretation. The UN record can be used for simple facts absent your interpretation. Andre🚐 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Added without SYNTH. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the language. Don't forget UN resolutions are nonbinding so this doesn't "allow" anything nor does it say "allow." Andre🚐 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be improved, if sources can be found saying there is a consensus, all to the good, if not, then we cannot assume it exists. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OpEd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative BrianH123 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone who helped me on my journey to becoming one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The author is busily twittering. Or is it Xing? Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a curtain. He's pulling it back. It's important work. It reveals that we work in pairs or trios to evade detection. There is incredible extensiveness. Setting aside the casual defamation and parallels with antisemitic conspiracy theories, I like to look on the bright side. Although the article would undoubtably be flagged as a hallucination if it had been produced by an LLM, these kinds of articles build community. They bring people together, albeit people likely to have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulation, radicalization, and probably finance/romance scams, and that's a good thing. And they help to make sure people don't feel too bad about employing deception to fight the pro-Hamas hijackers for the greater good. He's helping people come together and feel better about themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Lol, and that's a wrap, close this up now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Are you annoyed about being only "in the top 99.975% of editors by number of edits"? Zero^talk 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties number in the infobox is outdated

If you just add 1948 Arab–Israeli War number with Israel–Hamas war number, the total number of causalities is higher than the number given in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated. Bogazicili (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Two closing braces need removed from the start of the article.

}} The Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Had a look and cannot see where existing opening braces would be. Lyeuhm (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Already done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)