Talk:Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip

Untitled

Archive 1: April 2005 - October 2006

Warnings about the consequesnes of the Disengagement

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/319985/jewish/Gaza-

Gisha quote

A quote was recently replaced with what should be a summary of the contents of the quote. Instead it changed the substance of what Gisha has stated. Here is the original quote:

Gaza residents may not bring a crate of milk into the Gaza Strip without Israeli permission; A Gaza university cannot receive visits from a foreign lecturer unless Israel issues a visitor’s permit; A Gaza mother cannot register her child in the Palestinian population registry without Israeli approval; A Gaza fisherman cannot fish off the coast of Gaza without permission from Israel; A Gaza nonprofit organization cannot receive a tax-exempt donation of goods without Israeli approval; A Gaza teacher cannot receive her salary unless Israel agrees to transfer tax revenues to the Palestinian Ministry of Education; A Gaza farmer cannot get his carnations and cherry tomatoes to market unless Israel permits the goods to exit Gaza; A Gaza student cannot study abroad without Israeli approval to open the Gaza-Egypt crossing.

The text now reads:

The Israeli human rights organization Gisha lists various examples of actions requiring Israeli permission or approval in the year following the disengagement, such as universities receiving visits from a foreign lecturer, parents registering children in the Palestinian population registry, residents bringing in a crate of milk into the Strip, and fishermen fishing off Gaza's coast. Other examples are student study abroad limitations due to the Gaza-Egypt crossing, teacher salary delays until Israel transfers tax revenues to the Palestinian Ministry of Education, and farmers unable to bring crops to market unless Israel allows the crops to exit Gaza.

Note that the original text states that Israeli approval is required to open the Gaza Egypt crossing, but it has been changed to "due to the Gaza-Egypt crossing" in the new text. DMH223344 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for paraphrasing the quote, rather than directly copy/pasting a large quote block per WP:QUOTEFARM? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Gaza Strip, residents face restrictions imposed by Israel on various aspects of daily life. The Israeli human rights organization Gisha lists various examples of actions requiring Israeli permission or approval in the year following the disengagement. These restrictions include the need for Israeli permission to import basic necessities like milk, host foreign lecturers at universities, and register children in the Palestinian population registry. Additionally, fishermen must obtain permission to fish off Gaza's coast, and nonprofits need approval to receive tax-exempt donations. Financial transactions such as the transfer of salaries to teachers are also controlled by Israel, which affects the payment of salaries by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. Moreover, farmers require authorization to export agricultural products, and students wishing to study abroad depend on Israel's approval for the opening of the Gaza-Egypt crossing. DMH223344 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, looks good 👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Many or most of these restrictions were not in place prior to the blockade, which is a separate event. Drsruli (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is coming directly from Gisha who is describing the year following the disengagement. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the blockade beginning in 2007, without being very precise, one might include that year. (It’s close.) Drsruli (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not tied to the 2007 blockade. Israel has imposed restrictions on Gaza for much longer than 2007. DMH223344 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The restrictions mentioned seem to pertain to the blockade. (Even if some of them were at times in effect prior.) All or most of the restrictions mentioned relate to trans-Gaza interactions. Some of them would not seem to be applicable during the Israeli occupation. Drsruli (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Following Manual of Style

@DMH223344

There were some style issues in your recent edit to the Background that I fixed. I would recommend reviewing the following MOS policies/guidelines:

WP:WIKIVOICE - which says to avoid stating opinions as facts. For example, the bold part in this sentence is an opinion: "Persistent attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlers and soldiers increased the costs of maintaining a presence in Gaza, making it unsustainable."

WP:INTEXT - gives examples on how to attribute

MOS:QUOTEPOV - "demographic time bomb" needs attribution

and MOS:CLAIM - "claim" should be avoided, instead use "said" "states" etc. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral

It would seem that characterization as “unilateral”, is not technically correct. The disengagement had been formally agreed to, in general term, years previously. Both sides agreed to the disengagement, and whatever authority was there to cooperate with Israel in the matter, did so to the best of their ability. The people of Gaza and their representatives supported the action. Arab sources made no requests for Israel to reconsider and remain. Of course it was done, and done at that time, to serve Israel self-interests. Drsruli (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Cuyckens

A person named Hanna Cuyckens is cited five times in the article. She is an academic specializing in international law. Given that she has a fringe minority view on the definition of occupation, why is she being cited? Wouldn't that give WP:UNDUE weight to her view? More generally, she's only ever referenced in the main body text by her last name, without any introduction whatsoever. Does she belong in this article? JasonMacker (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a good point, it would be worth looking into more closely. Of course the Israeli state makes similar arguments and I'm sure we can find plenty similar arguments in Israeli academia. It would be good to figure out what the shared main arguments are rather than just throwing around the name of a single academic. DMH223344 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I found this source from Rubin [1] that is based on Israeli law. It says “In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister the Court assumed that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip had ended with the disengagement… It is the conclusion of this Article that regardless of the terms imposed by Israel after disengagement and other reservations that have been raised in this regard, occupation ended following the complete withdrawal of any Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip.”

Based on what I have read so far, I agree that it seems the view that Gaza was not occupied in the years after disengagement is a minority view in academia and internationally, but it is not fringe. In the lead, it does say that “many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.” I tried to add some more emphasis that this is the majority view in the academic realm in the lead based on the existing source in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

The word 'left' is used twice in first sentence of the third paragraph in the introduction. Sivir21 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Motivation missing citation

> The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians.

This is citation-less. 47.144.2.223 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

the lead does not require any citations (it is a summary of the body). The famous haaretz article is this one: https://www.haaretz.com/2004-10-06/ty-article/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process/0000017f-e56c-dea7-adff-f5ff1fc40000 DMH223344 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel has a parliamentary system. It's government's ministers are composed of members of competing political parties who have joined the coalition but who ostensibly oppose selection of the positions that the coalition accepts. So one minister's comments aren't reflective of the intent of the coalition. You can see that very statement discussed in the contemporary, non-paywalled source here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/israel

Saying that one minister said so so it is just isn't the truth in a coalition government. It's the equivalent of saying Ron Paul said end the Fed, so Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign ran on ending the Fed. (From a US perspective). Furthermore this take ignores the multitudes of evidence showing that the goals of the coalition were nominally ones of peace.

It's a poor rewite of history. 47.144.2.223 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)