Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Incorrect info in infobox

The info box current says that eight civilians were killed in Israel, but the cited article does not support this claim (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). Indeed, the article itself says that a total of 8 people have been killed including at least one solider, which means that all certainly cannot be civilians. Recommend mirroring what ix on the Palestine side and writing "8 civilians and militants killed." Dhawk790 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: The edit now reads "7 civilians killed" but the ABC article does not support this either (https://abcnews.go.com/International/dozens-civilians-killed-hundreds-wounded-fighting-israel-hamas/story?id=77662668). It only confirms that one of the dead was six years old and another was 87, in which case they are civilians, but that means that only a total of 2 civilians are confirmed, not 7. If we followed that practice, the Palestine side would need to be update to subtract the number of militants killed from total dead to produce number of civilians. I do not think this is a good practice, because of the ambiguity. Instead, I recommend using the same practice on both sides of the info box. Present total number dead (including civilians and soldiers) and then provide the breakdown when there is individual info about some of the deaths. Dhawk790 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Sentence?

In "April-May 2021 Ramadan events" It says the following sentence twice:At the start of Ramadan in April 2021, Israeli police blocked off access to the Damascus Gate where Muslim worshippers usually congregate during the holiday once at the beginning of the paragraph and at the end of the paragraph. Should I remove the last instance? LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 13:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I sorted that out now. Good spot.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Social Media section

A significant number of the events has been driven by the inflaming impact of social media, and the content can be divided into two types (which are already the object of analysis in a few sources) From April's TicToc scene onwards, we should prefer, at this stage, thematic concentration rather than a blow by blow chronology as is normal with breaking news pages initially.

  • (A) False, staged disinformation to achieve a propaganda impact.
Sources
(1)Sheera Frenkel, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/technology/misinformation-israeli-palestinian-conflict.html 'Lies on Social Media Inflame Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,' New York Times 14 May 2021
  • (B)Real-time shocking stuff that is captured on phones and duly circulated then on Youtube, twitter and other media.
  • (C) A third element, strategically placed disinformation to draw the enemy into a trap, as has been reported for the Israeli ground invasion, said to be diffused in order to get Hamas operatives to concentrate in tunnels in preparation for defense, so they can been annihilated en masse, possibly should be distinguished from (A), which deals with deliberate government fraud for achieving a political consensus about who to blame.
Sources
Amir Tibon, Allison Kaplan Sommer, 'Israeli Army Tells Foreign Media It Has Ground Forces in Gaza – Then Apologizes for Misleading Them,' Haaretz 14 May 2021

Editors are invited to use this section to notify each other of sources that analyse this aspect. Since the usual news outlets, in their haste print whatever crosses their desks, are all too frequently complicit in the disinformation that always accompany warfare, it is best to limit the sourcing to references written by competent analysts. Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to break this out into its own section (or subsection under escalation). We probably need more sources to do that, though. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Socialist lawyers

This edit showcases (because she is a socialist and therefore unreliable?) the opinion of one housing expert, when she is not the only person holding that view. The edit thus in singling her out, makes the challenge, no doubt one with several figures engaged in the court proceedings, idiosyncratic, ergo POV pushing. Alsaafin for example states this:

Khalil Toufakji, a Palestinian cartographer and expert on Jerusalem, said he travelled to Ankara in 2010 to search in the Ottoman-era archives for a document that negates any Jewish ownership of Karm al-Jaouni.“I found the deed and presented it to the Israeli district court, which promptly rejected it,” Toufakji told Al Jazeera. After more digging, Toufakji found out in 1968 that Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, issued a decree – signed by the finance minister at the time – which stated Israel was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement. “This fact is what has been raised to the Jerusalem High Court on behalf of the Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah,” he said, but added there is little reason to believe the court will rule in favour of them. “Israeli courts – judge, jury and legislation – are all in the service of the Jewish settlers,” he said.

So, the statement should be anonymous, in the passive voice, as before, adding the Alsaafin ref.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(2) The mention that a decree of the Knseet in 1968 confirmed Israel recognized it was bound to the Jordan-UNRWA agreement (if so rendering later legal developments suspect) ought to be followed up and if confirmed, entered in the background section.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The statement shouldn't be made in wikivoice unless it's generally accepted. That claim should be attributed absent better sourcing IMO, per WP:INTEXT. If it's a widely held opinion surely more sources can be found? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how the earlier text was not neutral.

the authenticity of these documents has been questioned

That simply states a fact that the authenticity is challenged, and we have two sources for it. The passive voice is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That statement implies it's generally questionable. Especially if only one person questions it, attribution is better IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No.in English it does not imply 'general questionable'. Grammatically it just states the fact which the following details elucidate, i.e., that on several occasions it has been questioned.

During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the authenticity and accuracy of the documents used by the Jewish Committees and the Nahalat Shimon Company to claim ownership of much of the land in Sheikh Jarrah. The lawyers informed the delegation that these doubts are not being considered properly by the Israeli courts.'Enforcing Housing Rights; The Case of Sheikh Jarrah. Report of the fact-finding mission to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory,' Avocats Sans Frontières May 2011 p.13

In October 2009, the Hijazi family commenced further proceedings seeking a declaration that the land was in its ownership, or in the alternative, was not owned by the Committees.124 During the meeting arranged with the Palestinian lawyers, those specifically working on the case informed the delegation that in December 2009 they had found Ottoman-period land title documents in the archives in Ankara which cast serious doubt upon the Committees original primary registration in 1972 and the accuracy of the documents used in that registration.In April 2010, two weeks after the death of Mr Hijazi, the District Court found that the claim had already been adjudicated on in the original 1997 case, that the new documents did not reach the relevant threshold to reopen the case whilst further noting that the new material would not lead to a different result from that originally determined by the court.pp.44-45

Further, the attribution we have now is incorrect in assigning the view to one lawyer of the Haldane Society, when she was writing a summary of the information available to several prominent lawyers in a fact-finding mission, commissioned from the Haldane Society's lawyers by Avocats Sans Frontières and financed by Belgium. They are not 'socialists'.
That makes three sources, referring to three different cases regarding the area, in three different years, attest to the fact that the authenticity of the 1876 documents has been repeatedly challenged in Israeli courts. I don't know where the truth lies: that is not my remit here. I only know that falsification of land title documents by settlers has been frequently documented, even in Israeli courts, over the last decades, and, since we have strong external testimony that such doubts exist, this should be noted as a fact. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I've said anything about "socialist lawyers". If it's been frequently documented, please provide some more reliable sources and we can better discuss. Avocats Sans Frontières is an advocacy group / NGO, clearly not RS. WP:INTEXT is clear that some forms of attribution (or lack thereof) can make it unclear whether a statement is a minority or majority position. You seem to be saying it's a majority position, which may be true (idk), but then surely you can provide more sources to support it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
However, now that you do raise the socialist point, are you saying that the magazine "Socialist Lawyer" is not written by socialists? According to our article on Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers is a socialist and legal campaigning organisation in the United Kingdom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Why does it matter if they are socialist?Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor who changed the text fussed to highlight the 'socialist' background. I don't think that relevant, and the fact that the paper is commissioned and copyrighted by a Belgian legal rights think tank suggests that all this is pointy. Why fuss over this? The passive voice over a fact is neutral. It doesn't need tweaking.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021 (4)

The start of this round of conflict began on April 15th 2021, with videos of Palestinian teens assaulting innocent Jewish people, for tiktok views, which led to Israeli extremist youths to exact revenge. Non-the-less, the page begins with events on May 6th 2021. This is misleading and should be updated to fit the reality of this horrific and gut wrenching conflict.

"On 15 April, a TikTok video of a Palestinian teen slapping an ultra-orthodox Jewish man went viral, leading to several copycat incidents."

Thank you for your time, and may we see peace in our lifetime. 24.114.68.45 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 14:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Lomrjyo
Reliable sources

212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That has been in the article for some time. Do you read articles before suggesting edits? Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but can't you read that Lomrjyo asked for reliable sources. -- 212.64.210.90 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Because edit requests are almost always declined automatically without RS. FlalfTalk 18:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I request to merge this discussion with the start of conflict talk page. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Lebanese Civilian killed by Israel military

See here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/14/lebanese-man-killed-by-israeli-troops-on-border — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk790 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Already included in the infobox. Hezbollah has identified him to be one of their fighters [1][2]. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

May I request that somebody add this link to this article? If this article gets moved, the page I created can also get moved? Thank you! Neocon1 (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Question: Do you mean under the See also section? ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 06:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a problem to add the link but I would say that article is slightly misnamed if it is only international protests. The Palestinians have also been protesting daily.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: if nobody objects to a page move, and you can suggest a better title, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I have moved it to International protests over the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis with a redirect so it can be added if you like, no?Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done Added.to the See also section. ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 10:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Deaths and injuries on the Israeli side

Hey, I’m Israeli Some of the information isn’t true.. 9 deaths in Israel And in Gaza 120 of the deaths were actually terrorists It’s important to mention that Hamas sent 1800 rockets to Israel and 300 lended in Gaza, so Israel didn’t kill innocent children. The IDF tells them to leave they just don’t... The rockets I’m getting on a daily basis are war crimes.! Israel hasn’t done any war crimes.! I’m currently sitting in a bomb shelter, in fear. And yes, it’s not Gaza, it’s Israel. Israel is under attack. And the media is only showing one side and people are stupid enough to believe that. Seagull2000 (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you want to add or change in the article? It's not enough that something is true, Wikipeida article needs reliable sources. “WarKosign” 08:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Already 10 deaths in Israel And medical treatment was given for 663 people Seagull2000 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Total Civilians Killed in Israel

In the infobox, neither of the articles cited provide a total number civilians or back up the number given (eight). This article does give the total number and say seven. Can we update with the new number/link?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/15/world/israel-gaza-updates#israeli-and-palestinian-officials-say-theyre-open-to-talks-even-as-the-violence-spreads Dhawk790 (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The numbers keep changing and many sources are out of date. It's not very important to have the most up-to-date numbers, it's better to wait for them to stop growing and then to use numbers backed up by several reliable sources. “WarKosign” 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (3)

If Wikipedia is to be objective, it must report facts and not opinion. Adding adjectives and adverbs to facts is a form of opinion. As "belligerent" is an adjective, it must be removed to preserve integrity. "Occupation" is also a disputed conclusion, as it implies an unlawful presence. Isn't that the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict -- whether certain territory is rightfully under the control of Israel or whether it should be rightfully under the control of Arabs? Moreover, isn't it factually false to state that the Gaza Strip is "occupied" by Israel, inasmuch as Israel withdrew all presence from the Gaza Strip in 2005? Thus, "occupation" should removed, as well.

Remove the word "belligerent" in "belligerent occupation." Add a sentence about the number of Israeli deaths. To list number of Palestinian deaths without listing number of Israeli deaths is blatantly antisemitic. 24.130.171.62 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is the technical term used in the legal literature. As late as 2009 this was officially admitted.

'The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.' Israel's Ministry of Justice 2009, in Uri Avnery, 'Israel's Most Revolting Law?' Counterpunch, 23/03/2009

Scholars call the situation the longest ongoing conflict in modern history, and define it as an asymmetric war. When squads of soldiers continue to raid family homes all over the West Bank night after night, as they have persisted in still doing, that is not peace. The term is perfectly neutral, descriptive. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: ― Qwerfjkl  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The term "belligerent" implies Israel is instigating a hostile occupation of East Jerusalem. This terminology is extremely misleading and militates heavily towards the Palestinian side of the conflict. The term "occupation" proper is far more objective and impartial. It is not instructive that the term "belligerent" has been used in the legal vernacular. The average layperson, as well as many scholars, simply refer to it as "occupation" or "military occupation."

False. Belligerent occupation is standard phrasing and completely neutral. That's how the Israeli Supreme Court describes it as well.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The following quote is taken from the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article titled "MILITARY Occupation":

"Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty."

It would seem, according to the foregoing paragraph, that the primary usage is "MILITARY" Occupation, whereas belligerent occupation is a secondary usage, according to your own website. Otherwise, the title of the Wikipedia article would be "Belligerent Occupation," and not "Military Occupation".

There is therefore no demonstrable reason to use "belligerent" over "military", the latter being the more commonly understood term irrespective of the interchangeable (or secondary) usage of the term "belligerent" occupation in the scholarly literature. I maintain my belief that the usage of this term is misleading and not superficially neutral to the average reader who does not come from an academic background.

1) WP is not a source. 2) Type 'Israel Supreme Court "belligerent occupation"' into Google and see what you get. 3)Please remember to sign your contributions.Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Start of the conflict 6th of May

The conflict is, additionally to all mentioned aspects - eviction, radicalisation, religious and cultural timing, fuelled by increasing assaults from ultra orthodox settlers on Palestinians in 2021 as stated by the UN. "According to the experts, the violence has been mainly motivated by ideology and intended to “intimidate and terrorise Palestinians”, and prevent them from accessing their land while pushing others to move." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/14/un-experts-highlight-rise-in-israeli-settler-against-palestinians Moreover https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1089752

The alert follows 771 incidents of settler violence causing injury to 133 Palestinians and damaging 9,646 trees and 184 vehicles, “mostly in the areas of Hebron, Jerusalem, Nablus and Ramallah”, the experts said, citing data gathered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In the joint statement, Mr. Lynk said that settler violence was “ideologically motivated and primarily designed to take over land but also to intimidate and terrorize Palestinians”.

Pregnant women, young children and older people were not off-limits, the rights expert explained, particularly in rural areas, where livestock, agricultural lands, trees and homes were targeted.

Together with the expansion of Israeli settlements, the settler violence was intended to make the daily lives of Palestinians “untenable”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c3:ff00:4168:bcba:c49c:e3dd:a873 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for an amendment to the article? Please state exactly what it is, add/change something? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You must be joking if you consider adding this inflammatory point and biased opinion made by Al Jazeera and the UN. Everyone knows of the TikTok videos of Palestinians violently assaulting innocent Ultra-Orthodox Jews which actually initiated this particular episode. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, the venerable social media platform TikTok and its user-generated content supersedes and is more reliable than the notoriously biased and one-sided United Nations. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Erm... The BBC references the TikTok videos as do other sources including TOI... Why you'd think the UN has a shred of neutrality when it comes to Israel is beyond me... There were literally organisations formed to expose the UN's bias. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Protesters

Hello, the term protesters for ALL the violence is not neutral. There is knife and gun attacks, arsonists, lynching, rock throwing on civilians etc

What should be written is " Protesters and militants" at minima. --Jeanmagen (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Usually we follow what sources say. Do you have some?Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The article references protestors as well as "rioters" at various points, while groups that have been described as militant are described as militant in this article. The change you're suggesting is at best editorializing and at worst obfuscating the facts. The term "militant" has a clear meaning, related to engagement in warfare or combat. The mere fact of violence occurring does not turn civilians into militants, regardless of what the Israeli authorities might wish to portray. As Selfstudier said, please follow the required format when suggesting edits: recommend concrete changes, backed up with reliable and relevant sources. An example of a concrete change would be suggesting a change from "In Bat Yam, Jewish extremists attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians." to "In Bat Yam, groups of Jewish militants attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians." WillowCity (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot example of non-related acts to the protesters. For example

Add "And gunmans" https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210513-jewish-man-wounded-by-gunfire-in-lod-israel-police Add "and stabbers" https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-teen-seriously-hurt-in-beersheba-stabbing-arab-israeli-suspect-arrested/amp/

Please talk to me politely whitout ad-hominem, it's unacceptable. --Jeanmagen (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Rioters" is verifiable for both sides IIRC. I tweaked text earlier to remove it as a descriptor for one side's protestors. No objection to anyone reinstating rioters, but if it's done then it has to be done for both sides for NPOV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel like a good practice would just to say 'protestors' if it was non-violent, and 'rioters' if it was violent. I suppose when gun fire is exchanged by both sides then this is something else, literally terrorists of militants, mobs of whoever, et cetera. --Ester9001 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes but there have been, per sources, violent 'protests'/'riots' both by Palestinians and Israelis. So it should be suffixed to both or neither. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, 'riot' surely should be used when there are violent mobs, and 'protest' for non-violent. If it is unclear who started violence, it could be said something such as : " violence erupted ". Surely it is clear when there is violence as there are injuries reported. --Ester9001 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualties, age and gender

Why is it important to distinguish the casualties between female, children and male? How is this important? DerElektriker (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hamas tends to exaggerate numbers of women and children in numbers of casualties they report, in order to create international pressure on Israel to stop the operation. “WarKosign” 12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@WarKosign: I am certain that you have no evidence for this claim. How exactly do you think such an (Israeli) claim could be verified anyway? The IDF are unable to see who they have killed when these buildings are destroyed. Do you think that the list of 40 children I linked to below was created out of thin air? It is a grave disrespect to the memory of these recently deceased children to question their short existence without any evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Whereas the IDF merely lies to the press. And why we should treat statements from either party as unreliable.-Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Because they want to give sensibly to the human cost, Hamas would not attack if there was no rallying effect... they know they can't win with rockets.--Jeanmagen (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
If you mean this, it wasn't a lie but a manipulation, and once the goal was achieved, intentionally vague statement was clarified. Hamas, on the other hand, tends to stick to their claims even when everybody knows they are false. For example, prepare for their declaration of victory once Israel decides to cease fire. “WarKosign” 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-disinformation.html and it is not the first time the IDF have been found out. As for declarations of victory, past events of similar nature point to things coming to an end only when both sides are able to manufacture a victory narrative.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll have to trust you that article says what you say it says. I don't have a NYTimes subscription. “WarKosign” 13:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The source says the IDF have duped international press for the (claimed) purpose of achieving military objectives by deceiving targets. It doesn't seem to say the IDF manufactured a false victory narrative. If anything it says the opposite: The spokesman’s office waited two hours — long enough for Hezbollah fighters to declare victory and stand down — before announcing that no Israeli troops had actually been hurt. It seems they deceived the press in a manner that made them seem to have taken more casualties than they did -- I wouldn't call that 'claiming victory'. In any case, how does any of this relate to this article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't, we're foruming when we shouldn't (so are you). For good orders sake I did not say that the victory narrative stuff was in the NYT article, that was just a response to what WK said before.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't really care which side is spinning narratives or why (I think it's above my pay grade and the world probably doesn't need my analysis). I'm just writing out what the NYT source said, for clarification. This section might matter to the extent of whether we should be distinguishing based on demographics of those killed, but outside that yeah, I think this discussion will probably do no good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It does not relate to the article yet, it will once the conflict is over. I was saying that the separate count of women and children is done in order to imply that they were non-militan. Hamas tends, as a method, to inflate number of women and children, count all the 16-17 years old militants as children and to never reveal true numbers of killed militants. They need to create narrative of Israel massacaring innocent civilian population that they are defending in order to continue using their own civilians as human shields while firing on Israeli civilians. “WarKosign” 13:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Well the rather shopworn human shields argument is just as much a narrative, isn't it?Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I can definitely see this conversation going south from here, so I'll just support what WarKosign is saying about including women and children. Although I would be in support of a civilian/militant split instead of a men/women/children split. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The usual split is combatant vs. non-combatant. We should follow what reliable sources say, keeping in mind that, likely, neither side is innocent in any of this (FFS, the conflict's been there since 1948...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We saw it in 2009 and we saw it again in 2014. Each element is familiar: the lopsided death toll, Palestinian deaths outnumbering Israeli ones; the pictures of flattened buildings; the tears of the bereaved. And outside the region, the same armies of keyboard warriors, each parroting the talking points of their side, insistent that only their own pain counts, blind to the losses of the other. Jonathan Freedland, Once this violence in Israel and Gaza ends, there can be no return to ‘normal’ The Guardian 15 May 2021

WK. You always appear to pop up when Gaza is bombed and trot out the usual IDF/Israeli intelligence memes. Hamas is the elected government of that Strip, and employs most people. Anyone employed by Hamas is thereby shrewdly branded a 'militant' by the hasbana machine and Israeli intelligence in order to downscale the civilian casualties, and make out that its offloading of massively destructive bombs in civilian areas has some collateral damage but mainly hits 'militants' civilians or otherwise. This has been documented endlessly, and you really should desist from this POV tripe. Wartime is notoriously a fog (both sides) and editors should just try to wade through the snapjudgement bullshit in endless sources, to eke out the bare facts.Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
By way of illustration, the latest in Israel's high-tech pinpoint Hamas targeting wiped out a family of 10, 8 children and two mothers. No male casualty reported. Perhaps the male was a Hamas militant, who knows. He wasn't there. Jack Khoury Ten Family Members Killed in Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Haaretz 15 May 2021. No doubt some member of the clan was a male 'militant' of Hamas, but if so, he wasn't there.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Hamas won the elections 15 years ago is of no relevance. It is internationally considered a terrorit organization, and every employee of the organization is a legitimate target. Perhaps in this specific incident they did not fudge the numbers, but focusing attention on this case is an example of media manipulation. Why not also report many other cases where only military infrastructure and militants were hit, despite them insisting to be in close proximity to civilians? Despite all of Hamas's efforts, the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is shockingly low, and it can only be attributed to IDF making tremendous effort. “WarKosign” 16:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Drop your disinformation campaign please. It's so meticulously 'official' that it is embarrassing to read. We can read that crap on any Israeli government or IDF. Y website. You should know better having participated in so many war related edits, that stating:'every employee of the organization is a legitimate target' is false.

Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.

Personally approving as a target anyone (janitors, schoolteachers, health workers etc.on Hamas's government payroll) who is an employee of Hamas means you don't give a fuck for international law. I'm fine with that. It is exquisitely an integral approach by Israel to that legal lay of the land. But I vigorously object to you trying to blindside editors coming to this area without much background knowledge. So please desist from attempts to seed falsehoods and pull the wool over the eyes of editors here, or act as spo(o)k(e)sperson for the IDF with your proud assessment of how it is 'making tremendous effort... to keep civilian casualties in Gaza . . . shockingly low.' That is about as offensive a piece of hasbara one can make- 40 named minors and children dead, 8 in just one strike on a family, out of 140 means that in your view, it's a praiseworthy sign of the IDF's decency, its 'tremendous efforts to not hurt innocents' that when it operates only 30% of the dead turn out to be kids. 'shockingly low'. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This is unfocused and emotional talk clearly, but I would say that if Israel were not compassionate, then they would fire a proportional number of missiles as Gaza have fired, over two thousand, and if Israel did that, probably tens of thousands of people in Gaza would die... --Ester9001 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed everything besides the initial question per WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 01:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Background to the intercommunal violence in Israel proper

There's no mention in the article of the background to the current violence in mixed cities between Arabs and Jews, the first of its kind in decades. Multiple reliable sources point to decades of discriminatory policies, various inequalities, political incitement, among others as historical context.

—Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 17:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Multiples reliable sources point to decades of discriminatory polices, et cetera."
One cannot quote an article where a writer expresses his opinion on a subject and say: look this is a reliable source for this viewpoint. Articles as citations are for News, not politics! --Ester9001 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian's editorial is not a single person's view, it can't be viewed as a regular opinion piece, and you ignore 2 news articles from NYT and FT; but I digress, here are more sources;
  • "The town of Lydda posed an early test of how the Israeli state would treat Palestinians. It is a legacy playing out today in violence between Jews and Arabs in Lod, as it’s now known." ... "Residents say it is also a reaction, more specifically, to the escalating demographic contest for control of mixed cities, and growing hostility to the Arab minority." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/14/world/asia/israel-palestinian-Lydda.html
—Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 06:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You are missing the point. What you are saying is a viewpoint, an opinion, an outlook. This is not the same as a fact.
I could quote many other articles that have the exact opposite perspective, and talk about the frequency of violence and rape in Israel from rioters and how this demonstrates that it is legitimate to view the unrest as unlawful disorder. But I will not because this is wikipedia not a political discussion board, and we're only interested in facts and news updates.
--Ester9001 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Failure of cabinet formation by Netanyahu, in the wake of 2021 Israel elections

I see there are talks of Palestinians being unhappy because of postponed elections. But there are also talks of Netanyahu having a hand in the events leading up to this situation, having failed to form a coalition after 2021 Israeli legislative election and the second mandate being given to the opposition leader Yair Lapid, to form a new government. I believe it is important to note this too.

Failure to form a coalition by either candidate and possible re-elections are not a done deal yet. With time there will probably be sources linking electoral results with the military conflict, but at the moment there can be nothing but speculation so it's not a suitable subject for a wikipiedia article. “WarKosign” 18:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Your sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Names and ages of 40 children killed in Gaza

See [3]. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Change "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building."

To "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building which in part were used by Hamas for militant purposes." Mdphddr (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In the introduction, the article states "Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building.", which is partly misleading as it may suggest Israel is targeting randomly apartment or other buildings. Obviously this is not true compared to Palestinian militant groups randomly shooting rockets to Israeli territory to damage residential areas and civilians. The IDF targets only buildings used by Hamas or the Islamic Jihad for militant or terroristic purposes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Sources don't seem to support ATM. WAPO attributes and says it's unproven for example. The stronger worded statement from AP: In a standard Israeli response, the military said that Hamas was operating inside the building, and it accused the militant group of using journalists as human shields. But it provided no evidence to back up the claims. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/taking-call-gaza-before-israel-takes-out-building-2021-05-14/
  2. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-israelis-wounded-as-hamas-launches-massive-rocket-barrage-on-ashkelon/
  3. ^ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/idf-attacks-strategic-hamas-targets-in-gaza-following-rocket-fire-668008
  4. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-conflict-media-building-in-gaza-collapses-after-israeli-airstrike-as-palestinian-rockets-target-tel-aviv-area-12306747
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/05/15/israel-airstrike-media/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (2)

Please change "The area in question remains, under international law, a part of the West Bank that Israel currently holds under unrecognized annexation and military occupation." to "The area in question remains, under international law, a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under unrecognized annexation and belligerent occupation." or "Under international law, the area in question remains a part of the Palestinian territories that despite effective annexation and belligerent occupation by Israel."

It's a little bit confusing to say that the areas are recognized as part of the "West Bank" under international law. Of course East Jerusalem is on the West Bank of the Jordan river. It's a geographical term. If not Palestine, the lede should at least say "Palestinian territories" to comply with WP:NPOV. WillowCity (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC) WillowCity (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. This was discussed earlier and in any case 'under unrecognized annexation' is an extremely awkward, um, dumb piece of English, and certainly the change affected was no evident improvement. Legal terminology is neutral and should be employed wherever possible.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RM Close

It might have been better to have waited for a formal close by an uninvolved editor. It seems that this is being done only in order to create a new and potentially unnecessary spin out article 2021 Israel–Gaza conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really valid to withdraw an RM, even if one started it, if others have voted in favour. And then it's not a good look to see the objections against the premise of the new title, close the RM and then create the page anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree - the RM should be re-opened. A consensus hasn't been reached & it's still unclear if the title should include crisis, clashes, conflict or war. Jim Michael (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be 'Crisis' if the article covers both conflict between Israel and Hamas and also is covering internal disorder and political crisis such as the evictions from homes and unlawful rioting. The latter could not be defined as a conflict but as civil disorder and social-political affairs yet is covered in the article as it is. --Ester9001 (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
SG of UN just called it a crisis, http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/the-situation-in-the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-security-council-vtc-open-debate/6228864932001 Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Compound

How can a compound be within a compound? Someone can tidy it up? This sentence "the major Islamic holy site the al-Aqsa Mosque compound within the Temple Mount, became a spot for storming"Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021 (4)

Add clarifying information in the lead as to why Israel targeted "multiple apartment buildings."

It seems somewhat disingenuous to state, "Israel retaliated with airstrikes inside Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings" without mentioning the context that is provided in the very source being cited:

"Israel has said it's targeting buildings where Hamas — the militant group that controls Gaza — stores weapons or has offices. Civilians were warned to evacuate before the strikes, the Israeli military said on Wednesday."

https://www.businessinsider.com/videos-show-israeli-airstrikes-leveling-gaza-apartment-buildings-2021-5


My point is that this feels like an intentional omission.

I recommend including the full context, or removing the "apartment" from "apartment building." Srirachachacha (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The full context should include what both sides said, shouldn't it? Or we could describe the buildings that were hit, look at the CNN source for information.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One should be extremely war of words like response. In the cycle of violence each side responds to what the other did. The usual mainstream view is that Hamas provokes: Israel responds, as the primary victim.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Which is blatantly a crock of horseshit given what Israel has been doing to Palestinians this past week: actively genociding them. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Unless you have news or statement from organisations that claims as such, please refrain using the Wikipedia talk page as a place to criticise either Israel or Palestine as per Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. MetroMapFinalRender.svg (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

So, a few things. If that info is included, it should be a claim attributed to the IDF; it’s not Wiki’s job to uncritically publish press releases from governments, militaries, police departments, etc. as fact. Second, stating that the buildings were used as offices by Hamas (which again, needs to be attributed) implies that they were former apartment buildings now used exclusively as Hamas offices, which is not true. Thousands of people lived in those buildings that are now destroyed. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 22:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

According to CNN, the large building (al-Jawahera) housed "media network companies and other offices". And you are absolutely right, statements from either side need attribution (if we include them at all).Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Um, Hamas, like it or not, came to power via a democratic election under international observation, and has run the Gaza Strip and administered 2,000,000 people for 16 years, That it has offices is obvious. That in itself means nothing. All governments have offices. Of course, if Israel chooses like a few other powers to designate it as a terrorist organization, then even custodians and janitors of a school or building recruited from the lower echelons of Hamas, are thereby 'terrorists' and fair game. This is unfortunately part of the nonsense of western reportage, the mindless reductive use of Hamas as a synonym for a terrorist group when, whatever terror it engages in, like so many governments, it also runs a civil bureaucracy etc., that has nothing to do with threatening anybody (outside Gaza).Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Where in Selfstudier's comment did he call Hamas a terrorist organization? The fact that you see a comment supporting adding info from a press release by the IDF and immediately jump to the conclusion that this person is against Hamas and then begin ranting about how Hamas is being unfairly framed by the west as a terrorist group makes me doubt your ability to add to this article or any other article surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict without biasing the info in support of Palestine. Please, just stick to the facts, your opinion on the conflict isn't needed.
EDIT: I just looked at your user page, and it is clear you have strong opinions in this area that hinder your ability to edit neutrally on this topic. I would suggest leaving the editing of this article to people able to look objectively at the facts. I myself am heavily opinionated on this subject, so I stay out of this and only point out obvious cases of bias here in the talk page. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
You really should apologize, attacking other editors and jumping to accusations of bad faith (particularly against an editor who spends much time finding and analyzing sources in order to contribute high-quality edits) is not appropriate behaviour. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:3079:AC50:917F:28E8 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Ööööhmmm, no, Aknell4 is absolutely right, no need for any apology. 94.219.52.95 (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Passion in an editor is a good thing and they clearly just want an even handed approach. I’m sure if those of us passionate about the topic were actually soap boxing and POV pushing this article would be very different. Namely it would not be labeled as a “crisis” as if this is anything but a largely one sided genocide by a settler-colonialist apartheid state. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:83 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You talk about "even handed approach" while immorally making a false one-sided accusation against Israel as a "largely one-side genocide", note your oxymoron of "LARGELY" vs. "one sided". We could agree and accept discussion about legislative and equal rights to Palestinians, but as for genocide; not only no such actions nor attempts, but rather and even RESTRAINED retaliation to the genocide attempts from Gaza - shooting rockets on Israeli civilians, with IDF still then trying to bomb only Hamas and ammunition buildings and warn other civilians living there to evacuate beforehand. So, indeed, passion in an editor is a good thing as long as it's to actually contribute in neutral manner for the Encyclopedia, but not your "passion" to provoke and blatantly falsify and flipping facts or playing ignorant including on the expense of people contributing here who some of them might read your immoral defective comment right after or while rockets from Gaza hover right over their heads or bomb their homes in Israel, which include both Israeli-Jews and Israeli-Arabs, which again goes to show the worth of your "largely one sided opinion and bias" and your passion to disrupt the process of building this article as well as anger and disrespect editors here.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Cancellation of Palestinian elections as cause

I have reverted this for input from editors as to whether the material and sources given in the article constitute evidence of causation. It is not clear to me that they do. The discussion above refersSelfstudier (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

For instance, this CNN analysis mentions elections failure both in Palestine and Israel but only as unhelpful factors at the end of the article. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/middleeast/israel-palestinian-explainer-intl-cmd/index.html

There is an entire quasi-paragraph of eight sources, of which only one, the spectator article attempts any sort of link (however remote) between the start of the clashes to the election. The Spectator quote "There has been a feeling in Israel lately that Hamas had put violence on the back burner in favour of courting international legitimacy. The cancellation of the Palestinian elections this month – as well as the need to show a newly emboldened Iran that funding terror in Gaza would produce value for money – put paid to that, causing Hamas to reach for devastating Plan B." has been magically synthesized into "A piece in The Spectator argued that the cancellation of Palestinian elections contributed towards Hamas's use of military confrontation rather than diplomatic tactics." Reverting entire paragraph until it can be re-written to remove OR and Synth. Albertaont (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not synthesis, it's what the source says... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The New York Times: Besides the tensions in Jerusalem, the analysts said the internal Palestinian political rivalry was also fueling the current conflict, and in particular the decision by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to postpone elections that had been scheduled for later this month.
The Spectator: There has been a feeling in Israel lately that Hamas had put violence on the back burner in favour of courting international legitimacy. The cancellation of the Palestinian elections this month – as well as the need to show a newly emboldened Iran that funding terror in Gaza would produce value for money – put paid to that, causing Hamas to reach for devastating Plan B.
NBC News: But a more fundamental reason the world’s holiest city is once again a flashpoint for conflict is because of a power vacuum in both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in which the former has been distracted during back-to-back-to-back-to-back inconclusive elections and the latter refuses to hold elections at all.
The Wall Street Journal: The 85-year-old Mr. Abbas, who has headed the Palestinian Authority since 2005 without standing for re-election, may want to turn up the temperature to compensate for falling public confidence in his rule. He’s in competition with Hamas and even more extreme groups, which he shut out of power in the West Bank last month by postponing elections yet again. Hamas, which promises the destruction of Israel, one-upped Mr. Abbas’s riots by reigniting its military confrontation.
Foreign Policy: For Hamas, the rocket fire is a chance to underline its legitimacy as a defender of Palestinians, especially since Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah party, postponed long-delayed elections.
The Guardian: A decision by Mahmoud Abbas, the 85-year-old leader of the unpopular semi-autonomous Palestinian Authority, to postpone planned elections has added frustration for Palestinians, whose last parliamentary ballot was in 2006.
So I trust you will reinstate the paragraph in the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I trust this is closed. This is the most covered topic in global news, should be able to find R/S source that clearly states "x was a cause of y". All other causes did not have to rely on opinion pieces, neither should this. Albertaont (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The New York Times is not an opinion piece and clearly says: Besides the tensions in Jerusalem, the analysts said the internal Palestinian political rivalry was also fueling the current conflict, and in particular the decision by President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to postpone elections that had been scheduled for later this month. The content is clearly well sourced. Even the editorial pieces are DUE for inclusion per WP:RSEDITORIAL. No policy supports your removal the content completely from the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that another editor put a sentence (one) back in to the article, not as a section. Maybe we should just leave it at that for now.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
On April 29, the 2021 Palestinian legislative election for the Palestinian Legislative Council, originally scheduled for 22 May 2021, was indefinitely postponed by President Mahmoud Abbas. is inadequate IMO, in part because it does not explain why RS' believe this to be significant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
And since it looks like my daily revert is freed up, I've restored it. If Albert wishes to remove it again, I trust he can explain to me why NYT et al are not RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
See CNN source I provided. Similar to NYT but includes Israeli elections as well (do read it). We can't just get stuck only on one possible contributory factor and there is not really any support for it being a primary cause. I don't mind adding more material but I don't think that this deserves its own section any more than cutting off loudspeakers, Tik Tok and the rest.Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't oppose inclusion of Israeli elections, and if sources are covering that it should be included as well. I just haven't had time to research and write something up, but if you can do that then that'd be nice. I have no fondness of the section title and am fine with someone refactoring, but the whole content can't be removed completely when so many RS' discuss it. Maybe it can be renamed to "Political instability" as contributing factors, or similar? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Not only that, it is now duplicated with the other edit I mentioned. Frankly, I don't think your edit was very helpful in the middle of this discussion and I would like you to self revert, not because I want it out but because we are still discussing what it ought to look like.Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
My experience editing, here and in general, and especially on current events, is that specifics of content are best hashed out in the article form as WP:WIP & WP:IMPERFECT. Seldom does trying to create prose on talk pages work well or better. Especially as one editor seems to think NYT is an opinion piece or not RS, I don't see talk page debate as being helpful at this time. I agree it can do with improvements (as it already has one maintenance tag), but think they're better done in the article itself, and hope you (and others) can make them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I conclude that I should engage with you via edit summary from now on. OK, fine.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear I am not objecting to the inclusion of material about the Palestinian elections in the article although I think there should be material about the equally failed Israeli elections (therefore change the section title) as well per the CNN source above. I am only wondering about causality, it still seems to me that the sources in general are attributing proximate causality to Sheikh Jarrah -> Al-Aqsa even if there might be a 101 additional minor contributory factors, shutting off speakers, Tik Tok, etc etc.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

militant killed

where do you find 75 per Israel???

The Israeli military has put the number of militants killed so far in the Israeli attacks at between 80 and 90. https://news.yahoo.com/israel-fires-artillery-gaza-amid-221914279.html/

I can't find another number, please correct the wrong numbers. thanks --Sandtransman (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for the figure of 75 dead per Israel is cited right next to it [4]. Quote - "Israel says its attacks have killed more than 75 militants...". The other 80-90 per Israel cited by Reuters (which I myself added before) is from May 14th, while the 75 dead WSJ report is from May 15th, which makes the figure reported the day earlier outdated. As per Wiki guidelines, we use the newer, more up-to-date figure. EkoGraf (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the answer, I guess the reason is the wsj data was an error. I don't see a reason to lower the estimation while today some more were killed. --Sandtransman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
On the general point I was under the assumption we're using highest figures unless source corrects or is contradicted by multiple others. For example, Reuters 11 minutes ago wrote 11 Palestinians died on Friday. Our article says 12. I'm not going to go change that, as I have no reason to think the 12 figure is incorrect. Different sources are going to differ on data. No opinion on this specific dispute tho. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually nvm, I am going to change it, because apparently the 12 is no longer verifiable. 11 killed on Friday, and 13 total, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Anything new about the data validity? We got many refs for 80_90 and only one apparently for 75... --Sandtransman (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Best to wait for new information and an update. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (4)

Please edit the way the event at Al-Aqsa is described. The police didn't just storm the Temple Mount out of rage and as an attack. It was in defense. In the build-up of tension around Israel's Jerusalem day, many Muslims had brought rocks with them to the Temple Mount to use for attacks. The police went to the Temple Mount to prevent such attacks from occuring. Then Muslims began throwing stones at police forces while the police fired stun grenades and rubber bullets at the Muslims.

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/riots-break-out-at-temple-mount-667550 147.161.8.12 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

See here This was discussed already and we should go by what high quality rs are saying.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The source says "violent riots broke out at the Temple Mount, during which hundreds of suspects started throwing rocks, bottles and other items toward our forces", but whom exactly were the rioters throughing rocks at before the police arrived at the scene? Even if the police statement quoted is absolutely truthful (and a lot of editors would not trust a statement by Israel police, unless supported by additional, independent sources) something is clearly missing in the sequence of events. Also, the source does not say that the rioters brought the stones at advance. It is concievable that they picked them up at Temple Mount in a reaction to (real or percieved) aggresion by the police. We need clearer (and ideally, more neutral) sources. “WarKosign” 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

^ I have some sources for that:

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/07/994940939/israeli-palestinian-clashes-escalate-in-ramadan-night-violence-at-al-aqsa-mosque

https://www.timesofisrael.com/some-280-palestinians-9-cops-hurt-in-latest-heavy-clashes-in-jerusalem/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57034237

All say the Palestinians threw stones, chairs, et cetera. The times of Israel source says explicitily that the police used rubber bullets and stun grenades in retaliation to the throwing, the necessity for or number of poilice present is not reported by any source. I do not know if there is a video source of the event, anyone know? --Ester9001 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if a video exists, we can't use it to decide and describe what happened, some other source should do it for us and then we can use it. From the 3 sources above, only ToI seems to give some usable description of event that lead to the storming: "Police entered the Temple Mount compound in the morning after thousands of Palestinians gathered in the compound overnight, having collected numerous rocks and other makeshift weapons. Police said dozens of rioters attacked a police post and started hurling rocks from the Temple Mount toward a road south of the compound, blocking the road but causing no injuries or damage." From this quote I can't undertand what actually happened - was it a manned post with police officers being endangered or just an empty shed? Unless we quote it directly, we need to parapharse it, and to do that we need to understand what this segment says, exactly. I prefer to wait until there is more and better coverage, with more detailed description of the events leading to the "storming". “WarKosign” 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone needs to change "The following day, the major Islamic holy site and the holiest to Judaism, known as al-Aqsa Mosque compound or Temple Mount, was stormed[21] by the Israeli police with explosives fire exchange, rubber bullets, and stones throwing." Ideally it should be reverted to "The following day, Israeli police stormed the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, a major Islamic holy site." pending further discussion. In addition to the grammar mess, the use of the passive voice is not appropriate in this case. As well, the religious significance and specific events can be described further down. The lede should be concise and to the point. Of course the Temple Mount is significant in Judaism, but the relevance to this article is that they stormed al-Aqsa during Ramadan. This is not an article about the Israel-Palestine conflict generally. WillowCity (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks

@Nishidani: I'm not sure this edit with the opinion of a vice president of a think tank in opinion pieces is DUE for inclusion. If we're going to start including think tank commentary we're going to be here all day. The rest of the section is statements from government officials. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A legitimate query. I've always objected, without doing anything about it, to the rote roster of political quotes, which says nada, because the 'positions' are utterly predictable. This, as opposed to what informed people, who influence policy, and appear all over the place (you know, wiki cites that research think tank. No one objects. I mulled using it for a few hours, and decided that it does capture what you never get coming across (but is vigorously remarked on in Israeli newspapers) a certain dirigiste mindset, one that certainly is shared by a large number of the IDF people who carry out, repeatedly, these +à la Barry Goldwater, 'bomb'em back to the stone age' operations. I can understand it in Israeli terms. As a Westerner, for a decade and a half, that kind of language astounds me. It would never be permitted in a modern democracy. Yet guys like that junket round the conference circuit, and trot out the logic in that statement (shorn of course abroad of its colourful metaphors). It strikes me as a very significant statement which helps outsiders understand attitudes, just as on the Hamas article we cite outrageous statements spouted by their leaders and influential members.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes but think tanks are literally advocacy organisations. It's unsurprising to see them take a certain (non-bland) position, but said position cannot be said to speak on behalf of any government. I think the ideology behind each side's position should probably covered be in Israeli-Palestine conflict or some other article, as really it's no different here than in general. If someone's looking for that kind of analysis, that's probably where they should look. I just think think tank opinions are out of place in a section about government responses, and if we start including them then it's a real slippery slope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The editor who made those edits was briefly topic banned from Israel-Palestine articles and now contributes to these sorts of articles in, as I see it, the same opinionated tone as before. I would agree with you that including it isn't necessary or beneficial in any way. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? Virtually everyone who has edited I/P articles consistently has been topic-banned. I was permabanned a decade ago for making 8 reverts in 45 days on several pages,- in those days, unimaginable severity existed- and then invited to return to edit this area, by a joint request by an Arab and Israeli editor to Arbcom. Many think tanks do not see themselves at least as advocacy organisations, but rather institutions providing indepth analyses of problems for the decision-makers in politics. As I said, government responses are predictable. Every time there is a breakout or incident, we have the usual soundbite. What encyclopedic function does rostering trite statements have. They are skewed to a political audience, and function to justify actions, or criticize them mechanically (Abu Mazen? What's interesting in that. Nothing). Why should political statements hog the limelight? I only think they are relevant if they have impact, as did Gvir Itamar's remarks.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
But more importantly, I would expect a rationale for excising a quote regarding the standard IDF term for massive bombing of Gaza, 'mowing the lawn'. Its use is hotly debated in newspapers, for nearly 8 years, and every time evokes comment. That should be there. It does illustrate how the IDF conducting the raids view their purpose.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the think tanks don't see themselves as advocacy groups. They are, by definition, advocacy groups. The reason we're including statements by government officials is because they speak on behalf of their governments. Remember, the section is for Israeli and Palestinian reactions, so it makes sense for the section to be populated by reactions from people speaking on behalf of their respective governments. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
And official statements tell one nothing about anything. They rarely reflect the cabinet/inner deliberations and calculations that determine actions taken. In fact historical works don't use that newspaper chat often, preferring memoirs and archives. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for showcasing formal statements for public consumption. But the gravamen of my argument for retention hasn't been answered. I gave 3 sources for the use of 'mowing the lawn' to describe both the political and defense community's approach to this operation. That one of those happens to speak from an extremely well-connected think tank staffed by high members of the defense elite is immaterial. The other two come from (a) a Knesset opposition figure and (b) a Washington Post overview of this, and the strategy behind it. All three reflect or react to IDF/Israeli political thinking about why it is necessary to bomb civilian centers intensely, the cause of (it looks like) half the deaths, and therefore is crucial to this article. Please respond to that. Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The source doesn't seem to say the person has consulted with people inside the IDF before writing that article? Re the standard IDF term for massive bombing of Gaza, 'mowing the lawn' according to LSE the quote is termed by two other people from think tanks, one from the same think tank (JISS): Examining Israeli military strategy, in particular what Efraim Inbar and Eitan Shamir have termed ‘Mowing the Grass‘. (confirmed by Foreign Policy). I'm not even sure your definition of mowing the grass is correct; according to FP it's the idea is that Hamas’s leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak (seemingly matching with the original JPost article). It seems to be coined by people at think tanks, not the Israeli military? (WAPO seems to say the same, although they call them "analysts"). I think overall my concern is DUE and now verifiability, to some degree. ProcSock (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You can try "cutting the grass" as well.Julie Peteet (15 January 2017). Space and Mobility in Palestine. Indiana University Press. pp. 15–. ISBN 978-0-253-02511-1.Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Usage today by NYT, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/05/17/world/israel-gaza-updates, "Israeli experts often describe periodic campaigns as "mowing the grass," with the aim of curbing rocket fire, destroying as much of the militant groups’ infrastructure as possible and restoring deterrence. Critics say the use of such terminology is dehumanizing to Palestinians and tends to minimize the toll on civilians as well as militants." Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations don't support text - 29/30/31.

All the citations given for Hamas firing rockets first, say that Hamas rockets were fired in retaliation for Israeli strikes.

I don't believe this point is disputed, but the citations should support the text.

Hamas said they supported actions by Al Qassam Brigade on the 10th, but give no specifics as to what those actions were.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210512034923/https://hamas.ps/en/post/3405/Hamas-hails-retaliation-of-Palestinian-resistance-to-Israeli-aggression-in-Jerusalem

It is tricky as there is various Israeli disinformation allegations around:

https://twitter.com/razhael/status/1393915533720961029?s=20 https://twitter.com/TweetForTheMany/status/1393907114364608520?s=20 SimonWaters (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (5): Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists

NOT DONE
"(Press release). Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit" seems to be a succinct way to highlight the gist of most concerns about the suggested changes. There is a strong consensus here and in WP policy in general that, in terms of factual accuracy and NPOV, secondary sources are preferred, especially when the alternative is primary sources from the involved parties... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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.


Hello. The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening:

On 10 May, two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school.(...) Israel launched airstrikes against Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings and a news office building.

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel's civilian areas from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school.(...) Israel launched airstrikes against terrorist targets in Gaza, including airstrikes targeting multiple apartment buildings housing apartments of Hamas terrorists and a building which housed millitary intelligence offices of Hamas and news offices of AP. According to the IDF Spokesperson Unit, "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". (Here go references to the four named citations (Template:Cite press release) I've gathered.)

This is per the NPOV policy and the guideline for being bold. If this is not enough, further sources can be added, or the text may be better rephrased to fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, etc. I've gathered complete citations from the press release of the IDF. These should go in a "sources" section. They're named references, so they should be added above at the place I've marked. Complete citations to add:

"IDF strikes multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to Hamas military intelligence" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck a multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization. The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site.

"Evidence of Hamas' Abuse of Civilian Infrastructure" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. Fighting a terrorist organization that operates within civilian areas isn't easy. Watch as IDF pilots call off a strike because children were there: Hamas deliberately and systematically places military targets within the civilian population, exposing their citizens to danger. In contending with this, the IDF, and the Air Force in particular, attach paramount importance to accuracy and reducing harm to civilians. When planning a target, the IDF devotes significant time and resources to preparing the attack and where feasible, uses various tools, including advance warnings, roof knocking, street knocking, target clearing operations and a variety of professional calculations carried out by the Operations Analysis Directorate and the Planning Directorate. The use of these means varies depending on, among other factors, the type of target, the expected collateral damage, and the resources available at the time. Despite Hamas' aims to endanger its own civilians, the IDF will continue to make efforts to minimize harm to civilians while continuing to attack Hamas terror targets.

"Context is everything: What You Need to Know About IDF Strikes in Gaza" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. What you need to know about IDF strikes in Gaza. Introducing: Context—Here's some important context to the headlines you're seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip—Hamas has turned residential areas in Gaza into military strongholds. Let's take a closer look at... (1) Hamas' rocket launchers; (2) Hamas' tunnel systems; (3) Hamas' military buildings.—Hamas fires rockets at Israel from densely-populated neighborhoods in Gaza like these. (In the background is a photo of a rocket launch from Gaza showing many civilian buildings around the launch site.) The IDF must strike these rocket launchers in order to prevent Hamas from firing more rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, over 360 of Hamas' rockets have already misfired and landed short in these same civilian neighborhoods.—Hamas has an expansive network of underground tunnels: (A) Tunnels that Hamas digs under the border to try to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap Israelis; (B) Tunnels that Hamas operatives use to maneuver around Gaza. This is an expansive network that Hamas uses to store its weapons, conceal its militants, and move freely around under civilian areas in order to carry out their military activity. With one being being (sic) a danger to Israeli civilians, and the other being a hiding spot for dangerous terrorists, both are legitimate military targets.—(A photo with the following writing added on top: "This is the entrace to a tunnel in Gaza (...) and one block over is a kindergarten and a mosque".)—Hamas uses multi-story buildings all over Gaza for multiple military purposes, including: * intelligence gathering; * planning attacks; * command and control; * communications. Unfortunately, other units in the buildings are often used by civilians who may or may not know what's going on down the hall. But when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, the building becomes a lawful military target.—The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings recently, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed. Whenever possible, * We called the buildings' residents and warned them to evacuate. * We sent SMS messages. * We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. * We gave civilians enough time to evacuate.—Again, when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law. All the buildings targeted by the IDF were used for military purposes. The fact that they're located in civilian areas is a Hamas tactic to hide from the IDF and maximize the damage when the IDF strikes them. For Hamas, an Israeli death is more valuable than a Palestinian life. The IDF will continue to take as many precautions as possible to avoid civilian casualties in the fight against Hamas terrorism.

"מוסתרים בין משרדי תקשורת אזרחיים: מטוסי קרב תקפו יעדי מודיעין של חמאס - צפו בתיעוד" [Hidden Among Civilian Media Offices: Fighter Jets Attacked Intelligence Targets of Hamas - Watch the Recording] (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. מטוסי קרב של צה"ל תקפו מבנה רב-קומות הכולל נכסים צבאיים השייכים למודיעין הצבאי של ארגון הטרור חמאס. בבניין אלג׳אא פועל המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס, וכן משרדים המשמשים את חמאס ואת גא״פ. בבניין יושבת יחידת המחקר והפיתוח של המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס האחראית בין היתר למספר פעולות חבלניות שבוצעו נגד ישראל. היחידה מורכבת ממוקדי ידע שמהווים נכס ייחודי לארגון הטרור, העושים שימוש בציוד טכנולוגי ערכי ביותר של חמאס נגד ישראל. היחידה השתמשה ביכולות אלו נגד ישראל במספר אירועים, בכדי לנסות לחבל ולשבש את פעולות צה״ל והאזרחים שבמרחב הסמוך לעזה. בבניין קיימים משרדים של כלי תקשורת אזרחיים, אשר ארגון הטרור חמאס מסתתר מאחוריהם ומשתמש בהם כמגנים אנושיים. ארגון הטרור חמאס ממקם במכוון את נכסיו הצבאיים בלב האוכלוסייה האזרחית ברצועת עזה. טרם התקיפה, צה"ל הזהיר את האזרחים ששהו בבניין ונתן להם שהות מספקת להתפנות מהמבנה.

Thanks. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The repeated use of "terrorist" and the unilateral assertion that these were military targets, which is what your proposed edit implies, also go against WP:NPOV. The term "terrorist" in reference to Hamas is very politically loaded, "militant" is a much more neutral term, and the claim that these were wholly military targets is disputed by several organizations. I'm not entirely opposed to including the quote from the IDF, though quotes in the lead like that are often unwarranted as the lead is supposed to serve as an outline of the articles content. Personally, the text you quoted seems to cover the events in neutral language, and as far I can tell is perfectly within NPOV. Could you specify what specifically you find objectionable? BSMRD (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would clarify. First of all, thank you for listening. I don't want the entire text of the press release to appear in the lead section, I just don't know how to create a citation that expands upon hovering over it with the mouse. The IDF is the principal primary source for, well, the IDF, and thus I think it should be cited. Of course, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that needs reliable sources, I don't think these should be the only sources, but they're a good start. I don't think the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization breaches WP:NPOV, since their firings on Israeli civilians for political purposes fall under the definition of terrorism in the Wikipedia article. According to this article, they're also classified as a terrorist group by the US, EU, Canada, and Japan. I don't think my description of Hamas as terrorists is politically loaded - it fits with these two other Wikipedia articles, and it describes their actions. I'm not furthering claims that this was a building used entirely and solely for terrorist (or militant) operations, I just want to add the IDF's own position regarding the situation, which doesn't deny it was used by a news organization, but rather acknowledges this fact. What I find objectionable per WP:NPOV is that Wikipedia currently portrays both sides as firing at each other and harming civilians, without giving the context. Further, the current text describes Hamas' firings as "hitting" civilians, and Israel's firings as "targeting" buildings - that's true, but it could easily give the reader a non-neutral image where Hamas accidentally hits Israeli civilians where Israel actually targets Gaza civilians; nothing could be farther from the truth, as Hamas fires rockets at us in order to kill Israeli civilians and cause harm, while the IDF tries to do the utmost to prevent harm to Gaza civilians while destroying the operations of Hamas. A more neutral description would acknowledge that Hamas targets Israelis (although they don't have a specific target, they just fire everywhere they can, and thus the use of the word "hitting" is not a problem itself), while detailing the measures the IDF takes to alert civilians in the building of the planned striking and the measures it takes to strike the building without causing harm to the nearby surroundings or to Gaza civilians. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to add: "while the IDF tries to do the utmost to prevent harm to Gaza civilians while destroying the operations of Hamas" because Hamas is using Gaza civilians as human shields and operates from civilized areas. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, it's extremely hard to discern whether a source is accurate or not with this conflict. I would agree with you here though as you make a strong neutral argument. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The entire proposal seems to be that we should be a mouthpiece for the IDF. Not happening, we'll stick with organizations that don't put out false information in favour of either side. Of 19 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis/Archive_3&oldid=1044067307"