Talk:2022 Gaza–Israel clashes

Requested move 5 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a rough consensus in terms of votes (around 12:10) and also a clear NPOV rationale for using a neutral descriptive title over the title one side in the conflict has designtaed, with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history#Operational_codenames as an extra cited rationale here. There was some discussion below about whether "escalation" or some other term is appropriate, but that doesn't override the overall consensus to move, and if desired, editors can open a new RM to propose and seek consensus for a better descriptive title than that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Operation Breaking Dawn → 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation – It is not NPOV to use names assigned by only one party to the conflict, better to follow the form established as in 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. Very recent and unclear how far escalation will go but the name must go meanwhile. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC) EDIT: The page was created by a non ecp editor. Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if, as it stands, it is an even more reductive 2022 Israel–PIJ escalation - so far it appears to be almost entirely a series of attacks on PIJ personnel. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, it is the official name of the operation. It is not POV, the Arabic Wikipedia uses it too. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC) —I jumped the gun. Again, sorry. El_C 10:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, less a matter of POV and more a matter of precedent. Change shouldn't happen for a few hours until the scope becomes clearer, since it might be better to use an Israel-PIJ title as Iskandar mentioned Totalstgamer (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, war crimes are being committed and this is far from being a regular operation. The title is misleading.--Sakiv (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sakiv see my comment below. RS is referring to this as "Operation Breaking Dawn", which is the official name of this military operation. Whether or not war crimes are being committed is irrelevant. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: So you are literally adopting the Israeli narrative. Everyone knows who the Jerusalem Post belongs to.--Sakiv (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

TJP is a reliable source for information. Also, just based on your comment of accusing me of "adopting the Israeli narrative", I am questioning any possible COI NPOV here as that appears to be coming from a biased standpoint that Israeli sources are not reliable for information about their military. If that is the case, I highly recommend you either (1), take it up at WP:RS or (2) excuse yourself from this requested move for a possible COI NPOV. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You only brought the Jerusalem Post as an example. It is not enough to be a reliable source. It must also be impartial. I also suspect that your vote is a conflict of interest.--Sakiv (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WRAL-TV & Las Vegas Sun (2 American news organizations) also have articles referring to Operation "Breaking Dawn". Please excuse yourself from this requested move as I do highly suggest COI NPOV now with 2 impartial accusations against myself. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Another response and I will report to you for harassment and impartiality. Two sources from two unknown sites will do the trick for you. Stop singling me out!--Sakiv (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well I apologize for singling you out and for asking you to excuse yourself. In response to your statement of "Two sources from two unknown sites", the two sites I linked articles actually have articles: WRAL-TV & Las Vegas Sun, so they are not "unknown" sites. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's okay. I understand that what's happening now may cause some tension.--Sakiv (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Do note, I did switch my !vote to support, but not for the same reason as you. I do still believe the reason for your !vote is wrong, but we still have overall viewpoint. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You do not understand the rationale for my vote. The operation does not target only Palestinian militants, most of the victims are unarmed civilians. As you know, Gaza has been under siege for 15 years, and there is no equivalence between the two sides. It's not about you and me. I don't want to go too far, why any incident in Ukraine is immediately stigmatized as a war crime without even an official investigation or evidence. Killing civilians is a war crime, whoever committed it.--Sakiv (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

How the hell is @Sakiv committing WP:COI violations? Like I don't think that user is involved with what's happening in Palestine. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I used the wrong term. I meant WP:NPOV not COI. Either way, I am not singling them out anymore and focusing on the content rather than the editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, the proposed name is illiterate. "2022 Israel–Palestine conflict escalation", perhaps? Secondly, it's vague and not descriptive, anyway. "Conflict escalation is the process by which conflicts grow in severity or scale over time". Countless number of events this year were an escalation of this conflict. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose - The Jerusalem Post said "Israel takes initiative and launches widescale attack on northern Gaza in Operation Breaking Dawn." as the first sentence of their article on the operation. The true name of this is Operation Breaking Dawn. Exact same reason we don't call Operation Overlord the "Battle of Normandy". Once it is named, that is the name, so there should be no reasons to change the title. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Chaning to Support per Nableezy's comment below about MILMOS. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  So you think the targeted assassination of 10 or so PIJ fighters and the Battle of Normandy are comparable events? Give me a break, and see below. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Would like to point out that since RS use it as the name of the operation, whether or not the title is changed, "Operation Breaking Dawn" will still be bolded in the lead because per WP:OR, we must use what RS say. In this case, RS call it an operation and not killing, so unless we want to break/make an exception through that rule, it must be present. Also, based on the link you showed below, IF we did ignore RS on the title, then I would still oppose this title suggested because this would be a killing and not a military operation (despite what RS say). Basically, my !vote will remain oppose to 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple, we don't use names given by one side, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wait - Let's wait until the attack and the following tensions calm down, and if that doesn't happen soon, then we can rename it. CR-1-AB (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I certainly agree that putting up an article for WP:RECENT events some hours old is a bit previous, regardless, the title is non NPOV now and that won't change no matter long we wait. Selfstudier (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support some change - very clear NPOV violation in this naming, and the reasons for that are laid out at MILMOS. Using one of the combatants favored framing is a clear NPOV violation. nableezy - 22:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Addendum, Im fine with Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022) as offered below. nableezy - 23:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There are arguments, unsubstantiated, that it is the common name. That is simply not true. Most reliable sources do not even give this as a name for the conflict. And when it is given it is given as specifically the Israeli codename. For example, NPR does not mention it. BBC here only gives it as an Israeli operation codename, but does not use that name itself at all. Where here it does not even give that. NYT doesnt use it. In fact it never uses it. The sources that do use it are invariably Israeli sources, which of course makes sense for media from that country to use the official name of that countries "military operation". Russian media will likewise call the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine a "special military operation". It is a straight up fallacy that "Operation Breaking Dawn" is the common name for this conflict. And as such all of those votes should be discounted. MILMOS is very clear here, and that is site-wide consensus. nableezy - 21:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment if anything it should be changed to 2022 Israel-Gaza escalationMidrashah (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Most RS are framing this as an escalation following the arrest earlier in the week of Bassam al-Saadi, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in West Bank on 1 August. Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  eg NYT "The escalation followed one of the least violent phases in Gaza for several years. Both Israel and Hamas, the militant group that runs Gaza, had previously signaled they wanted to avoid another full-scale war over the enclave, which has been under an Israeli and Egyptian blockade since 2007. Since May 2021, there have been relatively few cross-border exchanges of fire, as tensions shifted to the occupied West Bank and Israel itself. But over the past week, the possibility of a new conflict in Gaza re-emerged — this time not with Hamas, but with Islamic Jihad. Israel arrested one of Islamic Jihad’s senior commanders in the West Bank this week, leading to threats of reprisal from its Gaza leadership."

  AJ "Israel’s deadly attacks came after Israeli forces arrested Bassam al-Saadi, a senior member of the armed group, earlier in the week. Al-Saadi was detained during an Israeli raid in the West Bank city of Jenin, during which a teenager was killed." Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support; for two reasons: 1. The present name is a POV violation, 2. the suggested name is far more informative (can anyone here remember the names of all the Israeli military operations? I certainly cannot), Huldra (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would also support a mv to 2022 Gaza-Israel clashes (or Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022), or equivalent. If the the conflict spreads to the West Bank, then we could mv it to "Palestine-Israel" etc. What is important now, it to mv it away from a hopelssly partisan name, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I’d suggest a move to 2022 Gaza-Israel clashes (or Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022)) in line with prior practice, see for example Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), Gaza–Israel clashes (May 2019) and Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2019). PrimaPrime (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Ordinarily I would agree if the actions were confined to Gaza, however it is clear from recent editing that the operations not only arose by virtue of action in the West Bank but that current actions also include the West Bank. Selfstudier (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  This article exists because of Gaza though, events in the West Bank don’t seem especially notable so far. If that changes we should probably wait and see what RS do before inventing a title out of Wikieuphemisms like “Israel-PIJ escalation” PrimaPrime (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

* COMMENT While using the Israeli's name for the current conflict is not the best option here, escalation carries its own NPOV issues, and appears to be used by a Hamas spokesman at one point, further raising NPOV concerns.

Nameomcnameface (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy."

• Support - the move to something else since the current title is unacceptable from the NPOV point of view. I’m not entirely sure if the target title is the most suitable choice, however. Nevertheless, I would select the proposed title over the current one. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose This is not the only escalation in the conflict this year. Since March 2022 a wave of attacks against Israelis has taken place in the region (accompanied by following IDF raids in the West Bank), see Category:Terrorist incidents in Israel in 2022 and Shireen Abu Aqleh. This wave of violence actually has articles in three other languages. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Afaics, there is no need to disambiguate on English Wikipedia so this objection has no merit. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

*Comemnt The unwillingness to name the agressor in the proposed title heavily contrasts with others choises such as 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is a bombardment initiated by Israel, if anything, it should be named as such. User:JoaquimCebuano — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Non ecp editor not permitted to comment here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title is more or less what I searched to find this page. Use of operation names has always been contentious, and I have always been a strong opponent of them for NPOV reasons, and because I doubt that these are what readers such as myself will key. Every article with an operation name as its title inevitably gets multiple rename discussions; some of them get moved, some of them don't, so I can't really say there's a strong precedent-based argument for or against these names. The criticisms of the term "escalation" are heard, and I'd be okay with exploring other alternatives, but I still support moving to the proposed title over the current operational title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The descriptive name is not natural and as this operation is developing is not stable, it may turn out to be a full war for instance. It is also problematic because of previous events in 2022, the terror wave by PIJ against Israeli civilians earlier in the year. Operation names are used in other similar articles like Operation Claw-Eagle 2, Operations Claw-Lightning and Thunderbolt, or Operation Martyr Yalçın. The operation name is a natural name that makes finding the specific operation easier.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Two points: A) Operational code name don't make it any easier to find articles, as even if the page is moved, the operation code names will still redirect to them; on the contrary, if a useful descriptive title is developed, the number of ways to find the article, combining both natural, recognisable language titles and codenames increases. B) the Turkish examples are also POV; the problem there is the density of operations (many per month), so they persist for disambig purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

*Support Agree with Huldra. NPOV. Niles Anderssøn 🟡 (talk) 🔵 Слава Україні 08:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy."

• Support a change of title. Since neither Gazans nor the ruling authority Hamas have, so far, anything to do with this, and since Israel itself says that it is a 'premptive' operation against one single militant group inside the Gaza Strip, any neutral title should clarify that it is a clash between Israel and the Islamic Jihad organization, not bedtween Israel and Gaza or Palestine, that took place in August 2022. The difficulty is in the declared 'preemptive' operation, which means that here we have so far no details of the usual kind in every conflict article about Israel being 'provoked' and thereafter initiating a 'response.' Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The crisis in 2021 is also named this way, and not "Operation Guardian of the Walls". It's more neutral to change the name. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Although I oppose the current title, I think the proposed title is a little too generic. I suggest a slightly more specific title, such as 2022 Israel-Islamic Jihad conflict, which is a little more concise and a little more specific. 3skandar (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect there will be additional RMs regardless of what happens here, the primary thing is whether one considers the current title NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

* Support per NPOV. 103.141.159.228 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Non ecp editor not allowed to comment in move discussions per WP:PIA "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." + "In a July 2020 ARCA and in a July 2021 motion, the Arbitration Committee clarified that requested moves are "internal project discussions" for the purposes of this remedy." Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The operation name is clear, concise, and is the primary topic. It is also neutral. The suggested title of 2022 Israel–Palestine escalation is not specific somehow linking this to Palestine entirely, and this operation isn't even the primary topic for escalations in 2022, as an example the BBC in April reported: "Israel has been rocked by a wave of attacks which have killed 14 people." PrisonerB (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Our MOS for military conflicts says all of those things are not true. That it is not clear and it is not neutral. That it gives no indication of where and when this occurred, and that the framing represents a specific POV. Your entire !vote is directly refuted by our policies and guidelines. Every !vote that has opposed a move has done so without even a vague wave toward our policies. nableezy - 16:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I don't like the work "escalation" very much, but the Israeli operation name is so obviously POV that it isn't an option consistent with policy. Zero^talk 15:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Any movement away from the current WP:MILMOS misfire. Personal preference for 2022 Israel-PIJ clashes, as the violence is still almost entirely limited to these principle parties, while the whole of Gaza (notably no Hamas) is not involved. Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022) would also be ok-ish. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't know of any other military conflict page called (insert something "escalation), it would violate Wiki:CommonName.XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Any name will be descriptive in the absence of a common name, fwiw "Gaza escalation" has (as of now, its only a few days) become quite common in sources (Google in quotes, select the last week). A subsequent RM can suggest any other name, the point is to dispense with a clearly POV name.Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"escalation" is by far not the most common name. There are far more sources that use the moniker "conflict" or "fighting", i dare you to find a reliable source that refers to this as the "2022 Israel–Palestine escalation" you won find any at all. Given that the fighting was limited to the Gaza strip and did not involve the State of Paletsine government, the inclusion of "Palestine" in your proposed title is itself grossly inaccurate and an NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no common name and any proposed name is less of an NPOV violation than the one it actually has. In reality it's just a smaller scale version of 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Half the names in Category:Military operations involving the United States are operation names. There is no NPOV problem with the pretty random "Breaking Dawn" name, it doesn't signify anything Israeli or any real message. Contrast this with Operation Infinite Reach, Operation Odyssey Dawn, or Operation Ocean Shield or all the other ones in the US category. From the other side, Operation Martyr Soleimani is up there, named for the commander Iran was avenging in 2020. The claim of a "NPOV violation" is without merit. The proposed name is objectively bad, the events here were in Gaza or against PIJ, not Palestine as a whole. Escalation is unclear, and a 2022 escalation is ambiguous to other escalations throughout this year. PrisonerB (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

it doesn't signify anything Israeli or any real message Correct, for a start it doesn't say anything about where it is or when it was. All this was already explained by Nableezy above in response to your !vote above. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument on this page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style says exactly the opposite. That represents a community wide consensus. It is in fact your other crap exists argument that has no merit. The current title is objectively, by consensus, bad. nableezy - 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Half of the time we use operation names, but half of the time we don't. They've always been contentious. Operation Martyr Soleimani didn't have a consensus to keep the operation name, it simply closed with no consensus. Another relevant example is that we opted to not use an operation name for Operation Peace Spring, which is instead a redirect to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. The examples you gave were less contentious, as one of them was from the 90s and another one of them was more or less the international community versus Somali pirates, but requested moves from operation names to more neutral and descriptive names are very common for articles about contemporary conflicts. I'll also second what Selfstudier said by reiterating that arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME need to be substantiated, as I've seen dozens of news articles (searched "gaza" on DuckDuckGo) talking about quote "Israeli-Palestinian fighting", "Airstrikes in Gaza", "clashes", "violence", "Gaza conflict", etcetera, but I have never seen an article refer to the event by the operation name. As I see it, WP:COMMONNAME is a good argument against the current title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is the common name of this operation, widely used and neutral. The proposed name is not the common name, is inaccurate in using escalation and Palestine, and conflicts with other escalations between Israelis and Palestinians in 2022. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  This article was created by yourself as a non ecp editor per your originally struck vote at the outset of this RM and the clear POV title is in fact the reason for this RM.

  Gaza escalation continues into second day as Israel clashes with Islamic Jihad

  Escalation in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #2 as of 18:00, 8 August 2022

  "France is deeply concerned by the escalation of the last few days."

  There is no common name, escalation is however used quite frequently, there are three, CNN, France and the UN (there are more, search).

  What other escalations? Provide the article title. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats just the point, there are no other military conflict articles on wikipedia called (insert name) escalation. The articles you cited do not use "escalation" as the name for the conflict, but instead state that the conflict is "escalating".XavierGreen (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I provided 3 articles just above saying "escalation" as well as NYT above. You can start another RM when this one is closed if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I am an ecp editor now, so I am voting following the law. The title is npov, and was npov when I created it, I used the title in the media pieces that were available then. It is still a neutral title and the common name. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed name is confusing and unrecognizable. Re MILMOS, while it says "Operational codenames generally make poor titles", it does not rule out operation names and discusses Style of operation names. The current name is a WP:COMMONNAME which is identifiable by everyone. Lets see how things a rolling, maybe a new common name will be established by the reliable sources. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The current name is a WP:COMMONNAME Evidence for this assertion? A name that mentions no place and no year? Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's not even the likely primary topic for 'Operation Breaking Dawn', which is also a documented 2010 operation [1]. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because this military operation was started by the Israelis and not by the Palestinians. Military operations are just that military operations and that is why there is a vast category named Category:Military operations and see also the huge numbers of operations by name only in List of military operations. The suggested move makes a single episode into a more globalized conflict. Those who want to make the suggested move are in fact Wikipedia:POVWARRIORS themselves advocating for the Palestinian side it would seem. The nomenclature of the title does not "violate" NPOV, otherwise start changing Operation Barbarossa into 1941 German–Russian escalation, Operation Overlord into 1944 Anglo/American–German escalation, Operation Entebbe into 1976 Israel–Uganda escalation, Operation Desert Shield (Iraq) into 2006 United States–Iraq escalation etc etc etc. This nomination is a joke! IZAK (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a series of personal attacks that ignores the policy based reasons. Kindly review WP:MILMOS which explicitly says the most well known operations, while giving Operation Barbarossa as an example, should be used, as well as planned operations that were not carried out, eg Operation Desert Shield (Iraq). But also stop making personal attacks. nableezy - 18:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Who is "attacking" anyone. There are plenty of pro-Palestinian editors here, or do you deny that? IZAK (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: in this operation the Israelis were the sole initiators while all the Palestinians could do is fire fireworks into the sky that was either shot down by the Israelis or misfired and landed in Gaza killing more Palestinians as a result. IZAK (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You think calling anybody who supports following the MOS a POVWARRIOR is not an attack? Ok. As far as your while all the Palestinians could do is fire fireworks into the sky, well Ill leave it to the closer to consider who exactly is the POVWARRIOR here. nableezy - 18:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, this line is now struck: Those who want to make the suggested move are in fact Wikipedia:POVWARRIORS themselves advocating for the Palestinian side it would seem. WP:STICK. IZAK (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per IZAK, Infinity Knight and PrisonerB. Tombah (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  None of which opinions have any policy basis whatsoever. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support because of the strong NPOV considerations expressed by other editors here above. As others, I have doubts about the "escalation" terminology. I think that Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022) would be best and would also be more consistent with Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018), March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes, March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes and perhaps also with 2018–2019 Gaza border protests. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Gaza-Israel clashes (August 2022) has support among editors expressing doubts about the proposed title. Since things have been quickly resolved, I can also agree with that title.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. In principal, it would make sense not to use the title given by the IDF. We can live with that. But this was no "Israel-Palestine" conflict, but a conflict between the IDF and the PIJ - an operation as the IDF calls it. It wasn't a war or something like that and raising this round of hostilities to the national level, to the point of referring to the PIJ as "Palestine" is rediculous. Secondly, "escalation" - that clearly was not an escalation but an operation in Gaza. Sure it has a background but so is the Six-Day War and we don't call it "1967 Israeli-Arab escalation". I have no better title to offer, but Operation Breaking Dawn is clearly better than the current offer.-Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:18, 18 August 2022 (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.

combatants

placing the PIJ as the combatant here is a POV violation, it is portraying Israel's framing as an attack on PIJ as fact. Sources are reporting Israel attacked the Gaza Strip, so either State of Palestine or Gaza Strip should be placed as the combatant. Ditto for commander, hard to say somebody assassinated in his sleep was "in action", and he wasnt a commander for Gaza in any way. nableezy - 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In his sleep? The strike was a bit after 4 pm local time. He was commanding anti-tank squads from his hidden location. Gaza Strip isn't a combatant so far, the Hamas is staying out of the fighting so far. -----Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 06:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy (As for now) The conflict is strictly between the PIJ and Israel. Hamas has stated their will to stay out.I believe it is wiser to address the PIJ as such and distinguish the rest of the terrorists organisations with their great differences. 2A06:C701:9C72:C500:55C1:2907:215B:F503 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the conflict is not just between the PIJ and Israel. The 21:23 update to the article points out that Gaza Strip is also being attacked. This is a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, not just the PIJ as you seem to want to frame it as. And I would suggest you learn how to respond to comments here instead of just repeating yourself. 3skandar (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

But the Gaza Strip is the location, not the belligerent, correct? The Gaza Strip is not itself a political entity, so it would not be appropriate to list it as such. Yes, this is part of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, as opposed to simply being an Israel-PIJ conflict, and the attacks took place on the Gaza Strip, and the casualties were largely non-combatant Palestinian citizens as opposed to the PIJ. But the article already states all of this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Then change it to Palestine. But this framing of Israel performing some surgical strike against PIJ targets but somehow not attacking Gaza is literally Israel's POV. And it is not how non-Israeli sources are largely reporting it. nableezy - 01:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)x

We do state that Israel's strikes are attacking Gaza, though. To reiterate, this is what the very first sentence of the article says. I'm assuming you're referring to the infobox and not the actual text of the article?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, the infobox. nableezy - 02:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've modified the infobox in a way that you may find agreeable. I personally believe that the previous version was more accurate as it currently implies that the PIJ is necessarily part of the Palestinian government or military as opposed to being an independent militant organization acting in the name of the Palestinian cause, but this format is what the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis page did, so there's precedent for this. Hopefully this satisfies some of the POV concerns.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats better yes. nableezy - 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

2/3 of the casualties were combatants, so it's really not "casualties were largely non-combatants". Also, the fact that innocent people get killed doesn't make them the target - PIJ's misfired rockets killed a bunch of innocent Gazan civilians, I don't suppose you would describe the PIJ as attacking Gaza. The operation was most clearly a fight between the State of Israel and the PIJ, with the sovereign of Gaza, Hamas, not taking part. Any description of the conflict as an attack against Gaza wouldn't be NPOV. 80.178.95.33 (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, reliable sources routinely refer to Gaza being attacked. NPOV is determined by the sources, not by what some random person on the internet wants to say. And where are you even getting the material on 2/3 of the casualties were combatants? That isnt borne out by any source, with it being reported almost half the dead civilians, and I see no reporting on the injured being mostly combatants either. Just making things up is not an acceptable practice here. nableezy - 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble why did you remove the Palestinian flag? nableezy - 16:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are some sources specifying Israel attacked Gaza: The Economist: The latest Israeli offensive against Gaza , Al Jazeera: since Israel began attacking Gaza on Friday. Let me know if youd like more. nableezy - 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Given there being no response from Dunutubble, the version by Vanilla Wizard should be restored. nableezy - 00:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Dunutubble did not provide an edit summary and we have spent a period of time discussing this change here, I believe it would be acceptable for us to restore the version which more closely resembles the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis infobox.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is worth considering placing Gaza and Hamas as a third combatant. Hamas sat this out, and Gazan civilians were hit both by misfired Islamic Jihad rockets and by Israeli strikes directed at Islamic Jihad inside Gaza. There were three parties to this conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• But Hamas, as you put it, sat this one out. So why are they a party to this conflict?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Vanilla Wizard: civilians in Gaza live under the Hamas government. Civilians in Gaza were hit by both Israeli and Islamic Jihad fire. I would place Hamas with the Gazan civilians as the governing faction of the territory in which most of the damage and casualties took place, though the territory itself remained neutral in the conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't entirely understand this rationale. Hamas does de facto govern Gaza, but that seems like more of a reason to not list Hamas and Gaza separately here. Listing Hamas separately implies that the organization did something in this conflict, when in reality it did not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  A favorite Israeli occupation is Hamas bashing, whether or not they participated. Israel’s attack has its roots in events outside the Gaza Strip. Jenin, to be precise.

  Away from Gaza, Islamic Jihad digs in against Israel on West Bank JENIN, West Bank -For the masked gunmen in Jenin refugee camp, Israel’s unannounced strike against Islamic Jihad in Gaza on Friday can have come as little surprise after months of clashes that have steadily lifted the profile of the Iran-backed militant group. and

  The Israel-Gaza Truce Is Holding. But Another Deadly Showdown Looms The analysts are starting to look more closely at the cause/impetus for this "It’s never easy to pinpoint exactly when and why a flare-up in fighting between Israel and Palestinians begins. Before this month’s violence, at least 53 Palestinians were killed between March and July, including Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. During the same period, a spate of attacks by Palestinians killed at least 19 people in Israel."

  It doesn't bother me personally who is listed as combatant, this is just the same old (55 or 74 years according to the way one looks at it) Israeli Palestine conflict. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hamas specifically did not engage with Isreali forces and in fact demanded that PIJ agree to the ceasefire. If there was some other group that sources say engaged the Isreali's during the conflict, they can be added, but none of the other major militant groups other than PIJ were involved so the sources say.XavierGreen (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the New York Times ran the headline: Another Gaza Conflict, but With a Difference: Hamas Sat It Out. with the byline "In the weekend battle with Israel, Hamas left the fighting to Islamic Jihad, another militant group, highlighting differences between them over how best to combat Israel." PrisonerB (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Gaza is what was attacked, and the sources all support that. I provided several of them above. Hamas isnt listed, making that strawman just that. nableezy - 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy: Everyone in this talk page section is either neutral or opposed to your insistence that Gaza was a combatant. Drop it. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats a bald faced lie, given the other editor who added that. Drop it yourself. nableezy - 20:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vanilla Wizard compromised with you, when they were the only one arguing with you, but they said when they compromised: "I've modified the infobox in a way that you may find agreeable. I personally believe that the previous version was more accurate as it currently implies that the PIJ is necessarily part of the Palestinian government or military...Hopefully this satisfies some of the POV concerns." Since then, additional editors have disagreed with you. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Counting: Nableezy 1. Opposed to Nableezy: 5 Dunutubble, PrisonerB, XavierGreen, 2A06:C701:9C72:C500:55C1:2907:215B:F503, and myself Lilach5. Neutral: Selfstudier. Compromised with Nazbleezy, but believe otherwise: Vanilla Wizard. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Vanilla Wizard made the edit and reverted to it. Dunutubble made no comment, simply reverted without comment. And by the way, Ive provided reliable sources saying Israel attacked Gaza. Do you have any that dispute that? The IP's reason were also plainly false, 2/3s of the casualties were not combatants. nableezy - 20:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You're outnumbered. The PIJ also attacked Gaza, according to the UN the PIJ fired more than 200 rockets that fell short in Gaza territory. User:PrisonerB brought the NYT headline Another Gaza Conflict, but With a Difference: Hamas Sat It Out. with byline "In the weekend battle with Israel, Hamas left the fighting to Islamic Jihad, another militant group, highlighting differences between them over how best to combat Israel." So reliable sources not a difference in this conflict. If Gaza is listed, it needs to be in a third category, not on PIJ's side and not on Israel's side. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly fire is not generally discussed as an attack, and beyond that youd need a source saying that. Hamas isnt listed, so I again fail to see the relevance to your claim. The sources Ive offered say Israel attacked Gaza. Do you have any sources that dispute that Israel attacked Gaza? Nobody is disputing Hamas did not participate. Thats why Hamas isnt listed. nableezy - 20:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Some more sources demonstrating the POV issue in claiming that this was purely an attack on PIJ: NPR: Israel unleashed a wave of airstrikes in Gaza on Friday that it said targeted the Islamic Jihad militant group. You are attempting to make this article parrot what reliable sources report as an Israeli claim, that the only thing attacked was the PIJ. But those sources clearly support that Gaza was what was attacked. nableezy - 21:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You also seem to have missed 3skandar saying No, the conflict is not just between the PIJ and Israel. The 21:23 update to the article points out that Gaza Strip is also being attacked.. Wonder why. nableezy - 21:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Attacks in Gaza targeting PIJ are not attacks on Gaza. There is also the complication that anti-PIJ arrests were made in the West Bank. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ive given several sources that say the Gaza Strip was attacked by Israel. You have provided none in response. Ive tagged the infobox and added to the lead citing those sources. nableezy - 21:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@לילך5:, my count is different than yours. Nableezy is not outnumbered. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my reading of the situation is:

• 1 support (Nableezy)
• 1 neutral but ultimately leaned towards supporting (myself)
• 2 uninvolved editors (PrisonB, XavierGreen)
• 1 opposed but lacks much weight (IP editor)
• 1 opposed (you)

PrisonerB only said that Hamas was not involved, they did not !vote. XavierGreen also only said that Hamas was not involved and did not !vote. The IP editor agreed with you on this, but we don't usually give much weight to them on Israel-Palestine discussions. I did not count Dunutubble per WP:NOTVOTE as they not only didn't participate in the talk page, they didn't even provide an edit summary, so no one knows what their reasoning could have been.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the vote count, keeping in mind WP:NOTVOTE, Ive provided a number of sources that say that Israel attacked the Gaza Strip. Not simply PIJ. No source has been provided that refutes this. It is purely an Israeli POV that the combatants were Israel and the PIJ. And it is refuted by third party reliable sources, making the parroting of that claim a NPOV violation. nableezy - 21:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vanilla Wizard, User:XavierGreen made an edit removing Gaza as a combatant that Nableezy reverted and stated in edit summary: "There are no sources stating that any other Gaza strip group was a belligerent other than PIJ, in fact Hamas specifically did not engage and told PIJ to agree to the ceasefire". When I read Hamas, I see Hamas=Gaza government. What Hamas does represents Gaza. XavierGreen repeated here more or less what they said in the edit summary when they removed Gaza. I think other editors are meaning the same when they say Hamas. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Then I assume it is accurate to state that XavierGreen is okay with this, but would not be okay with adding Hamas as they've argued against that here. I also want to add that you had previously in this discussion expressed support for including Gaza in the infobox, but only if Hamas was also included. I'm curious to know why you (if I am not mistaken) believe that the next best option is only including the PIJ but not Gaza. I've already expressed my own rationale here in detail, as I was concerned that including Gaza as a combatant made it look as if the PIJ was a part of Gaza in the same way that the IDF is a part of Israel, and I was mistakenly of the belief that including the location as a belligerent would be odd, but what swayed me was the precedent for including it (key example being the 2021 crisis article). I don't strongly prefer either including Gaza or not including Gaza, but I don't find the arguments from other editors for only including the PIJ to be convincing, either.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I supported including Gaza, with Hamas, as a third party. Neither PIJ nor Israel, but as a combatant3, which would have civilian deaths in Gaza and the non-PIJ Gaza impact. I feel it is incorrect to list PIJ as subordinate to Gaza in the infobox, as the Hamas government of Gaza took a neutral position. The result would be more than two parties, this happens on other articles too, like Syrian civil war which has too many parties to count, but in this case it would only be three. Gaza could be added as combtantat3 without Hamas, I think Hamas should be listed as the governing party, but that is secondary to the Gaza government being a 3rd party in the conflict. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

PIJ is clearly subordinate to Gaza, as it having been noted Hamas essentially ordered them to agree to a ceasefire. This argument that PIJ also attacked Gaza is nonsense, there was no intentential attack on Gaza from PIJ. Yes some of its rockets aimed at Israel struck Gaza, and yes almost certainly that caused some number of casualties (id say AP has the most authoritative view here on the number), but that does not make it an attack on Gaza. Again, friendly fire is not an attack. And beyond it being nonsense, it is not supported by any secondary reliable source. nableezy - 21:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree Gaza should be excluded as a combatant. It wasn't a combatant. The fighting was between Israel and PIJ, mostly in Gaza. This is supported by sourcing. The Hamas government of Gaza sat out. Gaza did not attack Israel, PIJ in Gaza fired at Israel, there is a difference between where a conflict occurred and who is a party to the conflict.— Preceding unsigned comment added by חוקרת (talk • contribs) 06:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the cited sources, claiming they say it was an attack against PIJ in Gaza when they say it was an attack against Gaza, That is WP:TE and I will be reporting it if not reverted. nableezy - 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the sources above show this is between Israel and PIJ. PrisonerB (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources stating the conflict is between Israel and Gaza were removed. 3 of the 4 replacements also include statements along those lines: Bloomberg "The latest Israel-Gaza confrontation began last week" , Haaretz "Jerusalem is typically a flash point during periods of cross-border fighting between Israel and Gaza.", F24 "the worst violence in Gaza since an 11-day war between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in May 2021" It is quite ridiculous to assert that the attack is only on PIJ, what about the dead civilians and children? Bomb London, yes, one is bombing London but one is also bombing England and the United Kingdom at the same time, the reason why it is being done doesn't change the fact.Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between in and against. Sources also say that the PIJ was fighting Israel and that what stopped it was a truce between PIJ and Israel. Sources also sat that the Gaza government decided to sit this conflict out, so it was not a part of it. Also, source say that the PIJ killed significantly more Gazans, apparently more than twelve, than it did Israelis, zero. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I provided a number of sources that say it was against the Gaza Strip. And your last bit of propaganda is just that, as the numbers show that Israel killed considerably more Gazans than PIJ did. nableezy - 14:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The statement "The stated aim by Israel was to attack the PIJ" is not correct nor neutral

This isn't the stated aim, this is the action that the IDF is doing. The original aim of the operation was to prevent an imminent borser attack by PIJ after the group explicitely stated it will do so following the arrest of a PIJ senior in the Jenin refugee camp. 2A03:C5C0:107B:A547:85CB:4436:4AB6:52C9 (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Per ToI "The IDF was engaged in “a targeted campaign against PIJ,” spokesman Kochav said repeatedly in his TV interview, and military officials made the same point in media briefings." I added this quote to clarify the aim. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Your response holds no water - you are repeating the action that the IDF is taking, and not fixing the incorrect stated aim of the operation. Luckily someone else has edited this and wrote "Israel said that the airstrikes were a 'preemptive measure' to stop PIJ from taking revenge for the arrest of al-Saadi" which is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.44.66 (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The action was preemptive and with a stated aim of attacking PIJ, both things according to the IDF/Israel. Meanwhile analysts have speculated that the reason may have been otherwise but that's another story. Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Several sources say that the aim of the attack was related to domestic politics. Gideon Levy: it is because of politics

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1555868583212851200, and https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/08/israels-lapid-scores-political-points-gaza-operation. This article hints at that but it should be made more strongly. Mcdruid (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Biased sources

Why are all IDF statements accepted, pretty much at face value, but statements from Palestinians and others that contradict the IDF are downplayed, ignored or not presented? eg https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220806-ten-killed-including-4-children-in-two-israel-strikes-in-gaza/ Particularly given the IDF's known history of lies in the Gazan Beach Bombing, the attack on the AP tower, the bombing in Beit Hanoun on May 10, 2021 (where they claimed it was a Palestinian rocket), and the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh? Mcdruid (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If statements from the IDF are carried by reliable sources, than it is usual to include them with attribution ("The IDF said..). We would do the same for statements by PIJ. The MMO article you cite refers to deaths in Jabalia currently alleged to have been caused by rocket misfires, that's a continuing subject of discussion in the article atm. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

And yet, while it is a "continuing subject of discussion," the IDF version remains unimpeached. Mcdruid (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to figure it out myself. The IDF claim is 12 children killed by misfire in 3 incidents (see https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-believes-12-children-killed-in-gaza-by-islamic-jihads-rocket-misfires-report/). That report says the IDF has given video evidence for the first (jabaliya, 4 children, Saturday) but no evidence for the second two (Jabaliya, 5 children, Sunday and father + 3 children, also Sunday).

Then the major news outlets are carrying the IDF claim in whole or in part but saying they cannot independently verify. The exception to this is AP that says that investigations by them on the ground at two of the sites (https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-tel-aviv-403d37366347e0f2446e2f90a9b0d02f) "lent support to suspicions they were caused by rockets that went off course." (they make some additional points as well). However they say "If it turns out that Islamic Jihad harmed some of those it claims to protect,..." so they are not completely endorsing the IDF claim at this point.

So I would say the present situation is "not proven" rather than that the IDF version is unimpeached. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There is definite proof that misfires occurred, AP and others say that. Attributing each strike is more difficult. The Israeli claim is supported by evidence and is corroborated in part by AP's on the ground reporting, which led to Hamas issuing rules against reporting on misfires. AP also sees the claim as likely. PrisonerB (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The misfires have never been disputed so that is irrelevant. AP does not say "likely". Israel has provided evidence in respect of one of three incidents unless there is a source saying otherwise. AP says there is possible evidence in respect of another. The Hamas rules on reporting misfires were rescinded after discussions with the press. Btw, the obviously incorrect DW statement is still in the article, going to remove it? Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Given the fact that IDF reports have a very long history of misrepresentation, distortion, and on those occasions when caught out, backtracking, one should treat them with great caution. Of course everything the IDF asserts is reported in the mainstream press, but that means nothing. We shall probably have to wait until a neutral honest source, in this case, B'tselem, assesses the details with its customary meticulous ground research, and publishes the results.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Or IDF does not have this history. 2.55.17.86 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights are apparently investigating according to the AP report. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The IDF has a history of lies. Gaza Beach Bombing, Beitunia killings, Shireen Abu Akleh killings, White Phosphorus use on hospitals, the Najjar shooting: those are examples off the top of my head. IDF reporting is not reliable, and sources that use that reporting are, by inheritance, not reliable either. Mcdruid (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That's why we and the reliable secondary sources attribute their claims. Otoh, you are not a reliable source (in the nicest possible way), if you do have reliable sources saying that the IDF has a history of lies or similar, add that to the IDF page. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

In all of the ones I mentioned, it is well established that the IDF lied. They lied about a rocket misfire last year and again this year. Mcdruid (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel has now admitted responsibility for the (Jabaliya, 5 children, Sunday) incident which they initially claimed was PIJ and described above here and here. This also renders the AP report suspect since they claimed that the evidence there supported the initial Israeli claims. Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The root cause

Although the fighting was concentrated in the Gaza Strip, the root causes may be traced to Jenin where the PIJ has a strong presence.

This is a remarkable sentence to the lead.

• It is an opinion, apparently in two sources (I haven't yet checked) passed off as a factoid.
• may be is ambiguous. Contextually, that can mean either (a) one can trace the 'root cause' to Jenin or (b) perhaps the root cause lies in Jenin.
• That is indeterminate then,- (a) implies certainty (b) possibility - except for the fact that the sentence espouses an Israeli POV in either case. I.e., the 'PIJ' in Jenin caused Israeli to strike Gaza City, for example. Preemptive political or strategic actions are always a matter of choosing from many options, ranging from opportunism or (political) convenience to perceived necessity (all of these are indirectly alluded to in reports I have read). To illustrate heuristically this point: In his posthumous Silverview Le Carré writes of what the narrator considers a US 'habit of launching a new war every time it needs to deal with the effects of the last one it launched'.
• The 'root cause', if any, is never, historically, reeducible to a single factor, except by simpletions.
• As it stands therefore, it violates somewhat outrageously, NPOV. I said earlier, more than once, that the lead should stick to established facts regarding the salient features of the unfolding event, without intrusions of opinions. That is not just me, it is what leads should do. Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nishidani, I agree. Using "root cause" is odd, the "root cause" of the Arab-Israeli conflict? The "root cause" of war between humans? It may have been the "proximate cause" or a recently connected even that led to PIJ escalating and then Israel counter-escalating, but "root cause" is too much. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 22:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I already deleted the complained of sentence in the body, the sentence deleted in the lead was a summary from the material in the body. Perhaps you may find another way to summarize that material. There are actually 3 refs, Reuters, Time and Jewish currents. Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a principle of historical thinking that causes roots or otherwise, cannot be ascertained within 24 hours of a major event. And there is never one cause, associated with one side. That notion should not be in the lead in any case. It is very late here, and I haven't the time to check through the sections and those sources. I guess we'll end up at this point saying that the root cause was the Israeli killing of two of the Jenin leader,Bassam al-Saadi's sons back in 2002, or some cleric's medieval gloss on the Qu'ran, or Arthur Balfour's wondering whether contenting Weizman by offering a country GBritain had no jurisdiction over to bury the embarrassìng fact he was an antisemite, or some Jewish scribe's romantic fantasy in Babylon ca.400BCE about the obligations to history that stem from a Joshua's putative invasion of Canaan under the aegis of Yahweh, El or Elohim etc,.etc.etc.Yawn. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's gone now, proximate cause or something else would have been better, not going to disagree about that. Perhaps I will have another crack at a summary tomorrow. Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever, but you cannot place in the lead any material summarizing a unilateral and reductive viewpoint arguing that one side caused the conflict, no matter how many sources repeat the mantra. Were yyou tempted to do so, you would have to find sources that give an alternative 'cause' (i.e., the political opportunity as elections loom, for a politician lacking accreditation as a hawk, to use this to prove to the electorate he is tough). I don't believe that is the cause either, but is one of several reasons ('causes') given for the strike. You'll only get a quagmire whatever you do. The 'cause' cannot possibly be said to 'lie in Jenin' since the PIJ is all over the landscape, and strongest in Gaza. The intensity of sudden interest in this event on wiki is quite extraordinary, and the amount of rubbish in sources commensurately large. We can mention attributed views, by all means, but WP:Due and commonsense should not allow one to showcase crap. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as an argument that one side caused the conflict, not sure where you are getting that idea from tbh, perhaps when you have time read those refs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That is the way I read the sentence, and I sketched a careful construal of the grammar to show why I read it that way.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll clarify that, not grammatically, but logically. Ehud Barak once said that had he been born Palestinian, he'd have become a terrorist. That means, he recognized that given what Israel does, it is logical to respond the way, say Jenin militants do. To state that the 'cause is in Jenin' only elides from view Barak's logic, the fact that Jenin is as it is (a centre for violence against Israel) can be correlated by a mirroring logic that would make Israel a centre of violence against Palestinians. Saying 'Jenin' is the cause means there is no prior history that can account for those circumstances in Jenin, that the PIJ is an ex nihilo phenomenon, and everything else that Israel does is a 'response'.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that but the article body which was what the lead was supposed to be a summary of (I agree that my summary was poorly worded), explains that it is a two sided thing with Palestinians from Jenin killing Israelis in Israel leading to attacks on Jenin resulting in deaths of Palestinians there. It is clear from the refs that the PIJ soup simmered first in the West Bank and the Gaza attack was an extension of it. It is not correct to say that this is just Gaza, the PIJ in the West Bank are taking advantage of an unpopular PA to bolster their standing there, to the irritation of Israel and the PA and to a lesser extent Hamas as well. As Ian Bremmer in the Time article said "It’s never easy to pinpoint exactly when and why a flare-up in fighting between Israel and Palestinians begins. Before this month’s violence, at least 53 Palestinians were killed between March and July, including Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. During the same period, a spate of attacks by Palestinians killed at least 19 people in Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

is a two sided thing with Palestinians from Jenin killing Israelis in Israel leading to attacks on Jenin resulting in deaths of Palestinians there. </blockquot>

That is the Israeli POV. I'm sure you read Israeli newspapers every day, as I have for 20 years. Everyweek, one or two Palestinians are shot dead. Every day, some 'incident' of land theft is attempted, every autumn, their crops are plundered, burnt or stolen, and in every case, the IDF plays an active role in 'settling' 'clashes' by driving the complaining Palestinian villagers off, or uprooting as it is doing at Masafer Yatta, whole communities from their traditional lands. What you have is a slow war of conquest. In 99% of these 'incidents' (which go down to separating permanently by expulsion orders married couples with different papers found at a checkpoint) there is no reaction by the affected Palestinians. On those rare occasions (statistically) where militant groups (with whom I have no sympathy, but understand) react, PIJ Hamas or whoever) enact violence, plan and execute lethal operations targeting Israelis, military or civilian, all of a sudden the press gets excited and talks about Israeli attempts to put and end to the violence, and restore the 'order' of quiet, continuous theft, expropriation and violence the state of Israel sustains in the West Bank. Here, PIJ has a strong base in Jenin and ran a number of operations against the occupying power that supports the continual systemic violence against Palestinians and their territory. But the 'cause' is not there. This is not foruming or soap-boxing, to anticipate objections (not from you) but a clarification of why that kind of statement you proposed in good faith draws on sources that appear to selectively ignore the obvious while espousing an identifiable national POV of just one of the parties in conflict. Karl Kraus once wrote that the madness of the world and its wars was caused by the inability of the commentariat to write correct, precise prose reporting the circumstances leading up to them. I share that obsession.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already agreed several times now that my original summary was poorly worded no need to belabor that. As for my aligning with the Israeli POV that is not my usual position as you well know.

The Israeli POV involves distracting everyone from what is going on and asserting that the Gaza operation was only a matter of dealing with some bad guys there (in Gaza only), that is also what the combatant and naming arguments up above are all about. It is widely reported that the PIJ arrest in the WB was the spark for the Gaza operation, I want to clarify that (per sources) it is rather more than that and began before that. Search "Breaking the wave" or "Breakwater" + Jenin. (Breaking the wave is another propaganda phrase for the recent WB operations).

Yes, I know, one can say that the whole thing began in 1917 or whenever, that's not what I am aiming at here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound like I am bludgeoning. You've read more sources. I followed your tip and surrendered throwing my hands up in despair. The first I got was an 'explainer' the Breakwater operation from 124 which states:-

Since its establishment, Jenin has been a significant source of tension

Obviously the moron who wrote that cannot distinguish the Jenin Refugee Camp from Jenin, and knows zilch about the latter. Reading in this area is a form of penance for god knows what crime, the quality is so poor, except when you get empirical analysis from bodies like B'tselem or historically contextualized analysis from the Nathan Thralls out there. 'spark' by the way is unacceptable. The Israeli attack on Jenin sparked, not a reprisal from Jenin, but a further Israeli attack on Gaza. In normal language, that is called 'provocation' (which happens to be a part of what Israeli strategy is often about . That's why I prefer to wait until strong analytical sources come in for some addition like the one you proposed for the lead.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It will be some time before we get analytical sources, it's been a week. This what I want but it is opinion Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps this but again it is opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Richard Silverstein is not for wiki a reliable source but his blog often has very good inside information reflecting personal contacts within the security establishment and his familiarity with Israeli Hebrew newspapers. He writes as follows, and perhaps it is worth following up via RSA.

A final word in this update on the video the IDF is circulating alleging that it shows an IJ rocket landing on the five Paletinian children murdered. There are several glaring problems with its claim: first, the video has no time stamp. It could have been filmed yesterday or 2014 or any time; second, we don’t know who fired the missile; third, we don’t know where it was fired from; fourth, we don’t know precisely where it landed; fifth, we don’t know if this particular rocket killed or injured anyone. About the only thing we can say for sure is that it is a video. Which isn’t saying much.

Hass report

Even if it came from Icewhiz, Im adding the report from Amira Hass on the casualties to the infobox. nableezy - 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Partly overtaken by Israeli admission that the 5 Jabalia on Sunday is down to them and not PIJ. See above. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly down the page in the list of incidents. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent death toll

@Selfstudier:, you asked where the inconsistency was so I'll tell you here rather than revert you again as the page is under 1RR. The infobox says 14 [were killed in Gaza] by misfired Palestinian rockets. The body of the article says The Islamic Jihad said that "Twelve of those in Gaza were killed by misfired rockets in Gaza". The use of {{inconsistent}} is appropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard: That sentence in the body was tagged by myself a while back. I am certain that Islamic Jihad said no such thing but it is sourced and I have tagged it as dubious and not only because it says 12. I have no objection to you or anyone else removing that sentence altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from the article. If there are any editors who do object, I politely ask that they reply with additional sources to corroborate the dubious claim and strengthen its verifiability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Background: Two killed before Israel attacked

On 25 July, Israel destroyed two houses in an act of collective punishment: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/tamara-nassar/israel-carries-out-killings-revenge-demolitions-nablus On 29 July, Israel shot and killed Amjad Naser, age 15 in the back:https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_settler_soldier_shoot_and_kill_palestinian_boy On 2 August Israel shot and killed another child, in the back: Dirar Saleh: https://www.dci-palestine.org/israeli_sniper_kills_16_year_old_palestinian_boy_in_jenin On 2 August Egypt was holding talks with the factions to avoid escalation: "If we make it through the first 24 hours quietly, it's a sign of calm," a senior Egyptian official told Haaretz, adding that all parties told Cairo they aren't looking for escalation. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-08-02/ty-article/.premium/israeli-army-halts-rail-traffic-near-gaza-following-arrest-of-senior-islamic-jihad-member/00000182-5cd2-d9b3-a1a2-5ddba6670000 These items should be included as part of the background. Mcdruid (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Israel did a number of things in WB before the strikes on Gaza, including the arrest of Bassam al-Saadi (see Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022) , the difficulty is to link those things to the escalation (btw, electronicintifada is not currently an RS). The last part seems as if it might be relevant, let me take a look at that and see if it should be included. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I added material from Haaretz for 2 august conciliation efforts by Egypt. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In other instances of attacks, the background includes a much more detailed timeline of the violence that led up to it (see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis article, for example). I agree that there is a question of how far back you should go, but I think 10 days is enough to establish an immediate background.

The electronicintifada link references an article by Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-07-26/ty-article/.premium/israel-demolishes-homes-of-terrorists-who-killed-west-bank-security-guard/00000182-3997-dfe2-abab-79f732100000) that confirms the War Crime. ReliefWeb confirms both that and the shooting of the 15-year old on July 29.

It also might be worthwhile to mention how many rockets/balloons/rocks were thrown by Palestinians at Israel, but I have seen no reports of that, even in the Israeli-controlled media. Mcdruid (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not how far back to go, it is to find sources that link prior events to the escalation, I have been looking for such sources myself, see "The root cause section" above where I did find a couple of such sources but they are opinion sources. (the rockets fired number is already sourced in the article). Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

This is incorrect: "Among the ten people killed there were four PIJ militants, a five-year-old girl and a twenty-three year old woman." The four PIJ militants killed was in ALL the strikes at that time. Israel attacked the apartment building with seven missiles and a 250-pound bomb: killing one militant and nine civilians, including Alaa Qaddom, age 5. https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-714281 Mcdruid (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the part about the four militants using the BBC source already present. I can't find anything about the attack in the jpost source. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is still problematical as it disproportionately emphasizes the number of "militants" killed while not, at the same time, talking about the total number of civilian deaths. If I read just that sentence, or even the whole paragraph, I would think that not many "innocent bystanders" were killed. Mcdruid (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the first sentence is about the attack on the apartment building, then the sentences should support that. So the original "Among the ten people killed there were four PIJ militants, a five-year-old girl and a twenty-three year old woman." should be changed to "Among the ten people killed in the attack on the apartment, there was one PIJ militant, a five-year-old girl and a twenty-three year old woman." Mcdruid (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It was my understanding that that no-one else was killed in the attack on the apartment that killed Tayseer Jabari, is that not the case? The subsequent sentences are not referring to that attack specifically afaics. We can try to put together a more detailed timeline if you can find sources that do that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources I have seen specified that there were ten people killed in the initial strike by Israel, using 7 missiles and a 250-pound bomb: https://www.juancole.com/2022/08/civilian-killing-wounding.html and https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/7/israels-assault-on-gaza-what-we-know-so-far. The "no civilians killed" sounds like typical IDF lies. They also claimed that "no civilian infrastructure was harmed." Mcdruid (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, The BBC reported at least 10 killed in the initial strikes and also says that four PIJ militants - including Tayseer Jabari - and a five-year-old girl were among those killed since the strikes started. So how would you like to phrase this in the article by way of some change to what is there already? Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2022

2022 Israel–Palestine escalation → 2022 Gaza–Israel clashes – During the last move request there appeared to be a consensus that the "Gaza–Israel clashes" formulation, consistent with prior practice (see for example the last time Israel and PIJ fought for 3 days among others), was less awkward and less ambiguous than "Israel–Palestine escalation", which was proposed before we knew the events ultimately would not expand beyond Gaza. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree to the proposal, but I'm not sure how to use the technical template. Archway (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think any technical templates are necessary. The templates are mostly automated. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket failures

Please change "Following a backlash[from whom?], the restrictions were officially reversed[by whom?]" to "Following discussions with the Foreign Press Association, the restrictions were officially reversed by Salama Marouf, director of the government media office in Gaza".

These are the relevant parties identified in the source given. Stephen C Wells (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)