Jump to content

Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durdyfiv1 (talk | contribs) at 00:32, 11 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 10, 2021, and May 22, 2021.


RfC: Infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Picture B: 5 for A, 7 for B, 4 for D, 1 for C. ExcutientTalk 16:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What image(s) should be used for the infobox? Other options are welcomed. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A (current image)
    A (current image)
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D
  • E
    E
  • I don't particularly see a reason to change things compared to where they are now? In the future, I suppose, it may be wise to create a composite image featuring both the damages caused by Israeli military strikes as well as the violence from unrest within Israeli itself (and, likely, something illustrating Palestinian rocket attacks could be a part of that as well). However, the article appears fine right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2014 we settled on using two images side-by-side, one for each side. “WarKosign” 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now is fine (clarify, A), but 1:1 would be very much a violation of WP:DUE in that it would pretend that the devastation were equal here. Neither reality or the sources bear that out. nableezy - 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. “WarKosign” 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we. nableezy - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. “WarKosign” 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is what RS say the subject is, and they have largely focused on the damage in Gaza caused by Israeli strikes. DUE demands we give that same weight to that aspect of the story. Not pretend things are equivalent. Whatever, I voted A, would like to stop engaging with you for no apparent reason now plz. nableezy - 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of damage has come from the Israeli side. Using a photo of a Palestinian attack as the lead image would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the damaged targets in Gaza were military targets or adjacent to military targets. The Hamas, in contrast, fired indiscriminately at cities. The Hamas probably fired more projectiles (thousands) at Israel than the Israeli air force dropped on Gaza, just because they were intercepted or not effective is not an issue for image selection. Besides, D is verifiable, whereas the A image is not.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Israel says they were mostly firing at military targets, but this is widely disputed, even by the United States. Regardless, a building being blown up is far more important than a car being blown up, and that shouldn't have to be a political statement. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC on Background

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
9 Oppose versus 5 Support. ExcutientTalk 16:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Background section include the following?

During the 1980s, Hamas sprang from the Muslim Brotherhood, through the 1990s, Hamas evolved as an armed force. After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel. Hamas is opposed to two-state solution, the map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza, every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine.[1]

Infinity Knight (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dutt, Prabhash K (21 May 2021). "Israel-Palestine conflict: What is Hamas? Who represents Palestinians?". Outlook in India. New Delhi. Retrieved 22 May 2021.

Survey

  • Oppose per While perhaps a brief background on Hamas might help with a reader’s understanding of the article, by this reasoning we would also need to include a ‘brief’ background on the State of Israel, and the conflict in general. It can’t be done, and it wouldn’t be reasonable anyway. Readers will just have to click on the respective wikilinks to learn more. Source not great either (one non-HQRS for a whole section?) which speaks to this probably being UNDUE too. ProcSock (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In case people are wondering where this appeared from, the discussion (RFCBefore) back up the page entitled "Hamas background section" refers. I don't have anything further to add to what I said there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is inexact or misleading it all of its details, i.e., question-begging.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The background section for this article should focus on the background of the event (as it currently does), not on the background of any specific group involved in the event. If a reader were interested in learning more about Hamas, this isn't the page to do so. Rovenrat (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (conditionally; nb brought here by RFC request). Short background on one of the belligerents is worthwhile. An article on the event without the background necessary to understand why Israel is and has been fighting disconnects the conflict from rational action. That said, for these claims, a better source ought to be put in hand. Ifly6 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with Ifly6, a short background to Hamas, as one of the two parties involved in the crisis, puts it in context and is helpful for the user. Makes sense to me, and as long as its NPOV. I think we can assume people know what the state of Isreal is.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding political context : In Political science "ideolgy" is certainly a key factor of any analysis. Hamas policies of warfare should certainly be mentioned, particularly "Destruction of Israel for an Islamic state", is a good summary of its purposes and goals.--Rectangular dome (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Arbpia, not permitted to participate in formal discussions)[reply]
  • Support There is value in having background information in the article about Hamas. At the same time, it would be helpful to have a brief background about Israel in the article as well, both to inform the reader and to provide a balance of information about both groups. In-depth information could be obtained by including wikilinks to Hamas and Israel in the article, allowing the reader to obtain more information without detracting from the main subject of the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a reasonable summary. Melmann 10:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it is one sided, the background to the crisis is as complicated as the whole history since the mandate. --Almaty✉✎ 10:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a, the coup was from the other side (see for example here), b, the language is, sorry, silly ("every time Israel and Palestine fight" may work in a low quality source but it isnt encyclopedic), and c. no matter what you include you will be leaving out something that somebody finds pertinent. We have an article Hamas. Thats where you go to learn about Hamas on Wikipedia. nableezy - 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The summary is good for the reader's understanding but its only one sided. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As it provides relevant background info about one of the parties involved. There's a lot of background info about Israel already included; this addition won't make the text one-sided. - Daveout(talk) 12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To have that plashed into the text is to invite an edit war as editors tweak it for balance, and editors who like it as it stands, a pastiche of disinformation by caricature, respond by adding more of the same.
  • 'Hamas evolved as an armed force.' No. it evolved as an Islamic charity.
  • 'After Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, Hamas carried out suicide bombings in Israel.' I.e., Hamas reacted to peace accords by resorting to terrorism. No context. No mention that, in their view Israel terrorized Palestinians (look at the casualty numbers for the First Intifada)
  • 'Hamas is opposed to two-state solution.' It accepts a two state solution as the first step in the cessation of hostilities, an interim move. The dominant political consensus of Israel's major parties rejects a two state solution, and de facto has achieved a one-state non-solution.
  • 'The map of Hamas for the state of Palestine includes the territories of Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.' Israeli maps of the country blur the borders of the 3 in the same way that Hamas maps of the ideal result do.
  • 'Since the coup against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza'. It was a counter-coup, since it is well documented that Abbas, with the US and Israel, were caught preparing their coup.
  • 'every time Israel and Palestine fight, it is a military battle between Israeli forces and Hamas’s Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades.' No. Since 2006, Israel and Hamas have been at war. 'Palestine' is an empty word here. Violent military means have been used every week in the West Bank for over two decades.
  • 'Today, Hamas has emerged as the most powerful political entity in Palestine.' I.e., all of the Palestinian territories are in the hands of terrorists. There is no Palestine to speak off, and political elections to gauge support haven't been conducted for 15 years, and won't be for the forseeable future.
In short, this is incompetently selective skewing of a very complex picture, and is more or less the standard Israeli view or POV unacceptable in an encyclopedia dedicated to equidistance between the conflicted parties. A click will get anyone onto the Hamas page where everything is explained by sections in relatively succinct detail.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, excessive reliance on a single source whose limited reputation and focus makes it WP:UNDUE. We can't frame the entire topic using just one source like this, especially in such a controversial topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I echo the response by Aquillion, relying upon a single source is not a solid approach given the controversial nature of the subject. Perhaps if there was more citations to support what is being suggested I would be more amenable to support the Rfc. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Scope and bias (again)

Regarding the following passage in the lede:

"Under international law, the area, effectively annexed by Israel, is a part of the Palestinian territories that Israel currently holds under belligerent occupation. Israel applies its laws there."

Do we really need to get into the whole occupation issue in general? This article should stick to recent events only. (of course the history of the occupation has repercussions to the current crisis, so do many other events throughout the history of Israel and Palestine. This article simply isn't about those). That portion does not summarize anything in the body. The main source is Al Jazeera (very partisan). Also, the people pushing this are curiously against providing background info on Hamas. - Daveout(talk) 10:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been in the article for ages (not being pushed) until you removed it with edit summary "out of scope". This limited amount of material is obviously relevant (and has nothing to do with Hamas, either). If you think AJ is not RS for this material, RSN is thataway.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good source but too much weight is being given to it. And Hamas has everything to do with it, as a major party involved in the conflict. - Daveout(talk) 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas has nothing to do with the material that you removed. I can trivially add sourcing for that material, which is anyway uncontroversial.Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Notwithstanding others' concerns, this statement appears in the lead but nowhere else in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. So, compare the lead to the content of the "Background" section. That section does not discuss the status of East Jerusalem under international law; instead, it has hatnotes to other articles that discuss it. So, you can either keep those sentences in the lead and write about the status of East Jerusalem in the background section, or remove those sentences from the lead and rely on the hatnotes linking to other articles for background. If you would like to pursue the former, you will need to obtain consensus that the article should be expanded in this way. --Bsherr (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a properly sourced and obviously relevant sentence to the body of the article which editor Daveout has reverted from there in addition to his reverting it from the lead. Since I don't like to edit war, I will wait and see what other editors have to say, since this sentence was discussed on multiple occasions previously and on each occasion the consensus was to keep it as was and in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now @Nishidani: has restored it to the lead, by way of uncommenting editor Bsherr who commented it out. So if editor Daveout would like to self revert his removing the material from the body, then we will be all shipshape once more.(ie it will be in the body and the lead).Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that, it seems all OK now.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Selfstudier added content to the Background section, and Daveout reverted it, which is consistent with WP:BRD, but despite my recommendation that Selfstudier gain consensus here first. You then restored it, and haven't instituted any discussion at all that I can see. Do you want to explain your accusation of edit warring in view of your actions? --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this was discussed on multiple occasions (it's in the archives), no-one having bought up the "not in the body" argument until you did, it's common in breaking news articles for that to happen. So I did what you suggested and added the material in the body (since there was already consensus for it being in the lead, this seems uncontroversial) and it was reverted again, just outside the 24 hour limit, I might add. So the editor going against consensus is in fact editor Daveout, who is of course free to start yet another discussion about this sentence if he wishes to do so. Frankly, I don't understand his objection to the sentence anyway, it is only logical to explain the International/Israeli law position of Sheikh Jarrah.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: when you say reverted again, when was such text previously reverted after being inserted into the Background section, before Daveout did so? --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead, it's the same material that previously had consensus in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so its not the same edit. It's substantively different by reason of where it is placed. My quarrel is not with you. My concern is that Nishidani is deliberately inflaming this by making false accusations of "edit warring", despite Nishidani having made no attempt to discuss here on this talk page. That's Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, and I don't like it. It makes everyone's work harder and more unpleasant. --Bsherr (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page is under a 1RR, one editor has reverted twice. That isnt an aspersion, thats a fact. nableezy - 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not revert anything twice, please retract yourself. If you count the removal\introduction of different instances of the same text as a double revert, then Selfstudier engaged in 1rr vio as well. (here and here). - Daveout(talk) 18:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both your removals are reverts, whereas the first addition to the body is not a revert as it did not reverse any previous edit. nableezy - 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be serious. Lol. - Daveout(talk) 18:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious as can be. You reverted twice. Again. If you have trouble counting reverts then maybe this is not the topic area for you to be editing. nableezy - 19:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: Please see the part about "within a 24-hour period". There is no contravention of the bright-line rule. You can acknowledge that, right? --Bsherr (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a contravention of a bright line rule, Daveout reverted twice within 24 hours (both on 1 June), here and here. The initial removal is a revert of this initial insertion. nableezy - 19:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just outside 24 hours sorry. So not quite bright line violation, but certainly edit-warring and gaming a bright line rule. AE has generally found 25 hour reverts to be just as actionable as 24 hour ones. nableezy - 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will just add to the background section to make that point moot. nableezy - 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done. nableezy - 17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking news articles write the lead before anything else. That sentence was there then subject to editwarring by rapid passingby editors and finally stabilized. Selfstudier added details in the section, so that the lead content was then, as required, a summary. Both that section material and the lead sentence were elided, or got ridden of: that is a bit like gutting a section to make the lead sentence it explains appear unwarranted as self-standing. A cheap trick. The evidence so far is that matter adequately discussed in archives is ignored, and the 1R rule has been dodged at its limits, in order to excise a known fact, that this dispute arose in an area where Israeli law and modus operandi challenge/violate the stipulations of international law. Attempts to bury this are what they appear to be, POV pushing to repress from the readership's awareness of core facts in that historic reality.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References needing merging

There are quite a lot of duplicated references that need merging. I've done a few, but have run out of time. Here is a list. I suggest that after doing a merge you delete the reference from the list (I know it's bad manners to edit someone else's Talk contribution, but it makes sense here).


https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-intl/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/11/middleeast/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-intl/index.html (is dup of previous)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/09/world/middleeast/israeli-court-palestinian-families-east-jerusalem.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/world/middleeast/jerusalem-protests-aqsa-palestinians.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/violence-erupts-al-aqsa-mosque-israel-marks-jerusalem-day-2021-05-10/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-fires-artillery-into-gaza-amid-persistent-palestinian-rocket-attacks-2021-05-13/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-thai-workers-killed-several-people-injured-as-hamas-bombards-southern-israel/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/73-year-old-israeli-woman-who-fell-in-rocket-shelter-dies-of-injuries/

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great initiative. Better strike it rather than delete entirely. “WarKosign” 14:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-crisis events in Escalation section

From Escalation section:

"On 5 June border police forcefully detained an Al Jazeera reporter wearing body armor marked "press". Israeli police said the journalist was detained after she was asked for identification, refused and pushed a police officer.[115] On 6 June Israeli police detained Muna al-Kurd. Her father told reporters that the 23-year-old activist was detained after police raided their home in Sheikh Jarrah and said that the police also delivered a notice ordering her twin brother Mohammed El-Kurd to surrender himself to authorities. He and his sister are running a social media campaign against the expulsions of Palestinians from their homes.[116][117] The pair were later released.[118]"

The crisis ended on 21 May 2021 [1]. This quote should be moved into the Aftermath section or outright deleted from the article.

  1. ^ Al-mughrabi, Nidal; Saul, Jonathan; Ayyub, Rami (20 May 2021). Israel and Hamas both claim victory as ceasefire holds Reuters. Archived from the original on 26 May 2021. Retrieved 9 June 2021.

FortUser (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the top part into aftermath.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Edit

Third paragraph: "Israel began a campaign of airstrikes against Gaza"

This should be changed to: "Israel began a campaign of retaliatory airstrikes against targets in Gaza"

As per BBC: Israel approves flag march through Jerusalem's Old City https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57402137 Durdyfiv1 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this before and all the "retaliatory" refs were taken out, there was Hamas retaliating for Israel things and vice versa and it all became nonsense about who was retaliating for what and when so just decided to stick with bare facts.Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, before there was the flinging about of propaganda within the context of the historical debate surrounding this. This, on the other hand, is a BBC source about this particular escalation. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can consider the initial rocket attacks to be retaliatory as well, right? It's just another way of having the futile "who started it" argument. Also, I don't really see the difference between "against Gaza" and "against targets in Gaza", is there one? Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
eg Diff WK made a number of such changes and after some thought I agreed and removed the other response/retaliatory's as well (WK only removed the Palestinian "responses").Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? I removed all the "responded" and "in response" that I found. “WarKosign” 16:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can parrot Hamas propaganda/talking points, but this comes from the BBC.

The distinction is quite simple: one implies an entire enclave was targeted i.e. civilians, civilian infrastructure e.g. schools, universities, hospitals, restaurants, factories, leisure centres, sports facilities, bars, nightclubs (oh I forgot, there aren't any of those in Gaza), street-markets, museums, cultural centres (not many there either), synagogues – oops, etc, while the other does not.

Stop being a tool – this is a BBC article. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if the sources support that the target of the attack was more specific than the whole Gaza strip we should report it.
Similarly, if the sources specify what Hamas attacked in Israel we should write it. “WarKosign” 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for about a decade I kept reading endless reports which stated 'Hamas fired rockets at Israel' and 'Israel responded/retaliated', wondering why, with each incident, Israeli actions prior to a rocket fired weren't considered provocations to which Hamas 'retaliated/responded'. In 2009 was it, there was an academic statistical analysis of the interactions, concluding that it was a false distinction, since each could be said to respond to the other. Sequence can allow the reader to draw whatever conclusions they wish to draw. After all Hamas's ultimatum was issued saying they would fire if Israel desisted from its actions at Al-Aqsa/Sheikh Jarrah, meaning that from their perpective they would retaliate or respond. So sequence rather than the loaded language of saying who retaliated.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nishidani, you've been exposed very recently as a professional editor with an agenda when it comes to these topics. We have possibly the most legitimate, neutral source stating that the responses were retaliatory; Wikipedia does not need your Hamas-sympathising. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sorry, for yourself. The statement that I am a professional editor in Hamas's pocket was made several years ago by a sockpuppet. No one but me, and uh, someone like yourself would remember that. So, who are you?, or is it a case that 'great minders' think alike? Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone edits that in, I will edit back in all the "retaliatory" stuff I took out, all equally well sourced. Including the fact that the Hamas strikes were in retaliation for Israeli provocations at Sheikh Jarrah followed by Al-Aqsa. Doncha jus love editors who never heard of NPA? Any more of that and there will be consequences.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that upon cursory glance of that user's talk page, they have been made duly aware of NPA, with no change in behavior. And I must say, if Hamas has enough time and money to dedicate to "professional" Wikipedia editing rather than, you know, rocket attacks, then I'm impressed. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim whatever you want if it suits you – I only said he's been exposed. And please, add in all that you've removed about your misguided Israeli 'provocations', so long as they're cited by a neutral source. AJ, a Qatari-funded MB media outlet which has been exposed numerous times in its reporting on this engagement alone, is not. And now AllegedlyHuman in his charge against me is putting words into my mouth. Don'tcha just love it when one tries to provide a neutral source, revealing the truth, which just happens to support Israel's actions. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AJ is green at RSP, if you want to try and change that, go ahead.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's difficult to source elsewhere "Hamas began its rocket assault last Monday after weeks of tensions over a court case to evict several Palestinian families in East Jerusalem, and in retaliation for Israeli police clashes with Palestinians near the city’s Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/hamas-israel-fighting-abates-as-truce-calls-mount.html as well as plenty others.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that a neutral source be cited and now you propose leftist, anti-Israel organisations be included too. I didn't propose adding anything from right-leaning sources like JPost or TOI, but it seems you too, with your response to mine to editor Nishidani, have seem oddly, unheathily obsessed about viewing Israel's legally legitimate actions negatively. These are all just perceptions, and I have a right to make them as much as you have a right to make them about me. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In reaction" and "responded" is a bunch of nonsense. Everyone has a reason/excuse/justification/rationalization for whatever action they are taking, and of course it involves something that happened previously, hence absolutely everything can be said to be done in response to something else. It's a matter of POV whether this is truely an inevitable response or a transparent excuse for a vile action. It's better not to litter the article with all these "responses". Unless the source disagree on simple facts, chronological sequence of events is indisputable and if we write just that the readers will decide for themselves which actions where justified and which were not. This interpretation will depend on the reader's predesposition, but it's inevitable in any case. “WarKosign” 19:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well now not only is Nishidani putting words into my mouth (which is what I highlighted he was already doing), but he is also exploiting the fact I don't know how to reply to a specific comment on these talk pages AND hypocritically using a PA against me. Hey Nishidani, try thinking rationally and not, you know... Like leftist-liberalists and Hamas-sympathisers tend to do. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis&oldid=1027956669"