Jump to content

Talk:2022 Gaza–Israel clashes

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


Requested move 5 August 2022

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's very simple, we don't use names given by one side, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment if anything it should be changed to 2022 Israel-Gaza escalationMidrashah (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
* 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."[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Afaics, there is no need to disambiguate on English Wikipedia so this objection has no merit. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

*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."[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[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.

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Biased sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
And yet, while it is a "continuing subject of discussion," the IDF version remains unimpeached. Mcdruid (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or IDF does not have this history. 2.55.17.86 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Background: Two killed before Israel attacked

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Timeline

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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." Then after that should be the total toll of the entire campaign, perhaps including the strikes after the cease-fire. Mcdruid (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say "on the apartment"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2022

[edit]
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree to the proposal, but I'm not sure how to use the technical template. Archway (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support considering it centered around Gaza not "Palestine" in general. Bill Williams 12:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just narrow it to 2022 Israel–PIJ escalation given the highly specific nature of the sequence of events - it did not involve all of Palestine for sure, nor even did it involve the whole of Gaza as the new proposed title would suggest. Hamas, the main militant actor in Gaza, was conspicuous in its absence. "Clashes" does not work for me either - it's certainly the most bland way of describing any conflict, but that's about it. It wasn't a riot with armed police. "Escalation", by contrast, is a rather apt descriptor for the wholly unnecessary upward spiral of violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point you to Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2019) which this year's events were essentially a repeat of. Hamas did not take part then either. PIJ is not a common acronym and doesn't belong in the title.
I proposed "clashes" for the sake of consistency in this topic area. I agree it's somewhat vague but "escalation" is no better in this regard. Perhaps "conflict" would be more straightforward, for example we have 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for a brief, indecisive "upward spiral of violence" in ongoing lower-level hostilities. But in that case we should go about renaming the many other Gaza–Israel clashes pages. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daveout please revert your move, it is highly inappropriate for you to do that in the middle of a move discussion. The template in fact says specifically Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed. nableezy - 15:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this move, strongly oppose one with an Israeli-centric framing of Israel vs PIJ. This was an attack on Gaza, as shown through the airstrikes on civilian targets over and over, not just on the PIJ. nableezy - 15:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't think it would be such a big deal and that you'd be so upset. –Daveout(talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made clear my opposition to the Israeli-stated POV of "this is against PIJ" over and over. Beyond that, a formal move request has already been opened, an involved editor should not be moving the page to any new target while that is the case. nableezy - 15:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) –Daveout(talk) 16:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) -- Somehow my casual comment was misconstrued as a personal attack so I removed it. People are way too sensitive around here. It wasn't that deep fam. –Daveout(talk) 16:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The casual dismissal of our policies in a DS topic is not a good look. neither is the personal attack. nableezy - 16:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it as an attack. The excessive bureaucracy in this case is just unnecessary in my humble opinion. That's all. Make sure to relax. Peace. –Daveout(talk) 16:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, please don't ever move an article while a move discussion about the article is underway. If you ever do, revert the move as soon as possible. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either as proposed or to something like Israel-PIJ clashes. Alaexis¿question? 18:04, 9 September 2022 (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.

Palestinian rocket failures

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2022

[edit]

Since this "escalation" is over, please change the "status" to "result" in the infobox.--Oloddin (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Oloddin (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ping Oloddin. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a series of attacks by Palestinian militants"

[edit]

"During the period between March and May, at least 19 Israelis, most of them civilians, were killed as a result of a series of attacks by Palestinian militants."

This sentence is problematic because afaics it lumps together Palestinians from the oPt with Palestinian citizens of Israel. So, for example when OCHA give their count for Israeli fatalities in the IP conflict, they only count 11 (to date in 2022) because they do not include Israelis killed by other Israelis (eg Beersheba (4) and Hadera (2) attacks were not carried out by oPt Palestinians) I can work it out math wise by going through all the reports to reconcile 19 with 11 but it would be good if someone just had a source pointing this out. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example, the BBC on 14 April says "A wave of attacks by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in Israel in the past three weeks has left 12 Israelis and two Ukrainians dead " That is Beersheeba/Hadera (6) by Arab Israelis (Palestinian citizens of Israel) and then Bnei Brak/Tel Aviv (6 + 2) by Palestinians from oPT. Somehow in later reports (such as Reuters) Israeli Arabs has morphed into Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found a later BBC source (5 August) "a wave of attacks by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians that left 17 Israelis and two Ukrainians dead." That is also the tally I got from the individual incidents, not completely precise but it will do. The Reuters source is just wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combatants

[edit]

It makes no sense to refer to the Gaza Strip as a combatant, the definition is "Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict" and the Gaza Strip is neither a country, nor an organization, it has no armed forces and is simply a piece of land. Hamas is not technically the armed forces of the Gaza Strip but rules over it, and they declined to participate, making the PIJ the only combatant on the Palestinian side. Syria and Yemen allowing Russia and Saudi Arabia respectively to attack rebels within their country did not make Syria and Yemen parties to the Russian or Saudi attacks, they were parties because Yemen and Syria both did attacking themselves. On the other hand, the Gaza Strip didn't attack Israel, only the PIJ did, so Israel attacking the Gaza Strip does not make it a combatant when it did not do any of the fighting. Labeling the Gaza Strip as a combatant because Israel killed civilians who were not members of the PIJ would be like labeling New York City as a combatant in 9/11, being attacked does not make something a combatant, engaging in the conflict by fighting back is what makes something or someone a combatant. Bill Williams 01:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its labeled a combatant because reliable sources report that was the entity attacked. And yes, that makes one a combatant. This framing of Israel, state, vs PIJ, armed group, and not against Gaza is non-neutral. Not liking what the sources report is not cause to remove it. nableezy - 02:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Israel attacked Gaza, that does not make it a combatant. Not a single definition of combatant includes people who are attacked. Every definition of involves the people who are armed or using force in the conflict. The Gaza civilians who were killed were not armed or using force in the conflict, therefore they were not combatants, and the only actual combatants who fought against Israel were the PIJ. I have provided you with the definition of combatant which clearly does not apply to Gaza, do you have any sources that specifically state "the Gaza Strip" was a combatant? Bill Williams 12:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox military conflict combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional –the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.
On that basis I think we're fine the way it is. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it means Gaza is the combatant. And here is The Economist saying It was the most serious round of warfare between Israel and Gaza since an 11-day war in May 2021, when 270 people were killed, mainly Palestinians. Between Israel and Gaza. And you didnt provide me with any definition at all, you provided an unsourced argument. nableezy - 13:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the definition the UN definition, and since Gaza can't fight, it's a piece of land, not a government or an armed forces or a group of people, it cant be a combatant. There was fighting between people within Israel and within Gaza, which is what the Economist is referring to, but the fighting was supported by the government of Israel and not the de facto government (Hamas) of Gaza so Gaza wasn't a combatant, the PIJ was. Bill Williams 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like saying Israel cant fight because it is a piece of land. Beyond that, your comment is entirely original research, several sources say flat out it was between Israel and Gaza. nableezy - 01:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Gaza–Israel_clashes&oldid=1196911274"