Jump to content

Talk:Blockade of the Gaza Strip

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

Incorrect reference for blockade impact

[edit]

The second paragraph of the article refers to an UNOCHA report. Specifically the text,

According to a 2022 report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the blockade has significantly reduced movement of people and goods due to a reduction in the number of exit permits by Israel.

However, the reference does not link to the said report but instead to a newspaper article by "thehindu.com". I suggest either linking to the original report (I could not find it) or changing the text to reflect that the report is not by UNOCHA Light984 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I removed the external link it was dated June 2006, and thus couldn't have information on this topic. Perhaps there was confusion between the blockade of Gaza and the wall in the West Bank. (1:13am PST 1/19/09)

Request for edit (typo)

[edit]

The heading and text "Role in turning gas into an open air prison" should read "Role in turning Gaza..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:4800:3503:FA06:ADEC:2B92:83D7:B353 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the "legal analysis" section, the quote contains the phrase "While the modem concept extends beyond its original and exclusive maritime roots". I am quite sure this should read "modern" instead of "modem". It's a common error in OCR digitizations. As it stands, the sentence makes very little sense, as the concept of the modem does neither have maritime roots, nor is it relevant here. Please edit. Thanks!--95.89.78.72 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli disengagement from Gaza

[edit]

The Israeli disengagement from Gaza is important to be mentioned at the top of the article, since it puts into context :

  1. The historical context of current situation.
  2. Israel's long term intentions for Peace, and actual activities aiming to achieve peace.
  3. After the disengagement , Gaza is the sole responsible for its own citizens and actions.
  4. When not inter-mingled (disengaged), it is the right of every sovereign country to decide what's imported / exported from it.

Therefore the Israeli disengagement from Gaza should be mentioned at the top of the article. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's mere background here. It's important to mention on the Gaza Strip page. Points 2 and 3 sound very much like opinion. But the reasons for the Israeli disengagement from Gaza are relevant there, not here. Gaza has never been its own entity or had full agency over its own destiny, because it, like all of the Palestinian Occupied Territories have never been granted its sovereignty, which brings up onto point 4, which doesn't apply here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Strip de facto became a political entity with an independent government from the moment Hamas came to power in 2007. IT conducted himself as a government, built military infrastructure, collected taxes (and received economic aid at the same time [https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000615060] ) and Israel could not openly operate militarily in the Gaza Strip without starting a campaign military. Israel's influence was due to it being a neighboring country to the Gazan political entity. 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:A4E3:233C:8EB2:5038 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of blockade

[edit]

The lede make it seem as though the entering of "basic goods" was some sort of great effort. But, apparently, blocking "basic goods" for the construction of thousands of rockets was never a problem. Not to mention the entering of endless guns and ammo. Does anybody have a source reporting on this interesting fact? –Daveout(talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are plenty of sources on the continuing occupation if that helps. Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss match of starting date of the blockade as per the associated citation of the first paragraph

[edit]

As per the citation by Britannica: "In autumn 2007 Israel declared the Gaza Strip under Hamas a hostile entity and approved a series of sanctions that included power cuts, heavily restricted imports, and border closures." does not match the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia article: "A blockade has been imposed by Israel and Egypt on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip since 2005." 45.81.121.26 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems important. It was changed on May first 2022 from "2007" to "temporarily in 2005 and permanently in 2007". Can someone provide references for the revision? Iuvalclejan (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claim - when the blockade started

[edit]

The first paragraph claims "A blockade has been imposed by Israel and Egypt on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip since 2005" (empahsis mine). The source later linked indicates no such thing. It clearly states the blockade started on 2007: "In autumn 2007 Israel declared the Gaza Strip under Hamas a hostile entity and approved a series of sanctions that included power cuts, heavily restricted imports, and border closures." - https://www.britannica.com/place/Gaza-Strip/Blockade

I suggest either changing the date to 2007 or providing a better source. ConvictOfHunger (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, first word in second sentence

[edit]

"ihe" should be "the" 2600:1011:B0C3:3BC7:14C8:83FF:FEA9:3E4B (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor article

[edit]

For lots of unanswered, but essential technical questions, see Talk:Rafah Border Crossing#Where? When? Who? Basics missing.

PLUS: until my intervention today, it didn't even mention that Egypt is part of the blockading party. We can discuss how far Egypt went at during which period, but it's a absolute fact that Gazans can't move to Sinai (not even to seek medical help during the war, or dual nationals w/o protracted negotiations), nor can Egyptians easily visit Gaza, goods are being checked to a certain degree, tunnels were flooded by Egypt, etc, etc. Arminden (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"For the ongoing blockade..." rephrase

[edit]

"For the ongoing blockade" should be rephrased to something like "For the most recent tightening of the blockade" since the former phrasing suggests that the blockade described in the current article had ended. DMH43 (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start of the blockade

[edit]

The first sentence says the blockade started in 2007, the article goes on to say it started in 2005-2006 but tightened in 2007. Economist Sara Roy states:

The reasons for Palestinian economic regression are many and interrelated but turn on one primary axis: closure. Israel’s closure policy, which re- stricts and at times bans the movement of labor and goods from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to Israel, to each other, and to other external m- kets, represents the single most deleterious factor shaping the nature of Palestinian economic activity; yet, closure remains largely unrecognized. Since it first was imposed in March 1993, closure never once has been lifted.

(emphasis mine) I suggest this article should clarify the importance and history of previous closures. DMH43 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic edit

[edit]

Sorry to see, but my friend Makeandtoss did it: I made something, and he tossed it :)

I have put together a systematic overview of past and current border crossings, by country (from Israel, Egypt, Israel detour through Egypt), open, more or less so, or permanently closed. Very encyclopedic. He thought otherwise and wiped out over 3000 bits' worth of info, the entire section. Edit summary:

"→‎Border crossings
unrelated to article focusing on blockade"

See at: Revision as of 13:55, 24 December 2023.

Now maybe I don't understand zilch, but ain't a blockade (see article name) a something where you close border crossings? And if it is so, how is an overview of the still open and the closed border crossings "unrelated"?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we took an example of a siege from history, where spirits have cooled down a bit, like the Siege of Leningrad. Wouldn't one main focus be on the routes kept open by those inside, and on the success or failure of the besiegers to close them? Of course it would.

I won't start the silly game of putting it back in, to see it taken out again. If one searches for Israel-Gaza border, a redirect takes one to Israel-Gaza barrier. Fine with me. I'll put it in there. I hope nobody will hunt after me and take it down, planting the resistance flag over the ruins of this imperialist attempt of keeping Wiki an encyclopedic enterprise, an invention of old (and long dead) white men using imperialist languages like Greek, Latun and French.

Enjoy the revolution, I'll cheer you on from behind. Arminden (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal overview (1 short paragraph) back in. Intellectually obliged to do so. I'm done. Not putting the page on my watchlist to save me from noticing what will follow. All yours. Arminden (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2024

[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: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade of the Gaza Strip → Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip – WP:COMMONNAME per overwhelming majority of reliable sources, just to name a few (prior to current blockade on 7 October 2023; 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip):

Canvass warning to closing editor: Someone has posted a link to this discussion in an Israel forum [1] asking people to oppose the move. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support; RS typically refer to the blockade as an Israeli effort, which is supported by Egypt. Israel's role in the blockade is by far the most important role. The move would help reduce the habit that seems to be developing on WP of renaming all references to the blockade as the "Israeli-Egyptian blockade", which is of course misleading and inconsistent with typical naming from RS. DMH223344 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen as an Israeli blockade by RS, albeit supported in a minor role by Egypt. A major difference between the two is Israel's role as occupier, a role no-one is assigning to Egypt. The control over the area is principally Israeli. Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And again it confirms that what Wikipedia finds neutral in its own bubble of anti Israel contributors is biased as hell. AntonHogervorst (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- the current title certainly isn't incorrect and the nature of the blockade is clearly described in the opening paragraph. The proposed title is used for clarity's sake by some sources but is less accurate- would using that title imply that information on the Egyptian blockade should be in a separate article, for example? Israeli-led blockade of the Gaza Strip would probably be the most accurate longer-form title, but I'm really not seeing a need to move from the current title. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> would using that title imply that information on the Egyptian blockade should be in a separate article, for example?
no, since the egyptian role is in supporting the Israeli blockade. "Israeli-led" doesnt add any information. DMH223344 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-
  • Customary titles. Based on a Wikipedia title search, about 90% of the articles on blockades omit the blockader, e.g., Blockade of Yemen. In the case of Gaza, as with Yemen, there's no need to disambiguate. The blockader is only added in rare cases, such as when there are two countries carrying out the blockade (Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata), or when a particular attribute of the blockade is being specified (e.g., Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, or 2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip).
  • "Overwhelming majority"?? A general search yields about 39x as many results with "Gaza blockade" as with "Israeli Gaza blockade", for the same reason that we generally leave off the blockader in titles---because there's no ambiguity that needs clarifying. I would expect a similar distribution for any reasonable set of RS. The "overwhelming majority" seems to favor leaving off the "Israeli" specifier. (Restricted to pages that include "2024", the ratio drops to 29x. Not surprising, since current sources have a bias toward focusing on what's currently newsworthy---Israel. Wikipedia titles should avoid such timeliness biases in article naming.)
  • Egypt. Egypt, a sovereign nation, is mentioned 149 times (22%) in the current article, compared to Israel's 530. It has one-third of the crossings (Rafah), and has a rich history with Hamas's parent organization. Yes, Israel is the bigger player, but there's no need to break naming conventions to once again remind everyone that Israel is part of the story, or to marginalize the role that Egypt plays.
Dotyoyo (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments made above, a POV title that is coincidentally inaccurate due to the involvement of Egypt would need a truly overwhelmingly majority of source using this and only this phrasing, a fact that is simply not given here, per the arguments made above. This fact is made worse by the fact that some of the references that can be found implicitly refer to the Israeli part of the blockade and not the blockade in it’s entirety, a group that would also have to be counted against the new title, as the article is concerned with the entire blockade. In addition, per the arguments made above, it would be an unjustified deviation from both ‘precedent’ and be misleading, as the article is about the entire blockade and not the Israeli part. FortunateSons (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just plainly inaccurate. The blockade is a joint enforcement and is not unilaterally enforced by Israel. Call it the "Israeli-Egyptian Blockade" if you like.Mistamystery (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Egypt strictly controls only the rafah crossing. Israel actively enforces a land, air and sea blockade. Calling it "join enforcement" is misleading. DMH223344 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The complexity of the situation is a good reason to leave the title as-is. Zanahary (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources that outline the differences in enforcement and responsibility between Israel and Egypt? I’m operating on the assumption that both Israel and Egypt are operating under the same guidelines insofar as what is/isn’t allowed at the respective crossings they’re controlling. Mistamystery (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking back here after reviewing Rafah page. It appears by all accounts Egypt holds the keys there, and the crossing is open at their whim. Where are the sources saying they are acting at the beck and call of the Israelis? Mistamystery (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting you use the expression "holds the keys" since there is a report from Gisha, the authority on the status of the border crossings, with the title "Rafah Crossing: Who holds the keys?" (2009) which is used in our Rafah article:

    Israel continued to exercise control over the border through its control of the Palestinian population registry, which determines who is allowed to go through Rafah Crossing. It also had the power to use its right to veto the passage of foreigners, even when belonging to the list of categories of foreigners allowed to cross, and to decide to close the crossing indefinitely. Gisha has blamed Israel for keeping the Rafah Crossing closed through indirect means and Egypt for submitting to Israeli pressure and not cooperate with the Hamas government.

    DMH223344 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From Gisha in 2021, emphasizing Israel's role due to its status as the occupier:

    Given its ongoing effective control over Gaza, which amounts to occupation, Israel is obligated to protect human rights and facilitate normal life in the Strip to the greatest extent possible.

    DMH223344 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, no one is saying they are "at the beck and call of the Israelis". We are saying the role played by Israel is by far the dominant one and that the blockade is an Israeli effort and that Israel has significant influence even over the Rafah crossing. DMH223344 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am aware of the report.
    And on this note, I think we have to rely on the report itself and not characterizations made in the article. Whoever made this summary in the Rafah Crossing article made significant editorializations that will have to be remedied.
    1. As to why Egypt has maintained its policies re: Rafah, the report makes clear:
    The closure of Rafah and Egypt's refusal to open the border for regular travel with Hamas on the other side are part of an overall Egyptian position of non-recognition of Hamas as a legal regime.
    And:
    To the question why Israel's consent is necessary for Egypt to open Rafah Crossing, official Egyptian representatives replied that Israel continues controlling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and that the peace process, which Egypt supports, includes the gradual transfer of power from Israel to the PA, the legitimate representative of the Palestinians, according to Egypt.
    Egyptian officials said that Israel and Egypt have a good relationship; each one of them is interested in the stability of the neighboring country, and they maintain security cooperation. Other Egyptian sources told Gisha that Egypt's relationship with Israel has implications for Egypt's policy vis-à-vis Rafah, because Egypt is committed to avoiding measures that could threaten Israel, such as opening Rafah opposite Hamas.*
    2. The notion of Egypt submitting under Israeli pressure is only mentioned once and attributed to unidentified “unofficial sources” in the report and is being given far too much weight in the article even considering the manner in which it appears in the report:
    Interviews with unofficial Egyptian sources revealed that there were also broader considerations related to its international relations that dictated Egypt's policy vis-à-vis Rafah: according to those sources, Egypt is under pressure from the international community, including the US, not to violate the internationally recognized AMA, and that is one of the reasons for its policy regarding closure of the border;? other sources said that the very objection of Israel, the US and the international community to opening the border, on the other side of which is Hamas, constitutes an Egyptian political consideration that contributes to Egypt's refusal to open the border on a regular basis opposite Hamas. Moreover, interviews with additional Egyptian sources uncovered internal Egyptian considerations, political and military, that dictate its position towards Rafah: besides Egypt's position in principle as to the illegality of the Hamas government, Egypt is not interested in strengthening Hamas by opening its shared border, because of the organization's ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, ° which constitutes opposition to the ruling party in Egypt.
    Mistamystery (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It appears by all accounts" pretty much sounds like original research where instead of looking what RS have called the blockade to be ("Israeli blockade" as demonstrated above) the responsibility of whom, the editor looks at the evidence themselves to come up with their own conclusions. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you admit Egypt blockades as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Egyptian supported Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip might be a suitable compromise. Trying to pretend that Israel and Egypt are on a par or that this isn't perceived as an Israeli blockade for the most part (as occupier) is a bit tedious. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But RS have not portrayed Egypt as playing a significant role; and as mentioned before, Israel holds overwhelming responsibility due to its separation of the Palestinian territories, supposedly one singular geopolitical unit, and its status as an occupying power. If anything other than the proposal here, Israeli-led would be a more reflective description of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I am just trying to be reasonable, unlike the POV oriented opposition here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromise... to what end? The current title is fine; the only rationale presented for moving is "COMMONNAME" which has been refuted (and your suggestion would not be at all in line with). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Co-signed Zanahary (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, are we to create an article on Egypt's blockade? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2024 (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.

acceSSed

[edit]

Please, correct: "accesed" to "accessed". 80.180.159.222 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Zerotalk 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

@Makeandtoss My recent change was reverted [[[3]] This article is not only about Blockade since hammas took over in 2007. Gaza has been under varying level of bloackde since 1990's. It is explained in other parts. The opening para should reflect it. It should not tell user's that the blockade was implemented after 2007, which is misleading. Please tell me your objections so that it can be corrected Astropulse (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the restructuring of the sentence to start with the Hamas takeover instead of the Israeli blockade was misleading; although I do not object to indicating the existence of an older blockade. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the aim of the 1990s blockade? This is missing from the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course also on the basis of security despite security officials openly recognizing the limited value of closure for security purposes. More importantly, it was motivated by the policy of separation (to be become explicit public israeli policy in 2006): Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Separation_of_the_Gaza_Strip DMH223344 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip&oldid=1250651877"