Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Issues in Lead

This information is tainted with Israeli propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.85.217 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy I agree it is odd to call it a de facto sovereign state, but I do not know what other term is most accurate. Describing it as a "Palestinian enclave" with a hyperlink to an article about West Bank enclaves specifically is definitely not accurate, especially since the actual definition of an enclave does not include territories that border the ocean. I also think it should be mentioned that Hamas won the elections but Fatah refused to recognize the results, since that is the reason as to why Hamas only rules the Gaza strip and not the West Bank as well, and the PNA is already mentioned in the article, so additional clarification is necessary. Bill Williams 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Im ok removing the wikilink, and maybe enclave is not the right word. But Hamas nor anybody else claims Gaza to be a state. And given that the UN and others consider it to still be under Israeli occupation it is definitely not sovereign. Why one rules Gaza and the other rules the West Bank is way more complicated than a failure to recognize results, but even then it doesnt change that all parties continue to consider Gaza and the West Bank to form one territory. nableezy - 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that "sovereign" is certainly an inaccurate term, but I think "Palestinian territory" would be much more accurate than "Palestinian enclave", linking to the article on Palestinians instead of the West Bank enclaves. Although it may not be a sovereign territory, the term "Gaza Strip" always refers specifically to a territory that is almost entirely Palestinian. Bill Williams 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no shortage of correct descriptions.Here is an uptodate source that refers to Gaza as a bantustan and as an enclave. Apart from that, it is also part of the territory claimed by (State of) Palestine or you could simply refer to it as Opt.

"Bantustan" is rarely ever used to describe Gaza, and "enclave" is factually incorrect. An enclave is landlocked and fully surrounded by another territory, which does not describe Gaza. As for your source, it is far too biased to used to put a controversial term in the very front of the lead. Bill Williams 22:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We go by sources and the given source is certainly more reliable than your opinion. As for googling things try Gaza + Bantustan.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"the given source is certainly more reliable than your opinion" does not magically prove that "bantustan" is commonly used to describe gaza, because it is not. If you tried "googling things" you would see that [1] gaza being called a "palestinian territory" has 1,770,000 results, while gaza being called a "bantustan" has [2] only 21,800, i.e. 1/80 the results. Similar to territory, the term "enclave" comes up with a similar number of results[3] at 1,240,000, but the term is geographically inaccurate[4] and therefore it should not be used. Bill Williams 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Bantustan is commonly used, I was disputing your "rarely" which is simply wrong. There is even a 1985 book called Bantustan Gaza.

There are different definitions for enclave. Oxford languages gives "a portion of territory within or surrounded by a larger territory whose inhabitants are culturally or ethnically distinct. and "they gave troops a week to leave the coastal enclave" <- Gaza.

Gaza (or the WB) being called Palestinian territory gets the most hits because it was called that for years. As I already said above, Occupied Palestinian Territory (or OPT) is much more common now Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian Territory means it is still a Palestinian territory, and the Israeli-Palestine dispute is already covered in this article. The territory is blockaded by Israel and Egypt, resulting in what some consider an occupation, but that has a detailed explanation later in the lead, so calling it "occupied" a few words into the article would mislead readers into thinking it is has enemy soldiers within it or something. Bill Williams 19:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree bantustan is not the typical thing to call Gaza. I think enclave is often used, but not in the way that it is used in the article Palestinian enclaves, which is more about the disconnected areas within the West Bank, though Gaza is sometimes also treated as that. I do not think state, de facto or any other qualifier notwithstanding, is appropriate. The results on "palestinian territory" are skwewed by all the results that include it within the "Occupied Palestinian territory" (including most of the first page of your search). nableezy - 18:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I did notice that it may be skewed, but I still think it is a more accurate term. The Palestinian enclaves within occupied Israeli territory should not be conflated with Gaza, since they are ruled differently and are separated by Israel, and I think that hyperlinking to them is too misleading. I think the only accurate term that can be used in the first few words of the article is "Palestinian territory" since although it may not be a state by some definitions, it is certainly a territory that is almost entirety inhabited by Palestinians. Bill Williams 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See the ngram above, Palestinian territory is used by the BBC (their style guide is positively Victorian) but is otherwise old hat.Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just use google and you will see numerous instances of it being referred to as a "Palestinian territory". Oxford is not a geographical expert, neither is the media, the technical definition of enclave is completely surrounded and landlocked which does not accurately describe the Gaza Strip. Israel and Egypt's blockade may make Gaza de facto landlocked, but the geographical term does not account for the political dispute, just Gaza's location, which is bordering the sea. As for Bantustan, that term is rarely used; the term rarely could mean tens of thousands, but out of millions, it is relatively rare. Bill Williams 19:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ngrams uses scholarly sources, as well as laying it out timewise, much better. The fact that you thought Gaza a de facto sovereign state and now you think it a Palestinian territory tells me all I need to know, really.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Theres no reason to be dismissive of somebody changing their mind when other information is brought up, this does not have to be combative at all. nableezy - 20:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, nowhere in Wikipedia on Gaza Strip did it mention the blockade that Israel has created is also equally done by the Egyptians. And for the same reason... Security Llatlarge (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think enclave, without the link (and Im going to remove that now, just clicking on it proves it should not be used here as it defines itself as WB areas), is inaccurate? I feel like territory is somehow accurate but too non-specific. I get technically Gaza has its territorial waters, but those are also controlled by Israel. I guess despite the border with Egypt being closed that makes it technically not an enclave? nableezy - 20:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I am saying, Israel heavily restricts and often closes its border, Egypt has restrictions on its as well, and both blockade the shorelines, so its borders are effectively under complete control of other nations. But the term enclave is not about the geopolitical situation, only the geographical one; for example, although Vatican City is geographically an enclave, there are almost no restrictions on its "border" with Italy, so it functions as if it is just another part of Rome. Having no control over your external borders does not make you an enclave, since Nepal is surrounded on two sides by China and India, each of which has far more influence over its borders than it does, but it is not completely surrounded by one single country, and therefore is not an enclave. Although Israel exerts more restrictions over its territory, Gaza is still surrounded by both Israel and Egypt, in addition to its territorial waters, meaning it is not technically a geographical enclave. Bill Williams 20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a verifiability vs truth thing, but I also think your point is fair. How about The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, forming, along with the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territories. And then some bits about being bordered by Egypt (@Zero0000: is that actually a border or is that too an armistice line?) and Israel (taking care of the word border there)? nableezy - 21:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement, but I would prefer

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is one of the two Palestinian territories, along with the West Bank; both are claimed by the de jure sovereign State of Palestine, but Gaza is under the control of Hamas, a militant Palestinian Islamist organization."

The part about East Jerusalem is unnecessary since that is part of the West Bank, and I all of the adjectives on the State of Palestine and Hamas could be left for later paragraphs, but it would be okay this way. Bill Williams 21:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I think the more detailed explanation of the Hamas-Fatah conflict belongs in the second paragraph instead of the last paragraph. Bill Williams 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont like the one of the two, they together make up the singular unit. I suppose I am ok removing EJ. I dont think we need to define Hamas here either, thats what the Hamas article is for. I also dont think it is a claim that that they are claimed by the state or that there is a state is a claim, thats an established fact by other states recognizing it, but that is also not necessary here. Lets see if anybody else has any suggestions on wording here, but not too big a fan of some of these changes. Ill suggest something else soonish as well. nableezy - 22:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That is true, I think we could shorten it and explain what Hamas and the claims of Palestine are later, simply by putting in the first two sentences:,

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is a Palestinian territory on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is claimed by the State of Palestine, but has been under the control of Hamas since 2007."

The specifics could be left for later in the article or the respective articles of the individual topics. Bill Williams 22:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The "State of Palestine" is certainly not globally recognized as such. This term should be replaced, as by many this state does not exist. Meftech123 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To editor Nableezy: You ask if the Gaza-Egypt boundary is an armistice line or a border. The 1949 armistice agreement did not define it as either, as the armistice line followed the Gaza Strip border around the north and east. The 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty says "The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip." (A similar wording wrt the WB appears in the Israel-Jordan treaty.) So it is a border as far as Egypt and Israel are concerned, with allowance for future change of status. No Palestinian body was party to the Israel-Egypt treaty, but I don't think that either Hamas or PA claim bits of Sinai so it is a reasonable assumption (without an explicit source) that they also regard it as a border. Zero^talk 02:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be content with a first para

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is an enclave on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea (refs) claimed, together with the West Bank, by the State of Palestine.(ref) It borders Egypt on the southwest for 11 kilometers (6.8 mi) and Israel on the east and north along a 51 km (32 mi) border.(ref)"

or similar. I think the Hamas governance sits better in the second para along with the way that came to be.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has effectively almost 0 control over the Gaza Strip, so if it is mentioned in the first paragraph, then Hamas's de facto control should be mentioned as well. And once again, the geographical term "enclave" does not apply to the Gaza Strip. The sources that use it clearly do not understand the true geographical meaning, which is completely surrounded by a single state, with no territorial waters that border a sea that connects to an ocean. Gaza borders the Mediterranean, which connects to the Atlantic Ocean, so it is not landlocked, regardless of Israel and Egypt's blockage of some of its territorial waters, it still has partial control over the closest parts of the waters, and it is surrounded by two states, Israel and Egypt, not the single one required for it to be an enclave. Bill Williams 19:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (at least by one def) it is an exclave and it's classed as that in our list article but that's an odd word to put in the lead, particularly when so many completely stupid and unreliable sources (BBC included) are happy to call it an enclave.

Let's see if anyone will agree with you re the need for Hamas control to be in line 2 instead of line 3. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know I am being technical, and that many sources call it an enclave, but my point is that if an editor is writing about the controversy of Israel and Palestine, they will pay minimal attention to geographical terms that they did not realize were being used incorrectly. I also agree that calling it an exclave would be odd, since most readers would not know what that is either. Bill Williams 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Un año mas, here's to 2022 :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact: The word "enclave" does not necessarily refer to an area that is landlocked.

I suggest looking up the word at the multiple dictionary website onelook.com (I used Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries at that site) to learn a more nuanced definition that does not include the precise meaning of "landlocked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C082:2EA0:C00E:3FA7:BE10:BF0D (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In the lead it seems strange to mention the Israeli Occupation but there is no mention of Hamas contorl.

Either the Israeli Occupation term comes in the body, or Hamas control gets included in the lead. Seems bias to only include one. HeddyV56 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure the two are paired in that manner, but Hamas control is already in the lead. CMD (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas governance is in the second paragraph. Would make more sense to be in the first paragraph.

If a reader is only reading the first paragraph, they'd only know that Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005. It's unclear and omits relevant information.

The Israel occupation sentence could just as well be in the second paragraph HeddyV56 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're raising an interesting point. I think it would serve NPOV well to have it in the same paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation predates Hamas existing much less being the government. nableezy - 18:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, seems that it would be more NPOV to include both.

Hong Kong's page and the 1st paragraph in the lead is a good example of NPOV.

This one on Gaza Strip appears bias. I think including both Israel's occupation and then Hamas as the government/authority makes sense. It ends with Israeli occupation ending in 2005 and then a gap til the next paragraph.

Stats show a lot of readers only read 1st paragraph.

Makes sense to include both. HeddyV56 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Both are included. We dont talk about, for example, Israel's government until the final paragraph of the lead there. I have no idea what stats youre talking about or how long opening paragraphs of articles people only read that of would be, but I dont see how making the lead jump from 1967 to 2005 and then back makes any sense at all. nableezy - 01:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy,

Would be better to have:

The Gaza Strip is a self governing Palestinian territory bordered by Egypt to the South and Israel to the North. It was first under occupation by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, then by Israel from 1967 to 2005. Hamas has been the governing body since 2007.

Something like that. HeddyV56 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and also the occupation did not end in 2005 per the UN and the ICRC and many other sources. But I disagree that this would be a good way to introduce the topic of gaza. nableezy - 03:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy,

It seems you are only choosing to introduce the topic of Gaza with Israeli Occupation from 1967 and this goes against NPOV. I understand the UN and ICRC sources but many other international law firms and lawyers still say disputed. So it's contentious and the initial paragraph is taking a side. This is not NPOV. All need to be included in the first paragraph and details expanded on second. HeddyV56 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesnt make any sense, and the first paragpraph specifies that Israel does not consider it occupied, so it is not taking a side. Though it does so wrongly, the disengagement is not why Israel considers it not to be occupied, Israel has never accepted that Gaza, or the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) is occupied, making that wikilink wrong from even an Israeli POV. But we dont introduce the "most right-wing government in Israel's history" in the lead at all, much less in the opening paragraph, and logically it makes no sense to introduce Hamas as the government until you introduce the PA and why it split. And that would not make sense for an opening paragraph. nableezy - 14:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. The grammar of the last sentence could probably be fixed though. Cheers. HeddyV56 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I dispute the use of the term "occupation" regarding the relationship between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Despite claims by the UN and others, facts show that neither Israel nor Egypt occupy the Gaza Strip since 2005. Hamas as a governing body controls it. Up until 7th of October 2023 There was no presence of Israeli military or governance bodies in the Gaza strip. The fact it is blockaded is due to the hostility and war declaration by Hamas on Israel and its firing rockets at Israeli civilians, but a blockade does not constitute an occupation. For example, prior to the 1967 war Egypt has closed access to the Straits od Tiran, effectively blockading Israel from accessing the red sea. There are no claims that Egypt occupied Israel during that period. Meftech123 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Instructions for evacuation of southern Gaza

https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1056395 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:50FB:22DE:D663:44B9 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mandela

Any content or pictures we can add on Mandela's historic visit? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 siege

@Wh15tL3D09N: Please restore the siege quote, which is arguably the most widely reported on quote during this entire conflict; a quick google search shows it has been quoted 26,600 times [5]! You can't fight hate by censoring reality, only by changing reality you can fight hate. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I will add back, keeping the factual bits but remove the name calling part about animals. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Please restore the full, widely circulated quote. It is not my job, or yours, to determine if it was taken out of context, or if its inclusion helps enflaming hate. 11,500 results Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree to the restoration, and will not restore it. But you are free to restore it.. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So that it means you won't revert? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I did a partial revert to restore the quote that has 26,000 hits vs. 11,500 hits. I don’t agree with your opinion, but if you feel so strongly about inclusion, why would you not restore it? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Because restoring content without consensus is edit warring, I am sure you know that. Since you haven't given any counterarguments, your answer implies you won't revert me, so I will reinsert the full quote as reported in hundreds of RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought edit warring was when editors repeatedly reverted each other? But you haven’t reverted me yet and I believe you are free to do so. Isn’t there that 1RR rule? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that’s what I said, please feel free to restore the full quote. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not planning to enter any reversion cycles. Thank you for being reasonable. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Using google search for this kind of thing is just technologically-assisted confirmation bias. We should describe what happened, not words spoken for various substantive and messaging purposes two months ago. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. HRW article dedicated to the blockade has mentioned the quote in full [6]. Also on various RS articles dedicated specifically to the blockade, the quote is mentioned in full: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Justifications for blockade

@SPECIFICO: Care to explain why you replaced information from a reliable secondary 2023 source that of the New York Times with a less reliable primary 2010 source by an Israeli website? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Restoring since no explanation has been given. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on you to get support for your edit. Please self-revert and follow BRD. SPECIFICO talk 09:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Google is not an encyclopedia. We present fact, not bluster, and WP:NOTNEWS. SPECIFICO talk 09:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on me, that's why I opened a discussion and tagged you, which you didn't reply to. Ynet and New York Times articles are both news websites; one is Israeli (unreliable in this case) and the other is an independent international news agency. One is from 2010 (primary source) and the other is from 2023 (secondary source). What is your argument exactly for favoring one over the other? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

No, BURDEN is not at issue here. I forget what you are objecting to at this point. Please provide links. Your preferred wording went against NPOV, and the "but..." is always probelmatic. It's disappointing to see you edit-war it back in to the article prior to any consensus for it. I don't see anyone supporting your version here. Please self-revert your reinstatement of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Add "Gazan" to Demonyms section of the table summary. It is more widely used than "Gazawi," (which I don't think should be removed) including in the article itself, elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the media Madeline at Freedom Now (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I replaced Gazawi with Gazan as Gazawi is the Arabic (well, ghazawi) and I have never seen it in English. nableezy - 16:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

unexplained

@Skitash How do you say (unexplained change) and I mentioned (There are no others). There is no need to mention the word Arabs alongside the Palestinians. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain what "There are no others!" is supposed to mean? Palestinians aren't an ethnic group, whereas Arabs are. Skitash (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Density

Entry states "Gaza has one of the world's highest population densities" and the source linked (https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/gaza-strip-map-density-israel-hamas-conflict/index.html) repeats this claim, but in the actual body of the article, it states "The Gaza Strip’s density is comparable to many major global cities, but whereas people in those areas have the option of leaving or expanding the suburb." The population density given in the article is 15371 per sq mile.

Whether we look at Wikipedia lists of density of city districts or cities as a whole. 15371/sq mile is nowhere near the top of lists ranking by density.

Just because we can link to an article that makes a claim does not mean that the claim is proven to the standards necessary here. While it is technically possible to define "one of the worlds' highest population densities" in a way that includes Gaza and dozens of more dense cities or areas, the categorization is not factually accurate on its face and is misleading, and should be removed. 170.202.122.107 (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You're comparing the entire strip to a city, not to a territory. But what the source says is Here’s a look at the geography of one of the most densely populated places in the world. Finding countless other sources saying the same is trivially easy. Ill treat this as an edit-request and not remove it but say done=no. nableezy - 22:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Territory of the Gaza strip is smaller than most of the major cities one would compare it with.

2. What are the other territories or places Gaza Strip is being compared to before making this claim? It seems like the claim is done on basis that there is nothing to compare to.

3. Isn’t territory/place a generalization term that would include cities and suburban areas?

4 If we take the most populated Gaza City of Gaza Strip and compare it to other cities Gaza Strip is far from 1 of the most densely populated Sokoloff06 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

And to add on top, agreeing with the topic starter that original sentence creates false impression for the reader and may be misleading Sokoloff06 (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

In the section about the War of Iron Swords (“2023: Israel–Hamas war”) writes “By 13 November 2023, one out of every 200 people in Gaza were killed.” The source clearly states that the information is according the the Gaza’s Health Ministry which is unreliable. I suggest to remove this part as the numbers are most likely heavily exaggerated. Iron armour (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Skitash (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How to invite people to the discussion in order to achieve consensus? -Iron armour (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot invite such participation per WP:ARBPIA4. Editors who are extended-confirmed can discuss this here if they wish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources have repeatedly found the MOH numbers to be accurate, and the Israelis have also said the numbers are accurate. So no, definitely not. nableezy - 21:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also this needs to be updated to 1 out of 100. Ill look for sources making the point explicitly. nableezy - 21:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

change "is a polity" to "is a polity in West Asia"" Bzik2324 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The entire proposed claim statement needs to be included with the request. Providing only fragments of a desired sentence does not provide the sufficient amount of information needed to decide if a change is warranted.  Spintendo  22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Blockade?

"In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces from Gaza, dismantled its settlements, and implemented a temporary blockade of Gaza. The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover, supported by Egypt through restrictions on its land border with Gaza" - How can it be an Israeli blockade, when about 20% of the Gazan border are with Egypt? It's inaccurate, and not neutral POV. Ehud Amir (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree these two sentences need citation. As for the specific issue of whether it's an Israeli blockade: this sentence does not describe it as an "Israeli blockade", but does say that Israel implemented a blockade. I would be interested in sources you can share that describe it as an Egyptian blockade, so please share. After all, secondary sources such as human rights organizations typically describe Israel as controlling the borders of Gaza (see HRW). DMH43 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The strip

{{ping|DMH43}} The current wording implies that the strip existed before the Egyptian control, when in fact it was established as a result of the Egyptian control. The previous wording was more descriptive. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok interesting, I had thought that change wouldn't be controversial given that the area certainly existed before then, and during ottoman times was it's own administrative division (sanjak): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Sanjak . Maybe there is a way we can make the original sentence more precise? DMH43 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The strip was created by the 1949 armistice line (combined with the border of Mandatory Palestine), not the sanjak. CMD (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I realize the article title is "Gaza strip", but the "History" describes the region known as "Gaza" DMH43 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

But the phrasing you changed into "The territory came under Egyptian control", i.e. the territory of the Gaza strip, which implies the strip had existed within its current borders prior to the 1948 war/1949 armistice agreement. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation for blockade initially being "temporary"

Can someone provide a citation for the claim that the blockade was originally "temporary" and only made "indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover"?

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces from Gaza, dismantled its settlements, and implemented a temporary blockade of Gaza. The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover, supported by Egypt through restrictions on its land border with Gaza.

DMH43 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/factbox-gaza-strip-devastated-conflict-123701850.html

” After its unilateral exit, Israel imposed a temporary land, air, and sea blockade on Gaza, imposing curbs on exports and severely restricting who could access the territory.

Citing security concerns, the blockade became permanent from 2007 onwards after Hamas, which seeks the destruction of Israel, took control of the Gaza Strip, defeating fighters loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas in a brief civil war.

Egypt, which shares a 12-km border with Gaza, has largely supported the blockade, viewing Hamas as a threat to its own stability.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Archaeological and built heritage does belong in

@Makeandtoss and Alaexis: hi. I have added to the article a list of "Archaeological sites and historical buildings". I got 2 opposite reactions: Alaexis thanked me, and Makeandtoss erased the whole thing as irrelevant, without even having the courtesy of pinging me. I don't work for rewards such as thanks, but I consider it terribly destructive and not-to-be-done what M&T did: I don't fancy something, so I just erase it, w/o even giving a notice to the person who worked on it. I never thought someone might remove it, so I didn't have it on my watchlist, only Alaexis' thanks made me go back to it. But that's about basic human interaction and maybe less relevant to others.

In terms of the propagation of knowledge, which is the objective reason for having Wiki in the first place: it's utter nonsense to say that the archaeological and built heritage of a region "doesn't add value to the article".

The Gaza Strip, apart from being part of "the conflict" (TFC, guess what F stands for), is a geographical region with a long history and specific culture. How is that not of interest? Also, the Gaza Strip is again today, for better or worse, a de facto autonomous entity, with all that entails ("The Gaza Strip is a polity"). This has NOTHING to do with any political attempt to split the Palestinian territories or anything else: the Strip IS and works as a geographical and political entity with a specific location, history and present. And heritage IS part of that. Focusing only on TFC is nonsense, and non-encyclopedic to the max (more like journalism).

Maybe the form of a list disturbed our colleague. Why actually? To clarify, tangentially, why the topic of heritage matters a lot also for TFC: I put the list together after hearing a Palestinian-American architect, Dana Erakat, who spoke on BBC about the destruction of the Strip's historical heritage, and I tried to look up the sites she mentioned: nothing! The list can serve as a good starting point for adding info on those sites, and for adding others, of which I am sure there are more. EVERY region (polity!) deserves it, and every similar article actually HAS it. It's basic. So add, don't remove.

"Unsourced": A) Fundamentally wrong, as I started by listing what's in the "Category:Archaeological sites in the Gaza Strip", which I carefully placed in the "main" tag at the top; and for all the others, I've offered wikilinks and/or refs. All sites listed are wikilinked to existing articles, at least one per listed item. B) It's in the nature of any such first step that it can, and indeed should, be elaborated on and gradually additionally sourced. I haven't seen anywhere material deeply relevant to the topic being challenged because it isn't based in its entirety on one single original source. That's a non-starter.

So for this article to be more than a newsboard, and specifically in order to give the necessary background to newsworthy topics like Dana Erekat's list of possibly or probably destroyed sites (because that's what differentiates an encyclopedia from a newspaper collection), this info totally belongs in here.

I always fight for more info, of course relevant one, being allowed for. Presented systematically, so that it's easy to navigate through - the user finds what he needs, effortlessly leaves out what he doesn't, but might get curious when bumping into a heading he's not been looking for. That I see as being constructive and user-friendly. The opposite of being destructive and losing sight of Wiki's raison d'être.

This said: I'll put the list back in. Should someone still choose to remove it again, pls make sure you ping me and we can continue the discussion here - if there are more good arguments to be made. To be clear: I am not interested in edit-warring. Arminden (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you start a new article on Archaeology in the Gaza Strip? It does need to be sourced, of course, and a category is not a source. Zero^talk 03:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree this mostly unsourced list isn't too helpful. Regarding "every similar article actually HAS it" that doesn't ring true at all. We don't usually have archaeology sections in polity articles, they are usually much higher level. Even taking into account that the Gaza Strip is quite small, even city articles don't seem to have archaeology sections. Many city articles do have some form of notable building/landmark/sight section (eg. Cairo, Trier, Beijing), but that is more expansive than just archaeological sites. Looking closer, Gaza City for example has a Landmark section. CMD (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a mixed article, the Gaza Strip by definition is both a geographical region and an administrative unit/polity. As such, it sure does need a section on historical heritage, call it as you wish. After earthquakes, Muslim destruction of Byzantine & Crusader buildings, Crusader repurposing of mosques, WWI quasi-total erasure, Hamas bulldozing, and repeated Israeli bombardments, there is little more left than (hopefully) some archaeology.

I won't have the time to do more, sorry. Feel free to take it further.

A category or Wikilink might not be in itself a "source", but this is a bureaucratic remarque, as Wiki articles not yet removed as unsourced tend to be sufficiently sourced and it only takes a click to find all the sources one needs. I won't copy-and-paste any sources from the Wikilinked articles into this list myself, not more than I already have.

I haven't heard yet any arguments of substance. These would be:

• Is info on the historical heritage relevant for the Gaza Strip article? Of course it is.
• Is the list a useful start? I very honestly find it highly useful, for instance for those following the past & current destruction, for understanding the Strip's history altogether, and for gaining a mental image for how it actually is/was like.
• Are all items in the list easy to look up on Wiki, in sourced articles just a click away, plus where needed in RS refs? Yes, they are.

All the rest is subjective, imo. I very, VERY honestly don't understand this whole issue, I find it surprising and artificially created. The only reason for it I can think of is a certain bizarre sense of jealousy in guarding the strictly current, conflict-related character of an article. But that is unencyclopaedic in every possible way. Having the largest and deepest range of info of the topic at hand is the very essence of encyclopaedic work.

A maybe more valid alternative argument would be to support the creation of a new article on the "Gaza region", in its historical meaning. I don't see it happen, nobody seems interested and willing to do the work, and the boundaries would vary according to the period (Philistine pentapolis, maybe Nabataean commercial pov, Byzantine "Gaza school" vs Byz. wider economic interaction with NW Negev hinterland, to name a few). It would take several scholars, rather than Wiki editors, to write it - unless smb can find already written literature on the region from an all-period perspective, and good luck with that. Arminden (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither geographic region nor administrative polity (which are almost all geographic regions so this is no more mixed than usual) articles generally have such a section, which has nothing to do with whether they are the location of a conflict or not. Zero made the suggestion of a more specific article, if sources exist as asserted then that should be easier than trying to invent a continuous region. CMD (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot to read for a minor dispute. I think articles should remain articles: paragraphs of information; and not collection of lists, whether archaeology or border crossings. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1967: israeli occupation

the section copied here states "members of the ressitance", without clearing resistance to what and by whom they were declayred as ressitance.

196

1967: Israeli occupation

See also: Israeli Military Governorate

In June 1967, during the Six-Day War, IDF captured Gaza. Under the then head of Israel's Southern Command Ariel Sharon, dozens of Palestinians, suspected of being members of the resistance, were executed without trial. 2A06:C701:4692:FB00:3841:C011:4D8E:26CE (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Economy of Gaza City which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Rafah listed as largest city: misleading?

Reading the source, yes Rafah is technically the largest city in Gaza at this point in time. But over half it's population is displaced, does this really count as a permanent population? This could also mislead people into believing that Rafah has always been bigger than Gaza City, when the population has only increased because of the ongoing war. - 🇮🇪 Signed, Nintentoad125 👻 (Talk to me! 🗣️) 22:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Benvenisti and Roy

@Wafflefrites it would be more accurate to refer to Sara Roy as affiliated with Harvard rather than IPS, I'm not aware of any affiliation she has with IPS. DMH223344 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have made the changes. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Benvenisti quote

@AnomieBOT, (@Anomie) why did you remove the quote from Benvenisti without any explanation? DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That was @Alaexis in this edit. Ill restore with past tense as that seems to be the lone objection in the edit summary, despite its complete removal. nableezy - 16:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In case of Benvenisti, another problem was that Gaza wasn't mentioned explicitly. But I'm not against restoring it provided that it's made clear that he was talking about the situation until 1984. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is something else that I forgot at first. The source for this is The West Bank Data Project: A Survey of Israel's Policies. Does he in fact discuss both the WB and Gaza? I can't find it anywhere to check it myself. Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it discusses both the West Bank and Gaza Strip: "This study by Meron Benvenisti is based on empirical data collected about key aspects of life in the West Bank and gaza and then analyzed in relation to Israeli policies." (from the foreward, page vii) DMH223344 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

See page 12 summarizing his description of policies, which he describes as generally for the occupied territories, which would include both gaza and the west bank: "Operatively the guideline can be summarized thus: We should not develop the economy of the territories, but we should not object to the improvement of the standard of living there. Development would cause competition with Israeli products. By gaining economic independence, subversive elements would achieve political power that would enable them to further their objective: the creation of a Palestinian state- a political and security risk for Israel. A reasonable standard of living can be achieved by employment in Israel, which, on the one hand, will increase dependence on Israel and, on the other hand, will diminish national aspirations. Economic dependence should be enhanced by interconnecting all grids (roads, electricity, communication, water) and by forcing the territories to use only Israeli ports for import and export. Economic measures should be an integral element in the carrot-and-stick policy of the military government. We can see how a dual system, neither preconceived nor well defined, could nevertheless emerge from these practical guidelines." DMH223344 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What is expected to remove One source section template?

I saw that `One source section` was added to the section "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)", the section does in fact reference multiple sources and authorities. What is expected to remove this flag? DMH223344 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename section "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)"

Propose to rename the section title "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)" to: "Impact of Israeli Policies".

The reasons:

1. The current title suggests that Gaza is no longer occupied
2. The section discusses issues that extend beyond the mid-1990s. For example the blockade and attacks on Gaza. Also the section describes the narrative of Roy: "Roy explains that the framework for Israeli policy established between 1967 and 1973 would not change, even with the limited self-rule introduced by the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, but would grow dramatically more draconian in the early 2000s."

DMH223344 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Renaming to Israeli policies following Israeli military occupation. nableezy - 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Literacy

@HudecEmil: Atlas source doesn't support the cited claim, please remove both. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

former Israeli diplomat Gideon Levy,[227]

he isn't a a diplomat. change it please. 84.110.218.178 (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Seems to be a fragment left over from this revision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Open air prison characterization

The article mentions that the open air prison characterization began when the 2007 blockade started, but this is not true. See for example Amira Haas' 1995 book with a whole chapter called "Gaza Prison" discussing the permit system and restrictions on movement which go back to at least 1991.

Additionally, as early as 2004 Giora Eiland referred to it as a "huge concentration camp" https://www.makan.org.uk/glossary/the-gaza-strip/

Even in 2008 (just a year after the beginning of the blockade), Adalah described the conditions: "The metaphor of the Gaza Strip as the world’s largest prison is unfortunately outdated. Israel now treats the Strip more like a zoo." DMH223344 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If we have the sources, then I would support the characterization of a "prison" (effectively) from whenever. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Without Egypt blockading it's part of the border it wouldn't be a blockade. HudecEmil (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Blockade dispute

This recent edit dispute should be discussed.

I personally favour the version reading "The current land, sea, and air blockade [...]"

@Alaexis, @DMH223344

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We should say "The current land, sea, and air blockade [...]" or "Israel's land, sea, and air blockade [...]"

The blockade is an Israeli effort which is supported by Egypt. RS typically refer to it as an "Israeli blockade" or just "blockade of the Gaza Strip". See for example this FA article for a typical description of Egypt's role "The Egyptian government, after all, has been party to the 16-year-long Israeli blockade of Gaza, enforcing tight controls on what comes in and out of the enclave through the border crossing at Rafah." (emphasis mine)

For the movement of people, Israel controls the population registry--without Israeli approval, people in Gaza cannot leave, even through Rafah. For the movement of goods, Gaza has historically traded primarily with Israel and the West Bank (through Israel), Israel's restrictions are much more relevant. This is aside from the fact that Egypt enforces tight restrictions on Rafah border crossing, while Israel enforces tight restrictions on land, air and sea entry. See this quote from Gisha's report "Rafah: Who controls the keys?":

control of Rafah Crossing must be seen in the context of Israel's control of all the other crossing points of the Gaza Strip - land, air and sea - which make Gaza a "land-locked" territory, dependent on Rafah Crossing for contact with the outside world. That control has significant implications for Israel's responsibility for Rafah Crossing. Gisha - Legal Center for Ereedom of Movement (Gisha) and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel) take the position that Israel continues to constitute an occupying power in the Gaza Strip, because it controls significant aspects of life in Gaza, including its borders, the Palestinian population registry, the tax system and the funding of public services; therefore, we ascribe to it increased responsibility for the freedom of movement of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Also, see this quote (cited in Roy 2016) from an Egyptian official on the status of Rafah:

The Rafah crossing is unlikely to be opened for goods anytime soon. The consensus of the security establishment and diplomat- ic circles is that Israel desperately wants Egypt to take respon- sibility for a Strip that is far away from Cairo’s central author- ity, packed with armed militants, and suffers from a persistent humanitarian crisis. Once Egypt opens the Rafah crossing for goods, Israel is likely to permanently shut down the Karam Abu Salem [Kerem Shalom] crossing, when the next crisis erupts, effectively turning Gaza into Egypt’s burden to bear [and deep- ening the separation with the West Bank]. The tunnels provide Gaza with items banned by the Israeli authorities at Karam Abu Salam, such as construction materials and weapons, but the bulk of Gaza’s daily needs actually come from the Israeli crossing. Should it be shut down, Egypt, through the Rafah Crossing, would be entirely in charge of supplying Gaza with virtually everything itneeds.

DMH223344 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gisha also describes Egypt's military cooperation with Israel as a mechanism through which Israel influences control over Rafah. This is no surprise, as the current Egyptian regime is aligned with the US and Israel. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say that both Israel and Egypt have been blockading Gaza, both scholarly ones (David Faris, Dissent and Revolution in a Digital Age (2013), p. 110) and newspapers ([11]).

Your own quote from Roy 2016 confirms that Egypt has its own goals (not having to deal with Gaza) and enforces a policy which is consistent to it (enforcign a blockade while tolerating some smuggling). Alaexis_¿question? 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course egypt has its own goals, that's besides the point here. Egypt's blockade plays a relatively minor role. Insisting that the Egyptian blockade must be mentioned every time we describe the Israeli blockade, misses the relative importance of the two. In your edit summary, you suggest that we remove these details entirely from the lead or keep the phrasing which incorrectly attributes air and sea blockade to Egypt. I disagree with both suggestions on the basis that the Israeli blockade is much more important than the Egyptian blockade.

> There are plenty of sources that say that both Israel and Egypt have been blockading Gaza,

Of course, Egypt does indeed support the blockade effort. DMH223344 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Israeli blockade is so much more important that the Egyptian one should not be mentioned at all?

The sources I provided treat Egypt and Israel similarly (Held in place by Israel and Egypt, the blockade restricts imports to the region and prevents most people from leaving). Alaexis_¿question? 07:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I say it shouldn't be mentioned? I said the current phrasing suggests to users that Egypt is involved in the air a sea blockade (which it isnt). DMH223344 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would support the edit by Alaexis. The blockade is very important because it creates the conditions for mass death of Palestinians, i.e. the civilians can not escape the area of active warfare and potential hunger, this can regarded as a war crime. And the role of Egypt is critically important. Israel is a country-combatant that is not supposed to transfer people from the other side to its territory (consider Russia that takes Ukrainians to its territory as such example). On the other hand, Egypt could easily allow the free passage of civilians from the war zone, voluntarily of course. But it does not. That's significant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  None of your points here are relevant to the edit. DMH223344 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I explained why including Egypt (as Alaexis did) is important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I disagree that it's important? DMH223344 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli blockade is a major part of why the international community regards Gaza as occupied, while no-one at all regards Egypt as an occupying power, as noted by HRW "In 2022, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the situation in the Gaza Strip, which it called an "open-air prison" due to the blockade and held Israel responsible as the occupying power, and to a lesser degree Egypt, which has restricted movement of Palestinians through its border." This is the most accurate portrayal of the situation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And I think the edit in question does portray it this way. I think we all agree that Egypt is important. There would be no blockade if it allowed free movement of Palestinians through its border. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Israel would still be blockading Gaza's coast and restricting the usage of its territorial waters and airspace. nableezy - 16:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the source cited doesnt support it is a blockade by Egypt and Israel at all, it rather says it is just Israeli. And many more sources say Israeli blockade that is supported by Israel. I removed the contested part as unsupported by the source cited. nableezy - 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead does currently say: The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover, supported by Egypt through restrictions on its land border with Gaza., and it is supported by [12]. Moreover, another ref (a recent HRW report) [13] does say: “Israel, with Egypt’s help, has turned Gaza into an open-air prison,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch.. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes and I didn’t remove that. nableezy - 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your last edit was fine, given that the phrase The blockade became indefinite ... is already there. This is something so minor I am surprised we are having such discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, next to polity please add in West Asia. 2600:100C:A219:7127:1469:5428:B808:466 (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The introductory paragraph should include a statement about the population density in Gaza such as "The region has a considerably larger population density than the rest of Palestine." Calling the region "small" is a tad misleading without this clarification. 2600:1700:AC00:A390:4CA8:F6CC:54C9:372C (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

dont use undefined terms like small. Use actual figures and direct comparsons and let the reader decide if it is small. 2604:3D09:1583:7700:34D3:7E7:A71:757F (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Updates

Article has become outdated, as there is minimum mention of how the ongoing Israeli invasion ravaged the strip. Needs addressing. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024

The number killed on October 7 2023 has been revised to 1,163, including 767 civilians. Source: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2024/02/04/israel-s-iraqi-moment_6492786_23.html Sustnabili Thuy (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Outdated count of UN member states that have recognized Palestine.

The current page says only 138 member states of the UN as well as the Holy See have recognized Palestine but as of June 12, 2024, that number is now 144 according to the Wikipedia article it links to. I cannot edit it myself so I'm making this post. Atemp624 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"Gaza death camp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaza death camp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 15 § Gaza death camp until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)