Jump to content

Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ester9001 (talk | contribs)
155 edits
Ester9001 (talk | contribs)
155 edits
Line 975: Line 975:


::The Gaurdian and Al Jazera are both bi-ased. Exactly ZERO schools have been hit by Israel airstrikes. OBVIOUSLY, why would they hit a school, you people... incorrigible delinquents.
::The Gaurdian and Al Jazera are both bi-ased. Exactly ZERO schools have been hit by Israel airstrikes. OBVIOUSLY, why would they hit a school, you people... incorrigible delinquents.
::(and he did link source, don't you see the blue writing?)
::--[[User:Ester9001|Ester9001]] ([[User talk:Ester9001|talk]]) 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::--[[User:Ester9001|Ester9001]] ([[User talk:Ester9001|talk]]) 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


Revision as of 19:26, 20 May 2021

In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 11, 2021.


Requested move 13 May 2021

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis → 2021 Israel–Palestine conflict – Articles say it escalated into a conflict, https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/israel-palestine-conflict-live-updates-a-scary-night-for-all-as-gaza-and-israel-strikes-escalate-9277851.htm/amp, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/us-sending-official-to-tamp-down-soaring-israel-palestine-conflict/2239163, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091852 Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a crisis suggests decision and resolution. This situation has been tolerated to smolder or occasionally to flame since 1948. To mark the situation as a crisis is wishful thinking, at best proven in time to be a lucky guess. 77.173.226.152 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is spread throughout Gaza, Israel and east jerusalem so 2021 Gaza conflict doesn’t sound preferable if we’re going to use that name. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sustained campaign of bombardment by both sides that has lasted for several days, it is not intermittent skirmishing but now a full blown armed conflict between the parties. See also my comments below, the use of the proposed title is the normal manner in which these sorts of articles are titled until they are given more formal names by sources outside wikipedia. For examples see 2021 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan conflict and the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict pages.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If sources begin referring to these events in some consistent way, I would be happy to follow them. Meanwhile, what is the hurry? It's been a week.Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The results of the requested move discussions you referenced resulted in the current title that the 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article has and the resulted in labeling the 2020 conflict there as a war. So that "direction" is a perfect example. I know, because I too was involved in both move discussions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Holmes, Oliver. "Israel ground troops begin attack on Gaza Strip, military says". Microsoft News. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
​ You can only !vote once. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbpia, non ec editors may not participate in formal discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note if anyone wants to know the number of people opposing this article name being changed and the number of people supporting the name being changed, its 16 supporting and 12 opposing. BigRed606 (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

  • Support, this is a big conflict since Israel sent in their forces into Palestine and both sides are air-striking each other with a number of casualties. SVcode(Talk) 16:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is clearly more than just a crisis, conflict would better describe the situation. User3749 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as this is more than simply a crisis and it appears to be an active military conflict. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To extent this a little bit, I'm increasingly seeing a WP:COMMONNAME argument develop based off of reporting on the issue. International media appears to widely be terming this a conflict (NYT WaPo, NBC, CNN, WSJ, BBC, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, DW, France 24, etc). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
    • Ground forces have not crossed the border
      • The element of internal riots and such holds ambiguity, as in some cases it involves exchanges of gun fire, on other cases it is merely protests and clashes with police.
        • The whole event is composed of very different sub-events, such as the Mosque police clash, disorder in towns such as Lod, et cetera, and also the Gaza hostilities - which are of a different vain and more describable as a conflict rather than crisis. The fact that this event composes these different elements is a good argument for keeping the title as crisis. --Ester9001 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC) This editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too early to decide. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Multiple reliable sources have begun calling it a conflict or something similar, facing criticism since "clashes" and similar terms have been deemed too neutral. For people saying it is too early or too soon, I point to this: multiple sources already say this conflict is worse than 2014. And what is the 2014 conflict article called? It's called 2014 Gaza War. With thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, dozens of Palestinians dead, Israel using chemical weapons, and a ground invasion of Gaza looking not too fictitious, I feel like this is worthy of being called a conflict, and fear it escalating into something much worse. In addition, crisis refers to something that has the potential of escalating into something much more dangerous, and, in this case, the content being covered seems to be a crisis of the second degree. (Al-Aqsa storming + Sheikh Jarrah eviction/protests being the crisis -> The current situation being a conflict/second-degree crisis signalling a war -> A potential war similar to that of 2014). I believe we have entered the "conflict" stage, and support this move. My only misgiving is the potential confusion with Israeli–Palestinian conflict. AccordingClass (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is turning out to be a war. Its more than a conflict or a crisis. At the worst its a civil war. I mean, they're launching rockets and missile and each other! UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is going to escalate into a war very soon. It is likely to be called the Israel-Palestine war soon. The military intervention of Lebanon and Syria exacerbates all this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/14/israel-says-rocket-attacks-from-syria-in-the-north-amid-gaza-fighting-in-south/?sh=3c909c645c2d --AmazonBooker (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC) — AmazonBooker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Additionally, the editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested moves per WP:A/I/PIA.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)<[reply]
  • Support - Far beyond a crisis at this point. Temeku (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while there is now extreme armed conflict, the article describes numerous things besides just military conflict including the assaults on palestinians and the protests and police suppression. Crisis is a better term for now and we should bide our time to change that. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) The editor is not extended-confirmed, and cannot participate in requested move discussions per WP:A/I/PIA. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_RandomCanadian for why the above should be allowed to stand. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am counting 17 yea and 13 nay. This is good to change. Some recent opposes are now calling it a war, which is the next step after crisis->conflict->war. Albertaont (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Formal discussions are not decided solely on the basis of a votecount, I suggest we just wait for a formal close.Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still too early for that. If I was pressed for a close at this point the only thing I could do was say "no consensus" because all of the above !votes are statements of personal preference and there's very little external sources or Wikipedia policy (which is available at WP:CRITERIA) used to show the alleged change in usage (the few sources presented are unclear whether they refer to "conflict" as in the current situation or as in the already existing situation - one can just as easily find sources which use "crisis" Beebs or which don't use either term Grauniad). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It is more fitting to say this is a crisis or standoff phase that is obviously a part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With context, you can't really have an Israeli–Palestinian conflict within an Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The way I see this title changing in the future is if this series of events eventually spirals into what can officially be called a Third Intifada or, more likely, something like the 2014 Gaza War, which saw a similar environment of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. With the way things are going between Hamas and the IDF, I'm expecting this crisis to be dubbed as a full-scale war. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seeing the footage of missiles and air strikes, as well as civilian casualties, it seems more of a conflict than a crisis to be honest. Stevo1000 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support definitely not a crisis anymore, I've seen more and more sources describing it as a conflict. However, this might become a war so we should still wait to change the title in my opinion --Vacant0 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count Update : The current number of people supporting the article name being changed is 18 and the current number of people who do not want the article name changed is 14. BigRed606 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy update that this is still WP:NOTAVOTE and that statements of personal opinion (without sources or Wikipedia policy to back them up) are essentially worthless. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reasoning between the oppose and support votes aren't even directly opposing each other - support is saying this is more than a crisis and oppose is saying this event should not use the term "conflict" due this being just a part of the ongoing IP conflict. Changing the title to something stronger than crisis without using the word conflict would seemingly be agreeable to most voters here. Of 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict began the morning of January 1st 2021, but this article is only about more recent events. I would wait for sources to give this a name or change to something more appropriate like 2021 War on Palestinians, although that is a bit risky as sources may be scared of being bombed if they don't give a pro-Israeli name to the violence. Of 19 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If it does down, it may be seen in hindsight as being less than a crisis, if it regatta further (I hope not!) it will end up being teenaged war. I day wait and see and don't be too hasty and to discussed about selecting the perfect name. Dovid (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has its own article; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades. When there are notable escalations, they receive their own article titles that clearly distinguish them as a more notable period of escalation within the overarching, elongated conflict. Calling this article "the 2021 Israeli-Palestinian conflict", then, implies a disconnect between the other article and this article - as if this is a new conflict when in fact, this is an escalation of a conflict which was ongoing prior to this and likely will be ongoing after this escalation has ended. For this reason, the proposed title is misleading, and "crisis" is much better suited. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Count Update: Support:- 18, Oppose:-17 Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

War between two countries is one thing. Here we have a combination of (a) a civil uprising against the occupying power in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; (b) internecine riots between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities in Israel, and (c) a war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In previous cases, when (c) broke out we rightly called it a war (2008/9) 2014 etc. In this case, we are placing (a) and (b) as aspects of a larger state of war. War refers to a situation where both sides, with their respective armies and militias, are engaged in exchanges of deadly firepower, which is not the case in (a) and (b) The support votes are inadvertently making a category error by confounding three different types of conflict, which are handled differently. Israel is not bombing the West Bank or East Jerusalem, nor is the disarmed population there or its 'leadership' in Ramallah countering with mortars and the use of its military to fight back. Idem for the internal situation in Israel. To conflate the three under one rubric is to characterize (a) and (b) as wars, which civil disturbances put down by police forces (Palestinian and Israeli) are not, technically. Indeed, according to Nathan Thrall, the PLO security forces are actively engaged in repressing the upsurge in protests in the West Bank, wherever they have some measure of jurisdiction.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

  • Comment: REMINDER
Please make sure your account is extended-confirmed (30/500) at WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED before expressing your approval/disapproval of the request. Click the aforementioned link and check if the blurb says "Your account is extended confirmed." A registered editor becomes extended-confirmed automatically when the account is both at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits (including deleted edits). In addition, please refrain from posting "Count Updates" and the like, since Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for consensus. Finally, editors who have already expressed their opinions regarding the request are encouraged to engage in conversations with other users, since consensus is built and not expressed. AccordingClass (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, have a look at the article names of similar events (see List of wars involving Israel), e.g.
Michael! (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

War?

Isn't this technically a war? This is certainly more than a conflict if they are launching rockets at each other.

Considering there has been no formal declaration of war, no. The broader Arab–Israeli conflict was punctuated by the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Suez Crisis, Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War and so on. Until there is an official declaration of war (or equivalent authorization of a "policing action" or somesuch) this should remain a "conflict". Alternatively, when WP:RS start calling it a war, so will we. The current name of "crisis" I think will serve until such time, as this is a flashpoint of the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. BSMRD (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well what's the difference between crisis and war? A declaration? They're launching rockets. This is clearly more than a simple crisis, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there many sources calling it a war? I'm guessing not. Considering this conflict is (so far) less intsense than many previous ones that aren't considered wars, this one is not a war (yet). “WarKosign” 07:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking there cannot be a "war" between occupier and occupied because occupation is the result of war, there can only be "resistance" to occupation which is the case here and not only in Gaza. That is also a reason why we also refer to the IP conflict as a conflict even though it has gone on for so long, it is not technically a war because there is an occupation. The only annexed part, East Jerusalem and a part of the rest of the WB, is not legally recognized outside of Israel so that is also an occupation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of occupation are actually irrelevant. Definition of war is "a state of armed conflict between *different nations or states* or different groups within a nation or state". Since this conflict is between a state and a terrorist organization, it cannot be called a war. “WarKosign” 09:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "claim" of occupation, it is an established fact. The state of occupation negates it being a war without the need for any further explanation, discussions about declarations or anything else.Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for demonstrating how people make this claim. It's a pointless discussion, we agree that this article shouldn't have "war" in the title and the reason is less important. “WarKosign” 10:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"diferent Groups within a nation of state". Arabs vs jews? Israel (country) vs Palestine (Territory)? Now that there is ground troops going in gaza, Im surprised they haven't declared it yet! UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't ground troops in Gaza: [13]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Wars have a formal declaration, it was more of a 17th C to 20th C thing, most 21st Century wars like Tigray War are happening without formal declaration as did past wars such as Hundred Years' War of the 14th-15th C. With that says this should only be classified as a war like the 2014 Gaza War was when WP:RS started calling it a war. Opinions of Wikipedia editors is irrelevant in this regard, if WP:RS starts calling the 2021 conflict a war like the 2014 war, the 2021 conflict should also be called a war. it fits the definitions of wars, but we have to wait for WP:RS to call it here, after a possible WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is nonetheless of interest that a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is considered as a "war" but that the entire thing is a "conflict". The press seem at 6's and 7's when it comes to describing what is happening now because the events are not restricted to Gaza.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So because Israel, Palestine, and wikipedia doesn't call it a war, neither should we? Hmm. Alright when IS it a war then? Is this a major conflict because it does not seem like a crisis. Its a crisis for the people.
It seems AP has begun to refer to the conflict as a war [14]; "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled the fourth war with Gaza’s Hamas rulers would rage on."

I think you misunderstand me, the Gaza War I recently voted to change it to that from conflict. I didn't have any choice because so many RS were describing it like that. However, logically speaking it makes no sense to call the larger problem a conflict while describing an interim event as a war.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Now that its escalating its more than a crisis by all accounts and almost into a war. A lot of people are speculating that its going to turn into a war and I already assumed it was and they just never said. Oh, and there is ground troops in Gaza or at least they're going to. I've seen a lot of videos saying that. UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We will DEFINITELY call it War after WP:RS calls it war, but as of now there are no WP:RS calling it war, before editing please learn WP:RS policy, opinions of editors are irrelevant, it will definitely however be called a war ONLY AFTER WP:RS starts calling it a war, as was the case with 2014 Gaza War. It definitely reached the point of a war, but KEEP IN MIND, Original Research is not allowed here and you can change the title to 2021 Isreael-Palestine War only when WP:RS calls it war. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that I can't use my opinion to edit wikipedia, it might be a while before that will happen as currently we have no idea what the status of the conflict will be like going forward. It's only a matter of time before something happens. But if its not a war yet, its really not a crisis or a conflict so I don't know what to call it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did think violence was OK (and it is supported by some sources as well) but it was not to be.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If violence is the answer to this problem, so be it. I think they should go to war without nukes. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My above point wasn't solely directed at you UB Blacephalon , but all editors who wan't to call it war, sure enough, it will be much like the Gaza War (2008–2009) and 2014 Gaza War when Wp:RS starts calling it as a war, we just have to wait till WP:RS says it is a war, and if they do, indeed we should name it as a war. Wikipedia's guidelines are the real deal, and we will call the event a war when WP:RS starts doing it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case why don't people trust Wikipedia if were THIS strict? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to first call it a war before we rename it to that, I think it’s better if we split this article to one for Palestinian protests against Israel in the west bank, and one for the ongoing intensifying conflict between Gaza and Israel. Some sources seem to be calling the ongoing intensification between gaza and israel a major conflict. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different counting of Israeli and Palestinian injured causing unacceptable bias

Any honest, neutral, non-racist editor, would have to agree that the criteria for listing someone as wounded should not depend upon their ethnicity. We can not keep including Israelis "injured running to bomb shelters" or "suffering from anxiety" among the count of wounded Israelis unless we also begin to include all the Palestinians equally "suffering from anxiety" and "injured while running". As we do not have a source for the latter, and it would likely look silly if included as it could be in the millions, we should treat both groups equally the only way we can which is to only count those who actual wounds. Does anyone know of a source we could use for Israeli wounded that uses the same criteria used for Palestinian wounded? We can not use sources like Jerusalem post as they are well known for dishonestly inflating numbers to push their agenda. Of 19 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to decide on using a single source for all figures for some appearance of 'fairness'. We are a tertiary source, we summarise the sources and readers then make up their own minds. As for "anxiety", there are sources talking about the fear caused to both sides as a result,[15] and so it must be included, as it is verifiable and DUE. ProcSock (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep the apples and oranges numbers, we need to be very clear that they are incomparable. Otherwise we are being misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the MDA[16] the Israeli stats include:
  • 204 people who felt stress
  • 171 people who tripped on their way to shelters
  • 189 people injured in the riots
The first two categories are clearly not included in the Palestinian statistics.
The latter category is likely including both Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel, who have been fighting each other in groups. It is clearly misleading to include the Palestinian citizens of Israel who are injured in riots with Jewish ultra-nationalist mobs under the casualties for just "one side" of this conflict.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we are (being misleading, that is). We should report what HQRS say. I don't think the data is 'comparable' in any meaningful sense anyway, given that (according to NYT) the Gaza figures are not independently verifiable.[17] We should give the latest data with attribution and then it's up to readers to make of it what they want. No objection to explicitly breaking down the figures in body by cause of injury, but not a fan of editors second guessing RS and altering the numbers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader, what do you think we should do with the injuries to Palestinian citizens of Israel caused by Jewish citizens of Israel in the riots? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know from sources anything about Palestinian stress and anxiety and tripping over while running. Israel alone documents that and adds it to casualty lists. There is, on the other hand an extensive literature on stress under bombing and the open-air prison that is Gaza and the generalized stress level is infinitely higher, a notable percentage of the population.Therefore presenting people with anxiety as casualties is extremely deceptive, and certainly not neutral, since we know that hospitalization registers in Gaza only record people who need treatment for physical injuries sustained through bombings.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology of jurisdictions obviously varies. It's the same as with COVID cases, whereas it's widely documented by sources that India's numbers are significantly lower than actual. We still give India's count per the sources, and then also say what sources say about the issues with the count. Similarly, if you can get an RS that takes issue with Israel's methodology in counting, or the discrepancies, then it can and should be noted, and otherwise not. We can't note it based on a Tweet and some editors' interpretations on what fair comparison looks like.
Onceinawhile's concern about Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish citizens of Israel is a good one though. I'm not sure. If they're included in Israel's figures, IMO ideally either find a source that gives them separately, or I guess we'll have to wait until this stops being a current event and sources decide to do a more in depth analysis with more broken down figures. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by "Palestinian citizens of Israel" you mean Israeli Arabs - there are reports of two killed so far. I don't see a reason to list them separately, though, and most (all?) sources don't. “WarKosign” 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was their any point in stating the name that Palestinian citizens of Israel prefer not to use? It appears to be a dog whistle, but why do it? There is simply no way you didn't understand whom he was referring to. Of 19 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In previous discussions, I think we settled on the formula Arab citizens that identify as Palestinian. That this is even an issue is a good pointer for the intercommunal conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, on the LHS we have "Jewish Israeli protesters" and on the RHS we have "Arab Israeli protesters". Accordingly, IMO, it doesn't make sense to include dead Arabs - regardless of citizenship - on the other side to which they're apparently a party. ProcSock (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just about Israeli statistics including people hospitalized with anxiety. In 2014 350,000 children in the Gaza Strip were calculated to be suffering from war trauma. That alone should make one very wary of unilaterally registering among Israeli 'wounded' people who suffer with (undoubtedly real) anxiety. There is simply no comparison given the scale of the former. Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Gaza-Israel?

While the discussion over the title's use of 'crisis' is not resolved, should the Israel-Palestine part of the title also come into question? Sources such as the AP and Reuters are emphasizing that this is a conflict between Gaza/Hamas and Israel, not Palestine/Palestinian Authority and Israel, as the fighting is centralized in the Gaza Strip. This would bring it under the Gaza-Israel conflict and in line with the many Gaza-Israel clashes pages such as the Gaza War pages and articles such as these. Not trying to open another title rename discussion right now just wanted another opinion.Yeoutie (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intense fighting (exchange of rockets and bombing) is indeed between Israel and Gazan militant organizations. The current crisis reportedly began, however, with of a decision of Israel court regarding lands located in East Jerusalem and clashes between Israel police and East Jerusalem residents during prayer on the Temple Mount. These incidents did not involve Gaza. Perhaps the article should be split and renamed accordingly, but while it's a combined article - the current name makes sense. “WarKosign” 06:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the 2014 Gaza War article also has the context of the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens and anti-Arab riots etc, which led to a Hamas escalation etc. So I would suggest it gets called 2021 Gaza War or something similar.Vhstef (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. The name of the article typically follows the most common term used by the media, it will take a while to see what it will be. Is there any urgent reason to rename this article right now? “WarKosign” 09:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just over a week and we had three titles already and a 4th in discussion. While a press article here or there may describe only the Gaza element (particularly in the headline) as part of the 24hr news cycle, there are a plenty producing analyses of the whole thing, communal, WB, Jerusalem and so on. This situation is qualitatively distinct from prior upheavals. This is not to say that if rs stop talking about everything else and begin talking only about the Gaza aspect then that could be spun out into its own article. Of course, you should record your view in the current RM so that the closer may take it into account.Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I see no point to !vote. “WarKosign” 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I indented that wrong, I meant it as a reply to Vhstef, fixed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well that's not entirely correct, indeed most of the fighting is in the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian Authority is not part of it, there are disorders in many cities in Israel caused (most, but not only) by palestinians, well, whoever consider themselves as one. Nookscoot (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will just follow the RS.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gaza is a part of Palestine I think, even though it has an entirely separate government due to being geographically separated from West-bank. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of confusion over this, it is very easy to get the idea that Gaza is somehow entirely separate. Governance wise, following the 2005/6 elections and subsequent brouhaha, it is and then, insofar as the Oslo Accords amount to anything very much, there is the Palestinian Authority. Finally there is the de jure State of Palestine (better to say it like this than just saying Palestine in this context) which claims the occupied territories, including Gaza and East Jerusalem, so yes, Gaza is a part of (the State of) Palestine in that sense.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of-course it could be called Israel-Gaza Conflict, or even Israel-Hamas Conflict, but as there is at least somewhat significant disorder at the border in Jerusalem, calling it the Israel-Palestine Crisis, note 'Crisis' not Conflict, is appropriate. Of-course the state of Palestine, a UN observer state, is not really responsible for (or capable or doing anything about) the actions of Hamas gov in Gaza. Ester9001 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Third Intifada?

Some of the news source like Slate and Al Jazeera start calling this event the Third Intifada.

Example of it: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/israel-palestine-third-intifada.html CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is speculation by some that the events could lead to that. But that's all it is at the moment, speculation. It's a good headline to hang an analysis on.Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right then we will wait till there is more to this recent event. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See 2014 Jerusalem unrest, some sources refered to it as "Third Intifada". Does it make current events the fourth intifada? “WarKosign” 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intifadas are a prolonged period of conflicts, and Palestine is nowhere near what it was when Arafat was alive, the last Intifada lasted for half a decade in the early 2000s and since its end in 2005, every year since 2006 there have been claims whenever there were such tensions that a 3rd Intifada could arise. Palestine no longer has the capacity for that and I am sure a ceasefire will be in effect in days or even months at most, however it can be classified as a small duration war like the 2014 Gaza War, but that is ONLY WHEN there are sufficient WP:RS stating it as such. However it is true there are numerous WP:RS besides the slate source you mentioned that claims this could possibly trigger a "3rd Intifada", and tensions are indeed highest since 2005. So I will just mention that "some have feared that this could trigger one", whether it actually does or not would take years to determine, my views are irrelevant, its what WP:RS says that goes, however if senior editors wish to remove that addition, I will not add it back either simply because its too early, though the fact that some feared the crisis could lead to one per WP:RS can be mentioned I think. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that whole last paragraph is UNDUE for the lead, it's also not in the article body. Btw, sputnik is a deprecated source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier All right feel free to remove it then, I agree its too early, to term it as Intifadas we should wait for years or at least till WP:RS mentions it confirmatory rather than just as a possibility. Now all of them just says it could trigger one as opposed to actulayy triggering one, WP:Too Soon applies too besie UNDUE, I approve your removal. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to revert things if I can avoid it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of events in 2015 were claimed as 'the third intifada'. That never caught on, though the time span was far longer. One can only speak of a 'third intifada' retrospectively, if sources concur after the event, which means it is far too early.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source is speculative (Is This the Third Intifada?); it doesn't state that it is, it says that it might become it, and specifically lists some reasons why it might not. Definitely not enough to call it that in the article voice yet, and clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead as long as it's just speculative. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is Qatari state news, and Qatar is involved first as the Hamas activities are commanded from Doha. And Doha provided safeheaven for Hamas operations and operatives. Obviously Al Jazeera should be taken as the least serious source of information. https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/15/05/2021/Foreign-Minister-meets-head-of-Hamas-Political-Bureau-in-Doha --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my request that the text citing the view 'The conflict is said to have reached a level unseen since the Second Intifada in the early 2000s' be removed was closed immediately as foruming. It wasn't. The rationale was obvious: anyone looking at the 2014 Gaza War's length and casualties knows that.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we judge a conflict by his casualties though.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Scroll the Indian news source also coined the term the Third Intifada.

https://scroll.in/article/995100/israel-palestine-conflict-are-we-witnessing-the-early-stages-of-a-third-intifada CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

I only read of one Lebanese dying in the protests at the border with Israel. I believe the protestor himself was a Hezbollah member. I think it should be changed to reflect that, "One Lebanese protestor" perhaps or something else. And I may add that Hezbollah is NOT part of the conflict, they fired no missiles at Israel, and one member protesting at the border does not count as involvement, that is farcical. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1D2:DEEE:5BB6:814A (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News are selectively choosen to reflect a certain point of view of the events. Objectively, the "protester" was shot while crossing the border, entering a military zone and destroying a security to create a breach for facilitating infiltration of Militants. But on Wikipedia it's a protester. There is an agenda. --Rectangular dome (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an objective fact, surely you could provide some RS saying so, and we can update the article accordingly. BSMRD (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are "Hezbollah infiltrations" at least every 6 months and the IDF always spots it and prevents it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The IDF identified a group of protesters who left objects near the border that they suspected were explosive devices. Three suspects cut the border fence and crossed into Israel where they were joined by another four suspects; they then started a fire inside Israeli territory, which spread to Lebanese territory."

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/jordanian-protestors-passed-police-barrier-on-way-to-israel-border-668187/amp

You can watch the video when they enter Israel after creating a breach in the fence.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/B1OkCQau00

Maybe selfstuduer can share his Hezbollah data? What do you mean every 6 month? You mean it's a normal practice? --Rectangular dome (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of humor.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "Lebanese protest" to "Lebanese", as described the actions do not amount to a protest, rather inflitration inside Israel and into a military area, destruction of security barrier for more infiltration and militancy. Comparing those belligerent acts to protests is unacceptable and misleading.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You all have missed the point, I don't care what you label the death as. My point is there was only 1 death that day, none other. so there should be one death in the infobox. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1979:4F48:D228:F4C7 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

killed by protest

An Israeli man has died of "protest", citing Wikipedia (not disrespecting victims).

You can update the death count on Israel. insha'Allah https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-seriously-hurt-in-lod-violence-dies-of-wounds/

--Rectangular dome (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'protestors' thing is wikipedia trying hard to remain neutral , there was a discussion earlier about when to refer to things as a protest, riot, et cetera. No conclusion could be made because editors were too catuious about the necessity to refer to each side in an unbiased manner. Obviously if this death is to be written about in descript, it should refer to them as a violent mob not protestors! --Ester9001 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, Hamas is a militant group, that's just one picture about your bias. Using the pretext of neutrality is indeed very convenient. This isn't linked to neutrality, it's liked to a bias accepted by few contributors ( with a majority of Arab militancy here). So according to your views if it's Palestinians they are innocent if not proven otherwise, and so a protester becomes a rioter when he kill, but when the victim do not die from his injury it's called a violent protest. I see a double standard, when you are at the same time easy to use Hamas provided data against the Israeli army whitout double checking or nuancing ( because there is no nuances when it comes to one part :-). Neutrality is describing objects based on their properties, not comforting views or newspaper terminology. Someone engaged in warfare isn't a protester, and using it everywhere show how deep the bias has become. There is no scrutiny, only one side is presented. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Property law

@Nishidani: which Israeli law is this? The one the article says is used to reclaim properties and only Jews can utilise? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, PR. 'morning comes to consciousness with faint stale smells of beer' etc., (meaning I don't at this hour twig to the precise edit content (or my connection to it) referred to in your request. IF you could help me focus and lever me out of the fog of dullness I experience at this early hour by zeroing in on the crux, I'll attend to it.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing that needs changing, I just wanted to know what the laws mentioned in the first para of the "Historic dispute" section were called to do some background reading, and figured you'd know. (I found it out so doesn't matter now; Absentees' Property Laws). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be late on this. Funeral. If you are interested there are several important books, but numerous articles exist (I can pass on the pdfs if needed). Of them, the following a relatively quick overviews:
Benvenisti's is the best of these. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021: Hamas Targets Civilians and the IDF Targets Terrorists

Hello. This is my second attempt to submit an edit request, after the discussion of the previous attempt was closed because of lack of non-primary sources. In this request, I will repeat anything that's in need of repeating, for the sake of completeness. Please excuse me if this is too cluttered or long.

The following text from the lead section breaches Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it does not neutrally reflect what's happening:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...)

That text should be changed to the following:

On 10 May, (...) two Palestinian militant groups, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, began firing rockets from the Gaza Strip targeted at Israeli cities and civilized areas, hitting multiple residences and a school. Israel began to launch airstrikes against targets in Gaza, some 950 of which by May 16 had demolished (...) 18 buildings (...) and also struck the Al-Shasti refugee camp. Since the rocket launches and airstrikes began, at least 214 Palestinians have been killed (...) while ten Israelis have been killed (...) On 11 May, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that at least 15 of the Palestinian casualties were confirmed members of Hamas (...) As of 12 May 2021, both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority reported injuries for at least 300 Palestinians and 200 Israelis. (...) The IDF has expressed that it targets terrorists in Gaza while trying to eliminate Gazan casualties as much as possible, while Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have fired countless rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Some of the Israeli civilians harmed by the rockets identify themselves as Palestinian. Regarding the strike of the building that housed the news offices of AP, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said "The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site". The IDF uses various measures to alert Gaza civilians to evacuate, including calling them by phone, sending SMS messages, dropping leaflets, dropping roof knocking bombs (which make loud noises and hit only the roof), and giving them time to evacuate. Gaza casualties being higher than Israeli casualties could be explained by the air raid sirens and the Iron Dome aerial defense system operated by the IDF. The IDF said that Iron Dome has intercepted 90% of all rockets launched towards Israel. Gaza has neither air raid sirens and aerial defense systems. Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and encourages them to stay when the IDF alerts them to evacuate.

I'm saddened to see the entire world going against us without understanding the complexity of the situation and without knowing the context, and without understanding the measures the IDF takes to avoid casualties while Hamas and other terrorists fire rockets at Israeli civilians in order to kill them. Even if there are Gazan casualties, it still doesn't negate the efforts of the IDF. There's no political reason that can ever justify firing rockets with the aim of killing innocent civilians.

This is per the NPOV policy. I welcome suggestions to rephrase or better portray the message, although I would probably not be able to respond in the coming days. I've gathered complete citations from the press release of the IDF. These should go in a "sources" section, and linked to/referenced in the lead section (they're named references). Because of the failure of my previous edit request, I've gathered secondary sources. I've tried to stick to sources considered as generally reliable as much as I could have.

The sources below aim to back the following information: (*) Hamas aims at Israeli civilians. (*) The IDF aims at terrorists, not civilians. (*) The IDF takes measures to prevent harm to Gaza civilians.

Extended content

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/12/996180921/its-against-all-of-us-israel-hamas-violence-as-seen-from-the-ground

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-gaza-hamas-idf-rockets/2021/05/12/7989b49c-b28e-11eb-bc96-fdf55de43bef_story.html

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-jerusalem-076a9ec7e2bd9c065882c64a4ab820a1

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/05/10/jerusalem-conflict-between-israel-palestinians-escalates-mosque/5019405001/

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-rockets-israel-jerusalem-unrest

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-57094737

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-palestine-conflict-live-2021-b1848314.html

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000007764612/gaza-israeli-airstrike-news-building-associated-press.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/israel-pm-netanyahu-vows-to-continue-gaza-attacks-for-as-long-as-necessary

The following sources aim to back or exemplify the following claim: Israel has lower casualties because of the anti-missile system Iron Dome.

Extended content

The sources below aim to back the following information: (A) Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit, a soldier. (B) Hamas official praising kidnapping of three teenagers in 2014 as a "heroic operation". (C) Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields and operates from dense civilized areas deliberately. (D) IDF alerts civilians before striking. (E) Roof knocker bombs.

Extended content

Point A:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/world/middleeast/hamas-gaza-strip-tunnels-led-to-israels-invasion.html

https://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Hamas-terrorists-caught-killed-attempting-to-infiltrate-Kibbutz-Nir-Am-through-tunnel-364148

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-soldier-feared-captured-tunnel-attack-militants-9642469.html


Point B:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/hamas-kidnapping-three-israeli-teenagers-saleh-al-arouri-qassam-brigades

https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-official-admits-group-abducted-killed-israeli-teens

https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/In-first-Hamas-official-takes-credit-for-kidnap-and-murder-of-Israeli-teens-371703

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4561387,00.html


Point C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Human_shields

(Hamas is also considered a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, Canada, and Japan.)


Point D:

https://apnews.com/article/israel-west-bank-gaza-middle-east-israel-palestinian-conflict-7974cc0c03897b8b21e5fc2f8c7d8a79

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/5/16/israels-doctrine-humane-bombing-and-benevolent-occupation

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-bombs-hamas-gaza-chiefs-home-fighting-enters-seventh-day-2021-05-15/


Point E:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-story-of-idfs-innovative-tactic-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-663170

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/09/roof-knocking-the-israeli-mjilitarys-tactic-of-phoning-palestinians-it-is-about-to-bomb/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/27/israels-controversial-roof-knocking-tactic-appears-in-iraq-and-this-time-its-the-u-s-doing-it/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-conflict-israeli-knock-roof-missile-warning-technique-revealed-stunning-video-9603179.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-knock-on-roof.html

IDF press release:

Extended content

"Operation Guardian of the Walls—Here's Everything You Need to Know About What's Happening:" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 17, 2021. What's going on in Israel and Gaza?—Last week, violent clashes erupted in East Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. This week the violence escalated, with Palestinian terror organizations launching rockets from Gaza into Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired over 1,750 rockets toward Israel. These rockets have killed 7 Israeli civilians & injured over 523, and hit a school, hospital, bus, and multiple homes. In response, the IDF has struck over 650 terror targets in Gaza, including rocket launch sites, 10 attack tunnels, and killed over 100 Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives.—Why are there more casualties in Gaza than in Israel? Of the 1,750+ rockets that they have fired since Monday, 300 misfired and exploded inside Gaza, killing and injuring innocent Gazans in the vicinity. This is because Hamas and Islamic Jihad deliberately place rocket launchers and military sites within densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. In addition, when the IDF warns Gazan civilians to evacuate, Hamas and Islamic Jihad encourage civilians to stay instead. But in Israel, the IDF does everything it can to protect Israeli civilians, and the Iron Dome Aerial Defense System has successfully intercepted over 90% of rockets fired at Israel.—What's unusual about this week's attacks? Jerusalem, Israel's capital, came under rocket fire for the first time since 2014. Hamas and Islamic Jihad also launched hundreds of rockets at Tel Aviv and the surrounding cities in central Israel, sending millions of people running for cover. Additionally, Anti-Tank Missiles have been repeatedly launched from Gaza at Israel, killing an IDF soldier, Staff Sgt. Omer Tabib.—In response to the ongoing attacks, the IDF has taken action to eliminate these sources of terror: (1) ROCKET LAUNCH SITES. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have placed rocket launchers throughout Gaza. And when they fire rockets at Israel, they are doing so in close vicinity to Gazan civilians. The way to eliminate the launch sites - and prevent the terrorist organizations from firing rockets at Israel - is through military air strikes.—(2) TERRORIST OPERATIVES. The IDF targeted and neutralized dozens of top Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and terrorists. Among them were: Bassem Issa: As the Gaza City Brigade Commander, he held senior positions in Hamas' weapons production system & was involved in many attacks on IDF soldiers. Khazem Khatib: He was the Head of Research & Development of Hamas' Production Division. Juma Tahla: He was a senior Hamas research & development official, and had advanced knowledge of surface-to-surface missiles. Wail Issa: He was the head of the counter-espionage department in the Hamas Military Intelligence. Hassan Kaogi: He was the Head of the Hamas Military Intelligence Security Department. Samech Mamluch: He was the head of Islamic Jihad's rocket unit.—(3) TERROR TUNNELS. Hamas terrorists have dug tunnels from Gaza into Israel. The IDF has been exposing Hamas tunnels since 2014, and has already exposed and targeted 10 new ones this week. If these tunnels were not neutralized, Hamas would be able to carry out one of its goals of infiltrating into Israel and kidnapping Israelis.—The fact that there aren't more casualties in Israel does not mean that Hamas isn't trying to kill Israeli civilians. It simply means that the IDF is preventing them from doing so at an incredible level. The Iron Dome Aerial Defense System and easily-accessible bomb shelters all over Israel have saved thousands of lives. IDF troops will continue to work 24/7 to defend Israeli civilians at the highest level possible and minimize Gazan casualties wherever possible.

"IDF strikes multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to Hamas military intelligence" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. A short while ago, IDF fighter jets struck a multi-story building which contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization. The building contained civilian media offices, which the Hamas terror organization hides behind and uses as human shields. The Hamas terror organization deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site.

"Evidence of Hamas' Abuse of Civilian Infrastructure" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. Fighting a terrorist organization that operates within civilian areas isn't easy. Watch as IDF pilots call off a strike because children were there: Hamas deliberately and systematically places military targets within the civilian population, exposing their citizens to danger. In contending with this, the IDF, and the Air Force in particular, attach paramount importance to accuracy and reducing harm to civilians. When planning a target, the IDF devotes significant time and resources to preparing the attack and where feasible, uses various tools, including advance warnings, roof knocking, street knocking, target clearing operations and a variety of professional calculations carried out by the Operations Analysis Directorate and the Planning Directorate. The use of these means varies depending on, among other factors, the type of target, the expected collateral damage, and the resources available at the time. Despite Hamas' aims to endanger its own civilians, the IDF will continue to make efforts to minimize harm to civilians while continuing to attack Hamas terror targets.

"Context is everything: What You Need to Know About IDF Strikes in Gaza" (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 16, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. What you need to know about IDF strikes in Gaza. Introducing: Context—Here's some important context to the headlines you're seeing about Israel Defense Forces operations in the Gaza Strip—Hamas has turned residential areas in Gaza into military strongholds. Let's take a closer look at... (1) Hamas' rocket launchers; (2) Hamas' tunnel systems; (3) Hamas' military buildings.—Hamas fires rockets at Israel from densely-populated neighborhoods in Gaza like these. (In the background is a photo of a rocket launch from Gaza showing many civilian buildings around the launch site.) The IDF must strike these rocket launchers in order to prevent Hamas from firing more rockets at Israel. Meanwhile, over 360 of Hamas' rockets have already misfired and landed short in these same civilian neighborhoods.—Hamas has an expansive network of underground tunnels: (A) Tunnels that Hamas digs under the border to try to infiltrate into Israel and kidnap Israelis; (B) Tunnels that Hamas operatives use to maneuver around Gaza. This is an expansive network that Hamas uses to store its weapons, conceal its militants, and move freely around under civilian areas in order to carry out their military activity. With one being being (sic) a danger to Israeli civilians, and the other being a hiding spot for dangerous terrorists, both are legitimate military targets.—(A photo with the following writing added on top: "This is the entrace to a tunnel in Gaza (...) and one block over is a kindergarten and a mosque".)—Hamas uses multi-story buildings all over Gaza for multiple military purposes, including: * intelligence gathering; * planning attacks; * command and control; * communications. Unfortunately, other units in the buildings are often used by civilians who may or may not know what's going on down the hall. But when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, the building becomes a lawful military target.—The Israel Defense Forces struck a number of such buildings recently, but before we did so, we took steps to try and ensure that civilians would not be harmed. Whenever possible, * We called the buildings' residents and warned them to evacuate. * We sent SMS messages. * We dropped "roof knocker" bombs; they make loud noises and hit only the roof. * We gave civilians enough time to evacuate.—Again, when Hamas uses a building for military purposes, it becomes a lawful military target. This is clear international law. All the buildings targeted by the IDF were used for military purposes. The fact that they're located in civilian areas is a Hamas tactic to hide from the IDF and maximize the damage when the IDF strikes them. For Hamas, an Israeli death is more valuable than a Palestinian life. The IDF will continue to take as many precautions as possible to avoid civilian casualties in the fight against Hamas terrorism.

"מוסתרים בין משרדי תקשורת אזרחיים: מטוסי קרב תקפו יעדי מודיעין של חמאס - צפו בתיעוד" [Hidden Among Civilian Media Offices: Fighter Jets Attacked Intelligence Targets of Hamas - Watch the Recording] (Press release). Israel: Israel Defense Forces Spokesperson Unit. May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 16, 2021. מטוסי קרב של צה"ל תקפו מבנה רב-קומות הכולל נכסים צבאיים השייכים למודיעין הצבאי של ארגון הטרור חמאס. בבניין אלג׳אא פועל המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס, וכן משרדים המשמשים את חמאס ואת גא״פ. בבניין יושבת יחידת המחקר והפיתוח של המודיעין הצבאי של חמאס האחראית בין היתר למספר פעולות חבלניות שבוצעו נגד ישראל. היחידה מורכבת ממוקדי ידע שמהווים נכס ייחודי לארגון הטרור, העושים שימוש בציוד טכנולוגי ערכי ביותר של חמאס נגד ישראל. היחידה השתמשה ביכולות אלו נגד ישראל במספר אירועים, בכדי לנסות לחבל ולשבש את פעולות צה״ל והאזרחים שבמרחב הסמוך לעזה. בבניין קיימים משרדים של כלי תקשורת אזרחיים, אשר ארגון הטרור חמאס מסתתר מאחוריהם ומשתמש בהם כמגנים אנושיים. ארגון הטרור חמאס ממקם במכוון את נכסיו הצבאיים בלב האוכלוסייה האזרחית ברצועת עזה. טרם התקיפה, צה"ל הזהיר את האזרחים ששהו בבניין ונתן להם שהות מספקת להתפנות מהמבנה.

Other miscellaneous sources I've gathered, listed here for reference (but I've not had the time to examine them):

Extended content

https://www.jns.org/us-state-department-israel-has-right-to-self-defense-loss-of-life-lamentable/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israels-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/german-fm-says-israel-has-absolute-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-wants-several-more-days-of-fighting-despite-ceasefire-proposals-report/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-assures-biden-that-israel-is-seeking-to-limit-gaza-civilian-casualties/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-us-europe-allies-supportive-on-gaza-conflict-not-so-the-arab-world/

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/15/biden-speaks-to-israeli-palestinian-leaders-as-violence-escalates.html

https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/05/13/us-reiterates-ironclad-support-for-israels-right-to-self-defense/

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Undermining-Israels-right-to-self-defense-The-UN-pathology-362859

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians-conflict-rockets-second-week/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-violence-palestinians-wounded-2021-05-10/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/israeli-police-change-route-contentious-jerusalem-march-77600402

https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-israelis-wounded-as-hamas-launches-massive-rocket-barrage-on-ashkelon/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hamas-and-israel-exchange-rocket-fire-following-contentious-e2-80-98jerusalem-day-e2-80-99-clashes/ar-BB1gAn0t

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/hamas-rockets-and-iranian-drones-a-war-of-economic-attrition-against-israel/

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/its-time-to-stand-with-israel-against-hamas-rockets-editorial-667885

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/idf-launches-massive-strike-against-gaza-bombs-hamas-chiefs-home-668286

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-airstrikes-rockets-middle-east-news-2021-05-11/

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-fires-artillery-into-gaza-palestinian-rocket-attacks-persist-2441388

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-tells-russia-were-ready-for-ceasefire-with-israel/

https://honestreporting.com/unreported-idf-saving-lives-as-hamas-aims-to-maximize-casualties/

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-story-of-idfs-innovative-tactic-to-avoid-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-663170

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182741

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/gaza-hamas-fighters-military-bases-guerrilla-war-civilians-israel-idf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/israeli-strike-un-school-gaza-kills-women-children

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/jul/24/gaza-crisis-palestinian-death-toll-passes-700-live-updates

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/israel-palestinian-territories

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/13/thousands-flee-gaza-israel-bombing

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/israel-resumes-air-strikes-hamas-rejects-ceasefire

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/20/israelis-die-defend-british-media

I would like to thank anyone who dedicates time to read this. Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 85.64.76.29 (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely original research, with a solid helping of low quality sources. This article is not going to parrot IDF talking points. You can keep asking, but the answer is going to continue to be no. nableezy - 02:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not original research. The sources directly support the information that I've added. Even if the current Wikipedia article just states facts about numbers, the policies and actions of the IDF and Hamas, both prominent figures in this "crisis" or "war" or whatever, are important and relevant information that cannot be disregarded. It's quite relevant to describe the context of the actions, and not just state numbers (especially when one side has many more casualties), because that's irresponsible on Wikipedia editors' behalf and breaches the WP:NPOV policy. Not low-quality sources: I've mentioned the quality of the sources above. I've actually consulted Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list and based the added information on sources which are regarded as high quality. I took a lot of my free time to find high-quality sources, and adapted my text to the new text in the lead section (as it has changed in the meantime). I don't accept this blind criticism of yours, that's rude. If you still think this is original research, you should back your claim with constructive criticism. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actors in all conflicts wish articles here showed them in a positive light. However, Our job here is to be neutral. Of 19 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than talking about how neutral this is (it isn't), I'm going to make a more structural critique. This is too much for the lead. The lead should outline content that is reflected by the article, and should be a broad overview of the topic at hand. This gets sidetracked into a discussion of Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties and Hamas's indiscriminate targeting(or lack thereof) which, while a possibly good addition to the article(only if included as an Israeli perspective, many Palestinians and their supporters have a wholly different view, and that needs to be respected), is not fit for the lead. Ideally the lead will not need citations as everything said within is detailed later within the article, if you really want this info in the article I recommend you draft a section for the article proper like "IDF Tactics" or something to that effect, rather than attempting to fit it into the lead. The lead as written uses very even handed language and speaks broadly to avoid ascribing motivations, which is ideal for what the lead is supposed to do, and adding this information into the lead complicates our job of maintaining neutrality dramatically. BSMRD (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what is specifically not respecting npov in the proposal, except that it support Israel views? The fact that it support Israel views is exactly legitimate, and as you are well able to do, I am sure you will find criticsm. Censoring isn't part of npov.
why won't you talk about things that you find "possitive" about Israel military operations? Is npov based on negativity? Obviously the Israeli point of view should be presented. there is absolutely no argument for providing only palestinian point of view. --Rectangular dome (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV doesn't mean that anything bad needs to be 'balanced' with an even amount of 'good'. The coverage in article needs to reflect coverage in RS. Whereas maybe work on NPOV can be done, lengthy regurgitation of IDF press office statements is not it, and does no justice for readers either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. NYT etc isn't idf press. 2. There is no mention of Israel's views, that's a big problem for Wikipedia, noone talked about using the IDF press.! --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal almost doubles the length of the current paragraph, mostly sourced to attributed statements by the IDF. They are given in news sources, yes, but they are attributed statements of the IDF. AP, for example, has called some of the statements dubious. Further, some of the information is not verifiable, eg it claims Hamas uses civilians as human shields, sourced to our article on it, but our article says this is unproven. I don't have the time to fact check it all, sorry, but generally the lead cannot serve as either an IDF or Hamas mouthpiece; it does not need to be filled with attributed statements of the parties. Many of these are already in the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, while some users on the talk are being clearly over-zealous on the side of Israel, the article as it is does seem to be unfairly biased in favour of Gaza. In example it does not talk about Israeli casualties, much is missing or out of date, 15 citations are from the Guardian while only 5 are from the BBC, why is this the case when the Guardian is politically motivated (clearly) where as the BBC is neutral as matter of policy. Why also are there 11 New York Times citations, and only 3 from the Wall Street Journal (again, the former is politically biased, the later is not.)

Lastly, and most strikingly, it does not make note of the US statement of 'Israel has a right to defend itself' in the Diplomacy section, and makes multiples notes of the other kind of statement from other nations.

Why is this the case? --Ester9001 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 you should do more edit request and ask maybe involve other people than the squad on here. :-) --Rectangular dome (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Please update the casualties infobox:

In the right-hand side, under "Gaza", "change 20–130 militants killed" to "20–130+ militants killed", per the BBC source provided.

In the right-hand side, under "East Jerusalem", add "1 Palestinian Killed"

In the left-hand side, add a new section "East Jerusalem", containing "6 Israeli's Injured".

Per Reuters. BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC) It's already 150+ anyways.(ps. They keep Israel data low for criticsm ;-) that s why they cite Hamas so much, but when it comes to Israel they have more doubts than philosophers.) --Rectangular dome (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

160 militants were reported killed. It's hard to keep up, I prefer to wait for the operation to stop and then update with stable numbers. “WarKosign” 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why at the same time the Hamas figures keeps being updated, and here people need to ask many times for a change. (Ps. flagrant double standard for me).--Rectangular dome (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to find figures I found it far easier to find data on Gaza figures than Israeli ones. Far more sources report the former, and include it in a paragraph on tangential reporting on the event, whereas they often do not include Israeli casualties in the same articles. That may explain why the data is harder to keep updated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: These numbers are generally out of date by the point someone looks at the edit request. Feel free to put the updated numbers and sources on the talk page, but there's no need for an actual edit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened for now. What you are saying about the Gaza figures makes sense, though my concern was more about the discrepancy between the cited source and our figures. However, that is not why I am reopening - I think in the general babble you missed the request for the East Jerusalem figures, and the supporting Reuters source. These are considerably more stable, so I don't think you were applying your reasoning to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: See also WP:NOTNEWS. In conflicts with fast-moving escalation such as this, attempting to keep an "accurate" accounting of deaths is impossible. Better to not have it than try to sort out the competing claims. Whether the east Jerusalem attack should be included can be decided in a month or two when there are better ways to determine the figures. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: WP:NOTNEWS. See above. Run n Fly (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add mortars and 2 deaths

Please add "rockets and mortars"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-18-2021/amp/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox +"2 foreign civilians". They died under the bombings of Hamas. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/2-foreign-workers-confirmed-dead-in-mortar-attack-medics/

Thailand nationals https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/rocket-barrage-renews-after-night-of-quiet-idf-continues-striking-hamas-668391

--Rectangular dome (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead figures

As far as I can remember, 3 of the 4 the lead figures listed for Gaza are abroad, whereabouts unknown, i.e.,Saleh al-Arouri, Ziyad al-Nakhalah and Abd Al Aziz Awda. Ismail Haniyeh is formally obliged by Hamas rules to live abroad, but certainly is directly involved. Is there any evidence the other three have a role in directing events from such places as Damascus and Qatar? All decisions on military actions of this type are decided by a joint action committee consisting of Hamas, PIJ and other factional operatives/head commanders in the Strip. In any case, we need documentation for them on this, otherwise the infobox would be based on inference and hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ministry of Health is run by the Hamas government"

I cannot see any citations for the claim. I don't think it should be there. It should be removed or reliable sources shall be added because this can be controversial and might be self-claim. CyberTroopers (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. “WarKosign” 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the term "run" is appropriate in that statement. "Control" as written in both sources you provided would be much appropriates because they both have different meaning. Meriam Webster defines "control" as an "exercise restraining or directing influence over" meanwhile "run" is "to go without restraint". If the ministry is run by Hamas, the ministry itself is a Hamas (citation needed). CyberTroopers (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks WarKosign. It was in the source when I wrote it. If that has been disappeared by anyone of the numerous editors here, suffioe it to retrieve the original edit form. By the way, there is absolutely nothing controversial about the statement. Hamas is the political party running all aspects of the administration in the Gaza Strip and has done so for 15 years. Any of a dozen scholarly studies on its administration will tell you that (see the Hamas page.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minister of Health of the Gaza Strip redirects to Ministry of Health, Palestine and there is a bit of explanation there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli soldier injury from mortar fire, while assisting in transfer of aid at Gaza crossing

https://www.timesofisrael.com/soldier-hurt-by-mortar-fire-while-assisting-in-transfer-of-aid-at-gaza-crossing/

I feel like this is a significant enough story to add to the wiki, especially since no descript is gone into in the casualties section for Israeli casualties.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (2)

Add Palestine to the infobox on Hamas's side. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Its already present in the infobox Run n Fly (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (3)

Change "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 people in Israel have so far died in the conflict." to "Over 200 Palestinians and 12 Israelis have so far died in the conflict." 73.158.114.70 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were 12 Israelis? For example, one was an Indian. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were not 12 Israelis. They were 9 Israelis, 2 Thais and 1 Indian. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Per replies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking out the separate parts into their own articles

It appears that we are breaking out casualties in the info box instead of considering them as separate military actions/civil unrest. For example, the Israel-Gaza conflict has become a separate, though related, operation. According to the IDF, the operations are known as Operations Guardian of the Walls. Per prior Gaza wars, they operations by Israeli forces have their own pages (See Operation Cast Lead or Operation Hot Winter for the two 2008 conflicts). The article itself makes zero mention to "Guardian of the Walls" and the Israeli military operations, despite this designation giving a redirect to this article.

The unrest in the West Bank and Israeli-Arab clashes in Israel have a much different dynamic and can be considered more as "Civil Unrest" than part of the larger conflict with Hamas. The riots have different belligerents: protesters/rioters from both sides, Israeli border patrol/police, and some lone-wolf militant attacks. They are currently lumped together as a single set of belligerents when they are not necessarily allied (think Fatah vs Hamas) or even approaching the conflict with the same tactics as Hamas, PIJ or even Hezbollah.

I am proposing that we create separate articles to separate these two facets of the conflict/unrest in the scope of the wider conflict rather than continuing to lump them together in the infobox under "parties to the civil conflict" and then taking the time (and effort) to separate them in the "casualties" section. This will also help streamline the updates to the body of the article, so we can easily understand the two sides of this operation.ItsGrrreat (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times already even though it's only just over as week since this kicked off. Those separate articles have been created and then redirected here, where there is an ongoing RM that probably ought to be resolved in the first instance. At least for now, editors seem content to keep all the events, which are to some extent connected, together in one place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem, but by having the civil unrest and the conflict in one article it almost validates the initialisation of conflict as response to the civil unrest. Ofcourse the unrest has became much worse during the conflict, and they are obviously inter-related. I do think efforts should be made by the editors to idstinguishe these two elements in the article, to the effort of having an individual section for civil unrest, rather than lumping it all into the 'escalation' section. Which does, in my opinion, seem to legitimise the idea that the conflict was justly instigated by the police incident in Jerusalem and the unrest which has happened in the past week. Efforts should be made to separate coverage of state-state conflict and coverage of unrest in Israel. --Ester9001 (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of sources connect the two events. It's hard to dispute that Hamas fired rockets in response to the clashes on the Temple Mount; it does not necessarily mean that this response was justified or warranted. “WarKosign” 15:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, as I said "The concerning thing is that Gaza fired those initial rockets in 'response' to an event of civil unrest in Jerusalem".
Many in Israeli feel like Gaza use rocket barrages as a means of socio-political protest. Iran has commented in the last few days as saying "Palestine has a good unique way of dealing with Israel" (he since said in a statement he regretted this speech). The point is that one must be careful to separate the issues in terms of articulation to the reader of the wiki, in that the actions of Hamas and social unrest are not conjoined in any legally acceptable manner.
In example, a Palestine terrorist in Israel, is not a terrorist with association to Hamas, he is an independent (as far as is known) terrorist. Unless evidence shew otherwise.
The only legally acceptable form of protest, is protest which is not in any way in association with Hamas or instigating violence, which is a crime and
not a protest but a riot.
----Ester9001 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (4)

In the Diplomacy section, please add note of the statement from the USA and UK, saying that Israel has a right to defend itself.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-reiterates-israels-right-to-defend-itself-theres-false-equivalence-being-made-between-israel-hamas/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-british-pm-back-israels-right-to-defend-itself-from-iranian-strikes/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israel-has-right-to-respond-to-rockets-palestinians-have-right-to-safety/ Ester9001 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual stances by states are in the International reactions to the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. We arent going to include only those supportive of Israel when it is a tiny minority and we arent going to include all the statements in support of the Palestinians or opposing Israel's actions as it will overwhelm the article, so we have them all in a child article. nableezy - 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The US and UKs support is the only thing which has blocked united security council resolutions to call for end of hostilities.
It is relevant.
Ester9001 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it is the US only, 14 to 1. The right to self-defence is just a truism. The reason given by the US for blocking a ceasefire call was that it might disturb their behind the scenes efforts to calm the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truism smuism. Every man and nation has a right to defend itself, and the US and UK and Germany made those statements about the right to defense before the United Security Council blocks, a week before at the start. --Ester9001 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you agree with me.Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on the ruse?

There has been very little coverage as far as I can see in the foreign press of the outcome of the ruse (and it was, from a purely military perspective very shrewd in its potential for a winning blow) concerning an imminent invasion. We have 3 sources (St atesman) saying it was a major success but now note Maariv states that it was subsequently judged to have been a failure or to have fallen far short of its aims. [18]. Worth keeping an eye out for some reliable report in English on this.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been an honest mistake. And no, I'm not WP:FORUM baiting, it's a piece of information that should be mentioned in the article. “WarKosign” 17:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and we do now mention it. Deception is a standard war tactic the world over so is neither a surprise nor 'morally' objectionable. 'Honest mistakes' doesn't ring right, though. It appears so far that the tactic failed to achieve their aim (Aluf Benn, is Israel’s most failed and pointless Gaza operation ever. It must end now Haaretz 18 May 2021 'Israel’s land forces have been consigned to the marginal role of deceiving and confusing the enemy into descending into tunnels in the hopes of trapping them through airstrikes. Even this doesn’t seem to have succeeded – large numbers of Hamas fighters were not inside the tunnels that were bombed.') Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning children casualties in the infobox

I noticed that children Palestinian casualties keeps getting removed from the infobox. But on the Israeli side we have a breakdown by both nationality (mentioning Indian and Thai) and breakdown by ethnicity (mentioning Arab-Israeli). I think we are going to do a demographic breakdown we should be consistent, otherwise we should only breakdown by combatant and non-combatant.VR talk 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning children is especially important as we otherwise don't have reliable figures in the breakdown of civilians and militants killed on the Palestinian side. Its is also WP:DUE as nearly every news source mentions this. Pinged EkoGraf.VR talk 16:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, returning it. nableezy - 16:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding slightly, if you want to break down military vs civilian casualties for Israel, including those suffering from anxiety in the count and not even saying so, because the sources do, well the sources also break down the Gaza casualties by age and it is just as DUE to include in the infobox. nableezy - 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Casualties" has a well defined meaning, which usually only includes those physically wounded or killed. Social and psychological effects (anxiety, ...) can be mentioned somewhere in the article, if the sources mention it, but not in the infobox, lest we confuse our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I see EcoGraf's edit rationale states that infoboxes don't make that distinction normally. His argument certainly holds for the infobox of the 2014 Gaza War where as here a quarter of those killed in Gaza were children (ca.515).Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas ofcourse controls the hospitals and ministry of health which publishes the death certificates and has been accused by Israel of fabricating and inflating number of child deaths. Perhaps that is why it was removed? Ester9001 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy First, regarding your comment, "we break down civilians/military for israel but not palestine", this is incorrect. Based on the available sources we have, we have provided an overall toll of civilian and military dead among the Palestinians and broke that down to the lower (per Hamas/PIJ) and higher (per Israel) estimate of militant dead. Wikipedia infoboxes customarily contain the overall numbers of dead and/or a breakdown between civilian and military, with sometimes a breakdown in nationalities. However, the infoboxes do not contain a breakdown among male, female and children. This is information, like I said, that is more appropriate for the main body of the article. If we include the numbers of children for one side, we would have to include the numbers for the other side as well, which gradually leads to an overinflation of the infobox and WP policy/guidelins state we should avoid overinflating the infobox. Finally, regarding your comment about Israelis suffering from anxiety, there has already been a discussion on that issue during both this and the 2014 Gaza conflict and consensus is the infobox includes only physical casualties that are directly a result of the conflict. As RandomCanadian has said, those suffering from anxiety can be mentioned in the main body of the article, but they have no place in the infobox. Vice regent infoboxes sometime contain breakdowns between nationalities, however, as you pointed out, the figure on the Israeli side also contains the mention of the two Arab-Israelis, which is an ethnical breakdown, which I think should be removed from the infobox. In principle, I agree with your proposal that maybe it would be best to do a combatant/non-combatant breakdown, while mentioning the rest of the information in the main body of the article. So, I would kindly ask Nableezy that you cancel your edit here [19] until a clear consensus can be reached on the figures that would be included or excluded from the infobox as per WP guidelines so an edit war could be avoided. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline? And yes, we do breakdown civilian/military for Israel and not Palestine, saying that is incorrect is dumbfounding given the infobox is readily available for anybody to look at. We include that 11 civilians and 1 soldier was killed on the Israeli side, but amalgamate those two things together for the Palestinians. Yes, we include what each side says is the "militant" death toll in Gaza, but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed. I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit. nableezy - 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion that the Palestinian Ministry of Health inflates child death figures is an anti-Palestinian conspiracy theory. Think how many people would need to be in such a conspiracy to allow this to happen. People who don’t understand the region seem to think that every person in the Gaza administrative bureaucracy is somehow a Hamas militant.

They publish names, locations, ages etc on a regular basis. This type of information is very difficult to fabricate.

If you want additional evidence, note this desperately sad tweet from the Norwegian Refugee Council today:[20] We sadly confirmed today that 11 of over 60 children killed by Israeli air strikes in #Gaza over the last week were participating in our programme helping them deal with trauma. All of the children between 5 and 15 years old were killed in their homes. If just one NGO had been treating 11 of the children, it is entirely reasonable that another 50 children had died given the scale of Gaza’s population. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy "What guideline?" WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONS. "I dont think there is a clear consensus for your removal of the number of children, so no I will not self-revert my edit." The question here is not if it should be removed, but instead if it should be included. And a clear consensus does not exit in this regard at this point. You inserted the information after the discussion regarding its inclusion was started and did not wait for the discussion to reach a conclusion, as guidelines require us. "but we dont actually say how many civilians were killed" We don't say it because there are no sources (either Israeli or Palestinian) that say how many of the dead are actually civilians, only claims by both sides how many are militants. Also, please stick to WP:GOODFAITH. In any case, I still think Vice regent's proposal may be the best solution. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but my reverting your revert doesnt make my revert editwarring and yours not. I have made one revert here, I have not edit-warred and do not intend to. You have likewise made one revert here (that Ive taken the time to count at least, have not checked the history). The guideline I asked for was what says children should not be listed in the infobox. Cus WP:DUE would seem to say it should be when every source that discusses numbers seemingly includes that material. No, I did not insert the information after the discussion was started, I returned the material that had been remove by you without any discussion at all. Also, the UN yesterday said 116 civilians, including 61 and three pregnant women have been killed. I'd be fine including civilians without breaking down children in the infobox like that. nableezy - 18:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy Thank you very much for providing the source on 116 civilian dead and I agree that it should be included in the infobox, while moving the children figure to the main body of the article. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder All information must be based on WP:RS. It's beyond our remit to criticise sources as "palestinian" or "israeli" propaganda. Ideally, we have independent reliable sources to confirm the numbers. If they disagree, then we need to report all significant viewpoints per WP:NPOV, cited to reliable sources. See for ex. 2014 Gaza War, where competing counts are given in the infobox. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Israel or any other major player disputed Palestinian figures for either total killed or number of children killed? As Onceinawhile pointed out, this information is hard to fabricate. Since RS's take both of these figures from Gaza MOH at face value and since no one disputes it, we don't even need to attribute it and can state it in wikivoice.VR talk 19:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers were backed by the UN per WSJ: United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. So shouldnt just be attributed to the MOH. nableezy - 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source says: In total, 212 people, including 61 children and 36 women, have been killed in Gaza since last Monday, according to the Palestinian health ministry. ... United Nations officials said Monday that 116 civilians, including 61 children and three pregnant women, had been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military operation last week. ... A spokesman for the Gaza health ministry denied manipulating figures, saying it has the names of everyone killed in Gaza and could verify those with international organizations. UN doesn't seem to verify MOH's figures. I guess we could give both sets, however, but I imagine they will be verified once it stops being a current event so don't see the point. Or just attribute separately. ProcSock (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which country's casualty statistics do get independently verified? I am not aware of any country which arranges third party audits of these statistics. I could see the "wounded" statistics might benefit from an audit, as there can be subjectivity there, but counting death certificates entails no subjectivity. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included, perhaps with attribution if other editors feel like it is warranted. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (5)

Change "Personnel killed

  • Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
  • Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"

to "Personnel killed:

  • Dr Moein Ahmad al-Aloul (66), a leading Gaza neurologist, killed when his house in the Rimal quarter collapsed after an Israeli strike on shops on the building's ground level. His 5 children were also killed in the strike.[178]
  • Dr Ayman Abu al-Auf, the Al-Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and director of Gaza's Corona virus response, killed by falling rubble after a strike on al-Wehda Street.[176]"

Basically just add a colon because we are introducing a list. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (6)

It is not Jews against Palestinians. That is extremely offensive. It is Israelis against Palestinians. Jews are people of the Jewish religion and have nothing to do with the conflict. What your doing is inciting hate against Jews. Why not say Jews against Muslims. Or Israelis against Muslims. Because that is equally wrong. Please correct this to Israelis against Palestinians. 86.10.34.111 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second! The fact that is says, on the first paragraph of the wiki article,
acts of mob violence between the Jews and Palestinians
is utterly absurb. Possibly anti-Semitic. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT "The violence was the culmination of building tensions between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem and elsewhere over the past couple weeks." Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It then should be 'tensions between Jews and Muslims' or ideally not refer to religion at all.
I do not care that it was in the New York Times, that is meaningless! You will find many other sources talking about the same event which do not use such language.
Please may an editor change it, otherwise I will file a dispute resolution for it. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite easy to find reliable sources phrasing the events in this way, unless there is a good reason we usually go by reliable sources. Even if one were to resort to the euphemism "intercommunal conflict" I am pretty sure it would be fooling no-one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Run n Fly (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest using any euphemism, in the first para of the wiki it says: "between the Jews and Palestinians", this is anti-semitic, at the bare min it should be "between Jews and Palestinians".
This is outrageous. Change it some editor please.
--Ester9001 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Between Jewish and Palestinian-Arab Israelis.' perhaps. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there Palestinians that are not Israeli in East Jerusalem? Residents without citizenship? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has altered it anyway but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may get reverted back (I did change it to "between Jews and Palestinians" earlier but got reverted.).Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute. 18 May 2021 (7)

All disputes of neutrality is highlighted in a Bold Italic.

In 2.4 (Arab communities in Israel), it states "In Acre, a Jewish man was attacked and seriously injured by an Arab mob armed with sticks and stones while driving his car. In Bat Yam, Jewish extremists attacked Arab stores and beat pedestrians. An Arab motorist was also beaten in the street, an incident which was caught live by an Israeli news crew. An Israeli soldier was severely beaten in Jaffa, and two civilians including a paramedic and a police officer were shot by Arab assailants in Lod and Ramla. An Israeli news crew was attacked by Jewish extremists in Tel Aviv, and a Jewish family which mistakenly drove into Umm al-Fahm was attacked by a mob before being rescued by other local residents and police."

Usage of "Arab mob" or "Arab assailant" is a possible dispute of neutrality. Using the word Arab could impose that the editor is an anti-Arab. I suggest that "Arab-extremist" be used instead of just using "Arab" as for it sounds as if all Arabs are extremists.

— Chxeese (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because Judaism is a religion so one may be a Jewish extremist, but Arabian is an ethnicity, one cannot be an extremist of his ethnicity. Muslim-extremists would fit. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are also an ethnic group, ethno-religious.--Rectangular dome (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Arabs are Muslims. That is like saying all Americans are Christians. Additionally no Muslim-extremist claimed responsibility for the attack, making it unfitting. -- Chxeese (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. The Israeli were police, may have contain (if proportional to the national population) 20% arab, 20% Russian, christian / athiest / whatever. --Ester9001 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Broken record here, go by the sources. That JP/ToI would report on this way does not surprise me so best thing would be to see if there is are alternative sources saying it differently.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Arab-extremist' just does not sound right to me, surely it should be either Islamic-extremist, or arab far-right or some such terminology. That is all I was trying to say really. --Ester9001 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+2 Israeli injured, soldiers. +3 Palestinian dead, armed demonstrators.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-soldiers-shot-in-west-bank-palestinian-killed-by-gunfire-amid-unrest/

Two issues with the infobox

The Infobox lists Roni Alsheikh in the commanders section on the Israeli side. Alsheikh was the Israel Police Commissioner, but that position is now held by Kobi Shabtai. I'm unaware of any command position he holds now, to the best of my knowledge he's retired. Can someone check up on this? Also, in the casualties section, in Israeli casualties, it notes two Israeli-Arab casualties alongside the foreign workers. While we should mention the foreign workers to make clear that they were not Israeli, should we really be categorizing citizens of the same country by ethnicity in the Infobox? That's something for further down in the article.--RM (Be my friend) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there shouldn't be a breakdown by ethnicity. The two Arab-Israelis should be mentioned in the main body of the article, but not the infobox. Someone also raised this issue elsewhere on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about a new WikiProject Proposal - This article would be a main

Hey editors of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis article. I recently proposed an idea for a WikiProject for 2021. This crisis (Or conflict depending on the move discussion) started in 2021, and the proposed WikiProject is dedicated to 2021 articles, so this article would be main article for the new WikiProject, especially with over 100,000 views every day this week. So I thought I would drop by and let you know about the proposal. Feel free to drop your opinions here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Evictions”: is the term neutral?

I’d like to suggest changing “evictions” in the second paragraph of the intro to any of “forced removal”, “forced displacement” or “dispossession”. Terms like “eviction” and “property dispute” are sanitized to the point of being misleading, and don’t adequately portray the facts on the ground or the legality of the situation. The fact that these terms are strongly preferred by one party (the occupying power) should give us serious pause re: WP:NPOV.

I have a number of sources to support this change, generally endorsed by WP:RSP:

From the International Court of Justice: “Israel: ICC must investigate forced displacement of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and attacks against civilians in Gaza”

From CBS News: “The United Nations Commission for Human Rights has called the forced removal of Palestinian families a potential war crime. Israeli officials have called it a ‘real-estate dispute between private parties.’”

From Al Jazeera: “Sheikh Jarrah residents speak out on Israel’s forced expulsions”

From Haaretz: “Democrats Urge U.S. to Act Against Israel's 'Abhorrent' East Jerusalem Evictions: Several Democratic lawmakers are calling for an investigation on whether Israel’s ‘forced displacement for Palestinians’ violates U.S. laws”

I do not want to start people foruming, I just think this merits discussion and probably a change. I think “forced removal” is a more accurate legal description; “eviction” is better suited to a more banal dispute over residential tenancies.WillowCity (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed description of the circumstances is already present. This is just highly inflammatory language that would bias the article in favor of one side. We can use banal words, then lay out the entirety of the facts in the article, and let the readers decide on what they think of it.--RM (Be my friend) 20:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is accurate, not inflammatory. With the utmost respect, it sounds like you are saying that banal language that would bias the article in favour of one side is preferable to bold language that runs a risk of the same.WillowCity (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banal language, just dryly describing the bare facts, is not bias. People can read the rest of the description and reach their own conclusions.--RM (Be my friend) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, we should describe the the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 as "a large wave". As well, "forced removal" is an equally dry description, it just reflects international as opposed to Israeli domestic legal opinion.WillowCity (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is a balance of sources so if most sources are saying eviction we should go with that. I need to check about "property dispute" and similar phrasing, that sounds a bit off to me but I could well be wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NYT says "which Israeli officials dismiss as "a real estate dispute," so I think we might avoid that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the WP page on Eviction: "Eviction is the removal of a tenant from rental property by the landlord. In some jurisdictions it may also involve the removal of persons from premises that were foreclosed by a mortgagee (often, the prior owners who defaulted on a mortgage)". As the families being removed are neither tenants being removed by a landlord nor being foreclosed on by a mortgagee, the term eviction is not only biased, but wholly inaccurate. Eviction is not "dryly describing the bare facts", it implies fault on those being removed. "Forced removal" is much more accurate as far as "bare facts" go. But if the "forced" part is really too biased, we could go with "removal of six Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah". "Removal" is the most neutral you can get, it implies no fault or reasoning, just the bare facts. --eduardog3000 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with this view especially since forced displacement has been the UN view for quite some time but if rs are mainly calling it eviction(s), then we're sort of stuck with it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here OHCHR is calling it "forced evictions" as well as IL violation.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the court ruling the families had no legal right to occupy the properties, hence they were Squatting. The article on squatting uses "eviction" to describe removal of occupants from the properties for which they have no legal right. It has nothing to do with mortgage or rental. “WarKosign” 15:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article that is quoted to suppor the Palestinian POV also uses the term eviction, once with and once without 'scare quotes'. “WarKosign” 15:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true from an Israeli law standpoint. There are several problems with the application of Israeli law in an occupied territory (according to international law), not least differing ethnicity based evidentiary standards. That is the explanation for some sources, if not a majority, referring to it as forced displacement or similar.Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Jarrah property dispute article uses 'eviction' 19 times, 'displacement' once and not even once 'forced displacement' or any other expression with 'force'. It makes sense: so far no force has been used (except in protest against planned eviction) and nobody can be certain that eventual eviction, if it will happen, will be forceful. “WarKosign” 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isnt a reliable source, and a biased Wikipedia article isnt an argument for language in another article. What are reliable sources however, such as al-Jazeera, Reuters, NYTimes, Washington Post do indeed use expulsion and expelled. Eviction is also used, but it is not the only phrasing used and it should not be the only phrasing used here. nableezy - 16:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a fair portrayal of at least NYT (haven't checked others). They use eviction as many times as expulsion in that article. In other articles like this they overwhelmingly use eviction. In their header, on your very link, they use "Palestinian evictions". ProcSock (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I said evictions is also used. But that it is not the only term used, and we should likewise also be using expulsion. nableezy - 03:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Forced displacement" is another one of those expressions like "belligerent occupation", it can be a bit misleading if one just assigns ordinary meanings to the individual words. FD includes displacement not only due to conflict/violence but also due to persecution or hr violations generally.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021 (7)

In the last paragraph of the subsection entitled "Arab communities in Israel" of the "Escalation" section, I kindly ask that the link to the page 'Cellcom' be edited to direct the viewer to 'Cellcom,' as the current link is not specific to Israel and directs the viewer to more than one page. Ajs2004 (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bold??

Editors are making a meal out of avoid bold for the opening sentence. Although I agree that a strictly descriptive name probably ought not to be bolded, it does seem that this is being used as an excuse to rephrase and make other adjustments to the lead sentence.Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small edits

Second paragraph should read 'right-wing' as opposed to 'Far-Right' Jewish nationalists - it is a large march which encompasses Jews from various levels on the spectrum. Does source specifically say 'far-right'?

First sentence of third paragraph reads as if Israel should have been expected to accept the ultimatum issued, perhaps consider restructuring the sentence.

Finally please change 'airstrikes on Gaza' to 'on targets in Gaza'. Israel didn't 'strike Gaza', that surely breaches impartiality guidelines. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three sources specifically mention 'far-right. " David O. Johnson (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caferoma (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah David, two left-wing sources and a third which I've noticed doesn't qualify as a reliable source. The editorial position on this page is quite frankly ridiculous. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean that Haaretz and NYT are left wing, personally I think NYT is somewhat right wing. Intercept is also green in RSP although it might need attribution sometimes. The usual thing, rather than complaining about sources used, is to seek out some that take a contrary position and then we can perhaps see about some sort of edit.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic dispute section unclear

There is a sentence that does not make sense as follows; can a qualified editor please fix "The land was taken and destroyed by the Jordanian government following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.[66]" land has not been destroyed. Perhaps they mean the buildings on the land were destroyed. The Irish Times article cited says the land was "razed". The meaning of that is also unclear but it might mean buildings on the land were razed. The Irish Times article goes on to say "The Palestinian families facing eviction moved – also legally, according to the Jordanian government – into the houses before Israel took East Jerusalem in 1967." So if the buildings were "razed" or destroyed" were new buildings built after 1948. If there are no answers to the questions the sentence could simply be removed. Caferoma (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same fellow reports for the FT and there is an article today on the same subject. In that, it says "Palestinians were first housed in Arab districts in East Jerusalem by Jordan, which controlled that part of the divided city for 19 years after the birth of Israel in 1948." but otherwise doesn't refer to razing or destruction. I will take a look around see what else I can find.Selfstudier (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! How on earth did that get in? Thanks for noticing it. The error arose because newspaper reporters apparently don't take time to read the history. The Ottoman Jewish area rose up with the purchase of property around the Shimon HaTzadik|Shimon HaTzadik tomb. There were two trusts involved, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, and they jointly chipped in to buy the revered sage's cave and 4 acres of land nearby. The Sephardic portion lay next to the tomb, by the Nablus road, that of the Ashkenazis further south, where a vacant compound was marked off. It was on the latter portion that Jordan built 28 units for refugees. The Ashkenazis during the British mandate eventually built on that particular stretch, but land on the Jaffa road. S further Jewish area was at Umm Haroun (now called Nahalat Shimon), west of the Sephardi site. All of these, and a further site, have been the subject of the legal disputes at Sheikh Jarrah since the 1970s. The details are in the Sehikh Jarrah Affair paper, which I see has been questioned as the output of a 'think tank' and less preferable than newspapers. It is a sided but excellently documented sifting and analysis of the historical documents, far superior in quality to all of the newspaper sources we have used. I'm short on time but will fix this, unless someone else reads up and does it.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This detailed report says that "Under contention are approximately 28 residential structures, currently housing descendants of 27 of the Palestinian families who arrived in 1956 (about 500 people) and 5-6 settler groups (about 30 people)." and notes "28 houses were built for the original Palestinian residents of the neighborhood in 1956. Since then, some units have been joined and others subdivided and expanded." So that clears that up, I think. Just the razing/destruction bit to sort out, perhaps although it seems clear there was new construction.Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ir Amim is very strong on the post 67 occupation history (and logic), whereas Reiter and Lehrs (2010) go into far greater historic depth. I am perplexed that it could be tagged as unreliable because it was published by a 'think tank'. Lior Lehrs for one has cooperated with Palestinian scholars on writing about the history of East Jerusalem, has suggested that Area C (60%) of the West Bank be redefined as an area jointly under Israeli-Palestinian management, and thus wrested from the Oslo interim definition as purely under Israeli control. The scholarship is of a high order. Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find any other references anywhere to razing/destruction but since "razing" is sourced I think we can use that and then add the fact of subsequent construction, that should be OK?Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a single newspaper's claim, then it comes under 'extraordinary' and requires other good sources (not involved in journalistic meme reproduction as is often the case) before it can be mentioned, I would think. Of course I'm 'Irish' and very wary therefore of such sources:)Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the same author, I'm thinking that the Irish paper allowed some things that didn't make it past the FT editors.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request for 19 May 2021

Gaza-Israel Fatalities timeline

  • 10 May: Gaza 28/ Israel 3
  • 11 May: Gaza 4/ Israel 1
  • 12 May: Gaza 21/ Israel 4
  • 13 May: Gaza 34/ Israel 2
  • 14 May: Gaza 39 / Israel 0
  • 15 May: Gaza 13 / Israel 1
  • 16 May: Gaza 53/ Israel 0
  • 17 May: Gaza 20 / Israel 1 [203]

Can we please make this into a table? Frankly, using slashes as delimiters is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. Also keep a reference column so we can always verify the reference(s) for each day, as references for Gaza and Israel may be separate. Also, add a total to the bottom that aligns with what we are showing on the infobox. If the war continues for multiple weeks, we could turn this into the basis of a new article just for casualties. ItsGrrreat (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I don't know how to do tables. I'd be happy if someone could do that. (b) There is only one reference for all the data (assembled by a team of NYTimes journalists from all reports available - the NYTs is particular about multiple checking to get the stats right), so the table needs only that one source.(c) It's too early to add a total to the bottom, though it could figure as a empty slot, since we only have this data from the NYTs for 8 days, and lack figures for 18-19-20th, and other days if the rumoured ceasefire doesn't come into effect tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza West Bank Israel
Jewish Israelis Palestinian Israelis
10 May 28 ? 3
11 May 4 ? 1
12 May 21 ? 4
13 May 34 ? 2
14 May 39 ? 0
15 May 13 ? 1
16 May 53 ? 0
17 May 20 ? 1

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed Onceinawhile. I'll edit that in.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if differentiation between Palestinian Israelis and Jewish Israelis is meaningful, as some Arab-Israelis that were killed were killed by Gaza rockets, while one was killed during protests against Israel. Also, three of civilian casualties in Israel were not Israeli citizens. I think this table should focus more on where they were killed, rather than trying to establish affiliation. ItsGrrreat (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Obviously improvements can be made. It's late here, and not my area of expertise. Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Yusuf Nasri Jacir for Art and Research

The Dar Yusuf Nasri Jacir for Art and Research suffered extensive damage caused by a raid of Israeli forces. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That of course cannot be mentioned here, since, to date, this is only attributed by the Jacir family to the IDF and the claim requires independent confirmation. In any case, I have wikified the article and provided some further sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Infobox image

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

  • A (current image)
    A (current image)
  • B
    B
  • C
    C
  • D
    D
  • I don't particularly see a reason to change things compared to where they are now? In the future, I suppose, it may be wise to create a composite image featuring both the damages caused by Israeli military strikes as well as the violence from unrest within Israeli itself (and, likely, something illustrating Palestinian rocket attacks could be a part of that as well). However, the article appears fine right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2014 we settled on using two images side-by-side, one for each side. “WarKosign” 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand now is fine, but 1:1 would be very much a violation of WP:DUE in that it would pretend that the devastation were equal here. Neither reality or the sources bear that out. nableezy - 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to represent a side in a conflict is a violaton of NPOV. This article is not Destruction in Gaza during 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, there are two sides to the story and both have to be represented. “WarKosign” 20:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what NPOV says, NPOV is providing DUE weight. Pretending that the damage in Israel compares, on any level, with that in Gaza is just silly, and the sources dont bear that out. They show image after image after image of the destruction in Gaza, and occasionally a rocket damaged building in Israel. As should we. nableezy - 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the subject of the article is not damaged buildings. Images from Israeli side could include Iron done interceptions, people rushing to reach shelter, civil riots, etc. There is a lot going on on both sides and we can't focus the article on just one side of a conflict because we like it better. “WarKosign” 11:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I prefer the old image, B. A is quite grainy and low res, B is much more high def. C doesn't really show anything (just looks like smoke), D is just a bit strange. Probably a better image will come around at some point more in the fashion of A but less low res, and we'll end up using that, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, seems the most involved. B just shows soldiers in the street, C shows just smoke. D is also a good image that shows the aftermath. From those, A seems the most logical to me Gorebath (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I vaguely recall some procedure or request mechanism for pix, we could do with a few more.Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - Don't really "like" any of these pictures. "A" seems least bad. Would be nice to have a usable image of people actually in conflict (e.g. this)NickCT (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks thrown onto Western Wall Plaza

The article (section Escalation-Temple Mount) does not mention the fact that around 8:00–9:00 am on the 10th of May 2021, several rocks were thrown from the Temple Mount plateau/Haram al-Sharif onto the Western Wall Plaza. At the time, the Jewish morning prayer was being held there by students of various Religious Zionist Yeshivot (religious colleges). In my opinion, the mention of this incident, which I have personally witnessed, could add some relevant background information to the police intervention in the al-Aqsa compound. Here are two news reports referring to the event: https://fox40.com/news/national-and-world-news/palestinians-israel-police-clash-at-jerusalem-site-53-hurt/ https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/hundreds-of-palestinians-injured-in-israel-c-2799130 Elendil 03 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that your second source there is dated the 9th? I can't access the other source, it is one of those closed to Europeans.Selfstudier (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing in the source was "Police said protesters hurled stones at officers and onto an adjoining roadway near the Western Wall", so nothing there backs up what the editor is suggesting even if we uncritically believe one side's account of the clashes. Of 19 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend adding much on this in the context of the Israeli Police on the Temple Mount. There are quire a few links of stones stored in the al Aqsa mosque for the purpose of throwing on Jews at the Kotel down below. For example on Friday May 7, 2021 the police were there to stop the Arabs from trying to kill the Jews. The next night since there was outrage over the police action, some rocks made it over and the Kotel was evacuated. If anyone wants to gather the sources I think it would help even out the article.Saxophonemn (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be "quite a few" sources but I assume you haven't any? Especially citing "for the purpose of throwing on Jews at the Kotel down below"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article (not a RS) mentions several historical precedents and says that "worshipers were actually stockpiling rocks to rain down on the Western Wall plaza". Stockpiling rocks is supported by other sources, intention is hard to prove. Probably no hurdling rocks down at the plaza took place; if it did there would probably be a lot of reports attesting to it. “WarKosign” 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

questions needing review on the subject of Rockets Fired By Gaza & Israel

Why is there not a single picture of a rocket shot from Gaza to Israel (the ones that actually made it to the ground)? Why is there only a picture of the media building, which was used as a human/status shield for Hamas (to fire rockets right next to the building, knowing full well that Israel would be reluctant to conduct an air strike on it because they would get backlash)? The caption reads "Aftermath of Israeli bombing of a building in Gaza, 14 May 2021" in the causes it says " - Planned decision by the Supreme Court of Israel on the eviction of four Palestinian families in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah." " - Closure of the Damascus Gate by Israeli authorities" And " - Storming of the al-Aqsa Mosque by Israeli police"

Why can't it explain that the main reason it was bombed was that Hamas was firing rockets right next to the building(!)?

Source? Also please remember to sign.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

The reason for the crisis is mostly the Hamas firing rockets onto Jerusalem and Tel Aviv 188.64.207.189 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 08:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A war start with a beligrant attack, not with an excuse. Germany also had a motives to attack Poland, still the war began when Germany attacked, not when they payed reparations and they were 'collectively' mad. It's like writing on WWII article, the violence started when Germany was angry and when Poland occupied their land, or citing a diplomatic incident on the border of Germany.

So I can recommend adding the hostility were initiated by Hamas launching hundreds of rockets, which is well documented for anyone who read the press. And you can add, Hamas justify its attack on a b & c. Anything else is Stockholm syndrome. :-)--Rectangular dome (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments about "who started it" generally lead nowhere. The best one can do is identify proximate causes and events but the conflict itself, this being merely another episode in it, began a long time ago.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021 (2)

In the "Lebanon and Syria" subsection of "Escalation", within the first line, the words 'from' and 'the' do not have a space inbetween them.

On 13 May at least three rockets were fired fromthe coastal area of Qlaileh just South of the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidieh in the Southern Lebanese district of Tyre across the Israeli–Lebanese border, landing in the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah denied responsibility for the rocket launches and Lebanese Army troops were deployed to the area around the refugee camp, finding several rockets there. Change to: On 13 May at least three rockets were fired from the coastal area of Qlaileh just South of the Palestinian refugee camp of Rashidieh in the Southern Lebanese district of Tyre across the Israeli–Lebanese border, landing in the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah denied responsibility for the rocket launches and Lebanese Army troops were deployed to the area around the refugee camp, finding several rockets there. zer0talk 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Melmann 08:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing - third holiest site vs sacred in Judaism

   ...the compound of the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, located on the Temple Mount, which is sacred in Judaism

Why does this sentence clarify the Al-Aqsa Mosque as the third holiest site in Islam, but simply says the Temple Mount is 'sacred in Judaism'? It is the holiest site in Judaism. I believe the article should say the cite is sacred for both faiths, or clarify both parties' relationship with the location. 2A10:8002:83AE:0:C455:1029:DB39:1637 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, no reason for this discrepancy. Fixed. “WarKosign” 13:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, "third" is a fabrication, all the refs refering to it as the third are baised and not well addressed, and certainly not Islamic in nature. For Shia it's certainly not the third, and for Sunni Hajj places are more sacred. Wikipedia has became a place for folk science.

Btw you can also add positive stories in your cover. Eg, the Jew killed by "protesters", who gave his kidney to an Arab woman. Or the Arab paramedic who saved a Jew stabbed and lynched in Tamra last week. https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-riot-victims-kidney-gives-new-lease-of-life-to-arab-woman/ --Rectangular dome (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original request is  Done. Another one for a different subject may be added in the usual way.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Let's update the status of the mosque here after you were able to change it at Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Regarding positive stories, we certainly should include them in the riots section. Let's wait for the events to stop unfolding and higher quality sources to start summing everything up. “WarKosign” 15:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schools, hospitals

Hello, the allegation against Israel of damaging schools and hospitals is unfounded. Firstly, only the first ref of the long list of refs say so ( the others are there for decorating), and it's actually a quotation from an un envoy, not a forma statement. Secondly Israel has alleged, and provided footage, that some of the rockets fall short (≈25%)... Blaming Israel doesn't respect the NPOV.

Please change it to " according to an UN envoy hospitals and schools have been damaged, by Israeli airstrikes, which Israel deny, and accuses jihadists groups of carelessly shooting rockets from civilan area and falling short on palestinan area". This is supported by many declarations.

Eg : " The IDF says some of the Gaza civilian fatalities were killed by the terror groups’ own rockets falling short and exploding in Gaza." https://www.timesofisrael.com/rocket-fire-from-gaza-halts-for-8-hours-then-renews-as-idf-continues-airstrikes/amp/

--Rectangular dome (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The claims are not unfounded; the provided sources that mention damage to schools and hospitals (The Guardian and Al Jazeera) are both considered generally reliable as seen on the list of Perennial sources. Also, the source you provided doesn't mention damage to hospitals or schools at all. TimSmit (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaurdian and Al Jazera are both bi-ased. Exactly ZERO schools have been hit by Israel airstrikes. OBVIOUSLY, why would they hit a school, you people... incorrigible delinquents.
(and he did link source, don't you see the blue writing?)
--Ester9001 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasefire, approved by Israel gov

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-may-20-2021/

--Ester9001 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis&oldid=1024210160"