Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Khan Yunis

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

Grammar

[edit]

Article has multiple overlinks of "israeli forces", mistake of prefix The in capital letter, possibly more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.252.191 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this in my recent edit. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks, SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed map

[edit]

The map in this article appears to violate WP:IMAGEOR, because it seems to illustrate/introduce unpublished ideas/arguments. Particularly, while the Commons file cites the Institute for the Study of War, the depiction of the areas of operation of the al-Quds Brigades does not appear to have been sourced from there. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

"Twenty-one[note 1] Israeli soldiers are killed in an explosion and subsequent building collapse in Khan Yunis, Gaza Strip, making it the deadliest day for the Israel Defense Forces since the ground invasion began. (Sky News)" (As seen on Portal:Current Events)

Certain inside sources claim a Palestinian death toll of at least forty to fifty during the day of the attack, (Al Jazeera) (Haaretz) although it is unclear whether these deaths are linked to the same explosion referred to above, according to my understanding.
— Urro[user][talk][edits] 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ With at least three other solders having died elsewhere. (New York Times)

Old

[edit]

https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q1/Article-9b0299bbc864d81026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802 2A00:A041:1CE0:0:E139:30F8:BF3:D3FE (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connected publish: https://twitter.com/avishaigrinzaig/status/1750264426282783020 שמי (2023) (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely false claims

[edit]

The Israeli commanders section of the table claims two tank commanders were killed. The sources are extremely dubious, and nontrustworthy Turkish media, which cite the Israeli army. Yet the Israeli army has never released such a statement, in fact a closer inspection reveals that these two tank commanders are not real people. I'd recommend removing this misinforation, unless literally any credible source can be found. Both Shai Uriel Bezem and Orel Cohen, have these sites show up when searched for, and I can't find those particular names in any Israeli military announcements. The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian victory?

[edit]

What is going on here? Israeli forces withdrew because they pretty much finished the job there and now preparing for entering Rafah. Israeli plan was never no conquer but destroying Hamas forces. 2A02:14F:1FA:4771:E491:4492:5E3:5D12 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the objectives? To eliminate Hamas? Hamas still there and just yesterday ambushed and killed Israeli soldiers, what kind of objective have been met? 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas' battalions in the area have been destroyed and its infrastructure was laid to waste, that some remnants survive doesn't necessarily mean they "won." RM (Be my friend) 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time Hamas still exist and is not eliminated so that will not lead to non existent of Hamas, you either fullfil your objective completely or it's not a decisive success either you don't leave a situation directly after a deadly ambush by Hamas and call that "we eliminated Hamas" 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proof that Hamas' battalions have been destroyed though? Genabab (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly all I hear is salt from pro Israeli people."Hamas was destroyed in Khan Younis", but they are still there and just yesterday ambushed and killed Israeli soldiers. What is all this excuses coming from? 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in guerilla warfare isn't that basically victory? 99.243.192.104 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the battle was one of attrition. By the end of it Hamas fighters are still in Khan Yunis. Rockets even were fired just after the Israeli retreat. Sure Hamas got beat badly but they were still in control of the city and their forces weren't completely destroyed. So I think a "Hamas" or "Palestinian" victory, whatever you wanna call it, fits. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or Israeli forces withdrawing, but I think Hamas victory would fit more Savelamp (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian victory

[edit]

It's quite pointless and non-objective. It's Wikipedia, not a propaganda site. Neither of the sides 'won'. The Israelies decided to withdraw their forces for numerous reasons and their hostages are still held captive somewhere in the Gaza strip. Hamas hasn't recuperated, didn't re-gain it's sovereignty and the Hamas's Khan Yunis brigade was pretty much eliminated throughout the last 3 months. Please remove this very un-necessery propaganda. UnsettledEditor (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every battle has an objective and Hamas just yesterday ambushed and and killed several Israeli soldiers, and officers. If Israel is not on the ground and Hamas still exist they will retake Khan Younis among its population. This will turn out as a pointless ground invasion for IDF. 94.191.153.9 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me disagree with you. The IDF had never set its aim at overtaking the Gaza Strip to make it a part of Israel. They were aiming to eliminate Hamas' and PIJ's militants, infrastructures, commanders and command posts. As well as try to rescue as much hostages as they can. Thus, claiming that Israel's withdrawal from Gazan ground means the IDF lost is simply invalid and wrong. In addition keep in mind that this withdrawal doesn't mean the IDF won't return to Khan Younis, it may be temporary and therefore I wouldn't jump to conclusions (especially while their hostages are still in Gaza).
Bottom line: The IDF never expressed anything publicly that suggests they won't return to Khan Younis, and the withdrawal doesn't mean they lost as the IDF never intended to conquer Gaza again. UnsettledEditor (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The IDF had never set its aim at overtaking the Gaza Strip to make it a part of Israel."
Nobody suggested that
"They were aiming to eliminate Hamas' and PIJ's militants, infrastructures, commanders and command posts"
But the Israeli forces just yesterday was ambushed by Hamas and several Israeli soldiers and officers was killed in Khan Younis. You say to eliminate Hamas, Hamas operates alot underground and that doesn't mean you have defeated Hamas just because you wipe out infrastructures it doesn't mean Hamas have been defeated, Hamas just fired a salvo of rockets from Khan Younis toward Israeli settlements close to the Gaza strip directly after after IDF pulled out from the city. if Israel have to call it a success they should have made sure that any movements by Hamas doesn't exist anymore not leaving a deadly ambush and retreat from the City. For Israel it's about Eliminating Hamas completely, for Hamas it's about making sure that Israeli soldiers Retreat by any means.
Any future Israel ground invasion of Khan Younis could be called "second battle of Khan Younis or (date) siege of Khan Younis". 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true whatsoever. Netanyahu has consistently refused to entertain the idea of the PA governing any of the Gaza strip after the inevitable end of the war, implying that the Gaza strip will be under Israeli administration. This was well-understood by most officials and diplomats.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-cornering-itself-into-postwar-gaza-military-occupation-western-diplomats-warn/ Yezhi283825 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand we're talking about a full scale army versus 2 terror organizations war, thus a single claim about a specific ambush doesn't mean either that Hamas is viable or either that Hamas is mostly eliminated? Israel didn't say it finished its work in Gaza nor in Khan Younis.
Hamas fired 5 mortar bombs at the Gaza envelope, every person who knows a little about war know that mortars are the cheapest most "dumb" weaponry you can use, so I don't really understand how firing 5 mortars says "Hamas is strong & kicking", which is what you imply.
Israel didn't call it a success, it has solely withdrawn its forces out of Khan Younis. Neither Netanyahu nor IDF said the operations in Gaza are completed. To be honest, they most likely pulled their troops out in order to refresh them before the next upcoming operation in Gaza.
History has shown that a complete destruction of a terror organization is nearly impossible (great example: ISIS which are pretty much Hamas' siblings). That's why Israel didn't say it's done, actually since the beginning they've already acknowledged the world that the operations in Gaza will take a very long time, perhaps over an year and meanwhile it's been only half an year.
You're using terms as "defeated" and victory, whilst in reality there is no definite winner or loser. However, numbers and statistics are fact-based and hence more reliable to base your claim of. By sticking to the fact-based data and media publications - you can clearly see Hamas has been struck badly and is now mostly crippled. UnsettledEditor (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to reply to your last paragraph:
Israel still hasn't fully decided how the day after the war will look after this war. Let me reassure you that it is NOT a coincidence that neither Eygpt nor Jordan want to help the Gazans. Israel wouldn't want it too. It may keep its army controlling the streets to avoid further organizational forticiations of Hamas, PIJ and other terrorist groups, but one thing is certain: Israel DOES NOT want to conquer and control Gaza as an annexed land. UnsettledEditor (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel said totally doesn't matter, nor does the implication of direct Israeli control of the Gaza strip that was understood and construed by top officials to the Times of Israel.
We should just take your word for it? Yezhi283825 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me gladly refer you back to the article you - yourself had used as a reliable source, that Times of Israel article.
It says Israel will maintain it's overall security control. Also that "Gallant (Israel Minister of Defense) also immediately clarified that Israel “will not control Gaza in any civilian way.”"
No occupation, but security control in a new Gaza under a new Gazan civilian control.
Seems legit after October 7th.
No need for my word, the words are written. UnsettledEditor (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said previously none of this appeals to neutral sourcing, it's all a personal assessment, which is also bound to be biased as your phrasing and choice of words. None of this is fit for Wikipedia. Yezhi283825 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't understand my approach. Since the beginning I asked for the remvoal of the phrase "Palestinian victory" because it is simply not true. However I also asked in the last reply that it won't say "Israeli victory", because it is wrong as well.
Not biased, factual and objective after intensively reading and following the situation day after day since the beginning. UnsettledEditor (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with removing 'victory', in fact that's my initial position. In my view Option 1 is also relevant, but in case of disagreement I'd prefer Option 4. Yezhi283825 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas goal is survival which theyve succeeded in and israels goal is almost impossible therefore hamas has won 99.243.192.104 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for Palestinian fighters in Khan Younis not having recuperated? Genabab (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never wrote Palestinian fighters in Khan Younis, I wrote Hamas. Hamas consists of numerous departments and branches, not all of them are militant. However they all follow the inhumane & violent directive Hamas' leaders openly preach.
There are no actual legit sources that can realisticly and objectively portray what's happening in Khan Younis nowadays, hence personally I don't think your reply will lead somewhere logical and fact-based.
I will add that if you look at the statistics, which are usually the only objective and reliable knowledge source in warzones, you'll see that Hamas and PIJ lost an outrageous amount of weaponry, infrastructure, stashes & caches and manpower. Following the media throughout the last 4 months, you can clearly see the reduction in number of rockets fired per week, the reduction of the rockets radius which implies on using less sophisticated weaponry, less face-to-face fire fights and an increasing number of Palestinian detainees brought to Israeli investigation.
Bottom line: While most likely there are still Palestinian fighters in Khan Younis, Hamas & PIJ will have a very hard time to recuperate due to the extensive destruction and a very significant hit both organizations received by the IDF. Therefore, it'll be foolish to believe that any of these organizations will be able to recuperate within the near time frame. UnsettledEditor (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is more-so a personal assessment than a professional one, and I disagree with it. There's extensive cooperation between Hamas and other Palestinian militants, and the resumed shelling of Gaza envelope settlements after withdrawal defeats the very purpose the IDF went into Khan Yunis in the first place. That and the IDF's failure to root out much of the tunnels and return the hostages. One genuinely can't see how this was a successful campaign for the IDF. Yezhi283825 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.
It should be
Israeli forces withdraw from Khan Younis, elements/fighters of Hamas remain in control of Khan Younis. 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with either Option 1 or Option 4. Yezhi283825 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas shot 5 mortar rockets to the settlements near Khan Younis. It's barely 3km away from eastern Khan Younis. How does firing 5 mortars compare to the sheer amount of IDF tanks, commandos fighters, combat fighters, UAVs, jets, helis, and all other advanced capabilities of the IDF?
Let me remind you that at the beginning of the war, before Israel entered the Gaza strip, Hamas and PIJ were firing rocket barrages of 15 to 30 rockets on a daily basis to Tel Aviv and central Israel (70km-90km). So I can't really see how 5 mortars to 3km distance depict recuperation and victory, or how it shows that IDF didn't advance towards it's goals.
Your comparison is simply infrutile.
Also I don't quite understand how'd you call this an opinion rather than an objective approach, considering I didn't add any information that isn't factual? UnsettledEditor (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe hamas are now more focused on fighting then firing fireworks? 99.243.192.104 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a grossly misleading comparison of two organizations with very different natures. The Israeli army is a conventional state military; Hamas and the PIJ are guerilla militant forces who fight with their command centers under the ground. That's why they call themselves a 'resistance' movement. Resistance means fighting a much stronger foe. Yezhi283825 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And these resistance fighters are regularly taking out these tanks (among destroyed and disabled) with Yassin 105 shells, IEDs, and even munitions gently hand-placed on the structure. Dozens of famed Merkava tanks have been destroyed in the past 181 days, and hundreds disabled. Doesn't exactly seem like a resounding, flawless victory. 2600:8800:2309:6200:B5CE:AE57:F34A:F5F7 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either side can claim victory as of yet, especially with so many civilian casualties, mostly from aerial bombardment, but we need to wait and see the aftermath. If Hamas survives to fight another day, this would be a defeat for Israel. Yezhi283825 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to expand your news sources a little, my guy. The al Qassam Brigades, Saraya al Quds, and many other fighting groups have been demonstrating their continued efficacy from Khan Younis to Beit Hanoun this entire time. Everywhere the antagonistic forces have been found, they've been met by the resistance - right up until the antagonistic forces evacuated entirely. 2600:8800:2309:6200:B5CE:AE57:F34A:F5F7 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another anti Israeli biased article

[edit]

"Palestinian victory" - claimed by whom? By what factors? In relation to what? Not surprising considering the amount of bias in the English Wikipedia. And locking for edits, cowardice. 85.130.157.245 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

[edit]

Please remove the phrase 'Palestinian victory' from the outcomes section. It is pointless, full of propaganda and non-objective. There are enough social media platforms to promote Palestinian or Israeli messages on. Thanks in regard. UnsettledEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of palestinian victory

[edit]

palestinians didnt win anything, israel withdrew because their goals were met, and are moving to smaller scale raids Kwabat5 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What goals were met? Genabab (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli Victory" It also makes Wikipedia appear like a propaganda site. It's common to attribute victory to the side that was blockaded. example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad 196.235.53.160 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Israeli nor Palestinian victory. It's better to call this an "Israeli Withdrawal". Hind242 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state's goals were to eliminate the fighting power of "Hamas". That did not happen. Whatever their plans for the near future (Rafah, the northern front, etc), they did not meet their military objectives in Khan Younis - or anywhere else in the Gaza Strip. 2600:8800:2309:6200:B5CE:AE57:F34A:F5F7 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Claim of Israeli Victory

[edit]

An apt resultbox would only say "Full Israeli withdrawal" without stating that Israel has won considering Hamas is still active in Khan Younis. Moreover, the source given says: "Israel says it defeated Hamas in a key city" this doesn't count as a trustworthy source according to Wikipedia guidelines. VortexxWW (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that Israel has won. It says: "Israeli withdrawal from southern Gaza". As objective as it can get, which is definitely the way it should be written in Wikipedia. UnsettledEditor (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result Discussion - RFC

[edit]

There are several editors in disagreement about how to state the result of the battle. Which option fits best? (Options picked from all previous main-space versions of the result section)

  1. Palestinian victory, withdrawal of Israeli forces as in this version
  2. Palestinian victory, withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Gaza as in this version
  3. Israeli withdrawal as in this version
  4. Israeli withdrawal from southern Gaza as in this version
  5. Israeli victory and subsequent withdrawal as in this version
  6. Other result not previously used

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for Template: Infobox military conflict gives guidance on and restricts how the result parameter is populated. This guidance is given voice buy MOS:MIL. The documentation reads:

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

How the result parameter for this article is populated should be considered through the lens of this guidance. None of the options offered for consideration in this RfC are consistent with this guidance (save the last). Furthermore, how the parameter is populated must reflect what the sources explicitly tell us - not what we might conclude they mean. It has nothing to do with what individual editors perceive to constitute victory. Any argument that relies on such perceptions would fall to WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Survey

[edit]
  • Option 5 — On this version of the Wikipedia article the “Israeli victory” was cited by this news article from NPR which stated, “Israel's defense minister said the military has defeated Hamas in the southern city of Khan Younis. The “subsequent withdrawal” was cited by this NBC News article. RS does indicated Hamas was defeated in Khan Yunis & that Israel withdrew from the city after said victory. So, I must choose option 5. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    which reliable sources say Hamas was defeated? I remind you the IDF did say the same in Gaza a few months ago, and the isw then reported that Hamas had restored its fighng strength, and re-entered land across the North. What is the proof the IDF isn't eaggerating again? Genabab (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source was listed. The bearer of proof (WP:ONUS) is now on others to show Hamas wasn’t defeated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion this article suggests that Hamas was still fighting in Khan Yunis. Such as with ambushes and rocket attacks on Israel and what not. Which suggests to me that Hamas was not defeated. I also consider it a stronger source than the Israeli defense minister as that is a rather weak source. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is this source here which does have a paywall. It describes the IDF’s declaration of victory as “premature” and this was before Israeli forces withdrew today
    https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/repeated-raids-in-gaza-raise-prospect-of-endless-war-c1f37011 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WeatherWriter Both sources listed don't say that it was an Israeli victory. saying Israel said it won and a 3rd party source saying Israel won are two different things. The NBC article itself seems to stress that it is unclear what the withdrawal indicates. Genabab (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing that Israel won, in fact the contrary. I am mentioning another instance, north Gaza, where israel says “we won” only for Hamas to resurge and demonstrate its ability to still engage in large scale operations against the IDF such as Zeitoun. Israel saying “we won” isn’t indicative of victory especially when the reality on the battlefield demonstrates otherwise The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that we are mainly dealing with WP:NEWSORG sources. NEWSORG sources are a qualified reliable source. Where they are quoting or repoting the Israeli defence minister, they are a reliable source for what the defence minister said. However, it does not mean that the defence minister is reliable. More importantly, the defence minister is not independent. It is a fact that the Isralie defence minister said they won. It is not a fact that Israel won because he said they did. We cannot use this to state in a Wiki voice that Israel won. It must be attributed in prose. What is presented in an infobox is stated in a Wiki voice. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Option 1 is the most befitting — All the articles cited above suggest that Palestinian militants were still fighting in Khan Yunis, including an ambush in the eastern parts of the city the day before the withdrawal. This does not qualify as a defeat. What exactly is 'victory' is subjective, but the ToI articl citing continued shelling of Gaza envelope would imply Israeli failure to achieve their primary objective and thus qualifies as a defeat in my opinion. Yezhi283825 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by this one. 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4.
We in Wikipedia cannot determine who won, we ca only cite reliable sources. If enough reliable sources will claim that Israel\Hamas won, we can use it also. But for now, we can only say "Israel withdrawl from southern Gaza".
It is important to emphsize, we cannot determine who won, it is not our job. 147.235.201.116 (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 4 To declare Israeli victory we would need statement from reliable neutral source, not just Israel claiming so. Borysk5 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian victory. In my opinion you don't declare that you that you want to eliminate Hamas from Khan Younis by besieging the city, bombing and destroying the heck out of it, occupy it step by step, receive a deadly ambush by Hamas and then withdraw from the City and claim that your operation was successful, especially when Hamas fired a salvo of rockets from Khan Younis at Israeli settlements, directly after Israeli forces withdrew from the City. 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Option 1 is the most befitting — All the articles cited above suggest that Palestinian militants were still fighting in Khan Yunis, including an ambush in the eastern parts of the city the day before the withdrawal. The ToI articl citing continued shelling of Gaza envelope would imply Israeli failure to achieve their primary objective and thus qualifies as a defeat in my opinion. 2A02:AA1:1646:2B48:60F1:B3FF:FE55:DF7C (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 -
Israel invaded khan yunis with the intention to defeat Hamas in the area as well as to save the hostages, and they claimed to have “defeated Hamas” in the city yet Hamas maintained a strong presence in the city, including an ambush that took place just yesterday. After Israeli forces withdrew Hamas immediately began shelling border communities, indicating that they have control over the area and use it as a platform to launch operations. A clearing operation that achieves none of its , neither defeating Hamas or rescuing the hostages, only for the city to fall under the control of those it was supposed to be cleared of is by every definition of the word a defeat for the attacked The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one to this, basically 2600:8800:2309:6200:B5CE:AE57:F34A:F5F7 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is too early to determine or state the result, as the battle is not (officially) finished: only the intense part of it, and now the tactic shifts to focused raids. The claim about Palestinian victory is absurd: more than 3,000 Hamas and PIJ gunmen were killed and hundreds were arrested, while the IDF lost only ~40 soldiers. In addition, many terrorist infrastructures, including tunnels and rocket launchers, were destroyed - Hamas lost many valuable assets. That Hamas was not wiped out to the last man standing and some survivors remaining is not a Palestinian victory. The goal of the IDF was not to conquer Khan Yunis to stay there indefinitely but to clear the terrorist infrastructure inside it. MathKnight 16:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the number 3,000 is certainly questionable, I do agree with this, Option 4 might be the most appealing in this case. Yezhi283825 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Option 5 - following: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-790080 It's ridicules to talk about "Palestinian" victory where Israel was fighting Hamas in the first place and not "Palestinians".Israel destroyed most of Hamas assets in the area. It takes 4 people to shoot barrage of rockets, would that mean that if the rest was eliminated it's not a Israeli victory ?Log1223 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) Ecrusized (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel saying “we won” isn’t proof especially with the constant Hamas presence in khan Yunis throughout the entire battle (even after Israel has supposedly stated that they defeated Hamas there). Hamas was able to inflict a major ambush that the IDF admitted killed 6 people, and the IDF even admitted that soldiers were being killed in the south after that supposed defeat of Hamas. Israel’s claims are not matching the situation on the ground The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sited a source, it's not "Israel says it's won", it's stating a quantity fact. Hamas is hiding underground, there will always be some left overs. The issue here is if this terror organization suffered a fatal blow in the area, and the answer is yes as most of it's hiding tunnels in area is gone. Since Israel fights Hamas, it doesn't make sense to talk about "Palestinian" victory, unless you are saying Hamas = "Palestinians". Thanks. Log1223 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) Ecrusized (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Hamas’ entire strategy is to hide underground, this is why they’ve lasted this long. Hamas being able to continue executing attacks, and retaining control challenges the Israeli POV that they have defeated Hamas, especially with how they are trying to vanquish them with a conventional invasion. The reason I say “Palestinian” is because of the involvement of the other armed groups such as the PIJ, Fatah, PFLP and the other smaller militant factions. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no credible source that argues that the "ground offensive has come to an end". Log1223 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) (Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA) Ecrusized (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Five separate references in the article express that IDF has withdrawn from Khan Younis. Also, please note that as a non-ECP user, you cannot participate in ECP page move or RfC discussions, hence your comment above has been struck. Ecrusized (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized — Question, do you have a source which states either “Hamas victory”, “Hamas won”, “Israel lost”, “Israeli defeat” or something along those lines that directly indicates Hamas won the battle? Without a source explicitly stating that, there is no backing behind your statement, hence why I am just asking about one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have one, I don't think such sources will become available for a few days since this "battle" only ended this morning. Ecrusized (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't like the fact that you're accusing me of having "no backing behind your statement" for commenting on one of the options in your RfC. Ecrusized (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not accusing or anything like that. On Wikipedia, a reliable source is needed to support claims made. In your !vote, you made statements without any sources. When I asked if you had a source, you then replied you did not yet. There is no accusations occurring or anything. If I may make an observation though, since you do not have any sources to back up your reasoning for it being a “Hamas victory”, your !vote, may be seen to others as original research. That was the only reason I was asking about whether or not you had a source to back up your !vote claim and reasoning. Personally, since you did confirm you do not have a source yet, my personal belief is that your !vote doesn’t have solid ground and is original research. Again, that is my personal belief currently and doesn’t mean I am accusing you or anything. My question was just to answer my curiosity as well as potentially others. Hopefully that explains why I asked that question. Again, no accusations were being implied. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4 - Reliable sources does not attribute victory to either side. What happened was that the IDF withdrew. IDF claims they met their objective and is preparing for the Rafah offensive. "Victory" should not be attributed to any side without reliable sources. -UtoD 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 --- As per Battle of Beit Hanoun, as per many battles from the 2006 Lebanon War, this was a positional battle with Hamas retaining its positions (even using a fully-functional tunnel just yesterday to ambush and kill >4 Egoz unit soldiers), the withdrawal of the IDF makes it objectively a Palestinian victory. Two days ago some other user corrected the status of the 2006 Battle of Ayta ash-Shab from "Israeli withdrawal" to "Hezbollah victory, Israeli withdrawal". The Battle of Beit Hanoun is given as a Palestinian victory since December, and the conditions were the exact same (IDF withdraws, Hamas retains the field). If the IDF re-invades Khan Yunis somewhere in the future and manages to "win", then it would be another battle, the Second Battle of Khan Yunis, with another article. This one is over. BubbleBabis (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3/4: RSes haven't definitively said whether a side obtained a victory, they've merely stated that Israel was withdrew. Hamas has claimed victory, but that's somewhat expected. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other - leave blank The guidance (per MOS:MIL and the template documentation) is quite explicit and limiting in how to populate this parameter. There are no good quality sources that would attribute victory to either side. There are not even WP:NEWSORG sources that do this. This might be viewed as a military operation by Israel, with the aim of clearing Hamas from the area (more or less). Israel has withdrawn but was not forced from the field. Was the operation a success or failure? That is not for us to determine or judge but a matter for WP:RSs. In any case, we are presenting this as a military conflict with a result, not an operation, with an outcome that may be presented as a success or failure. Furthermore, success or failure of an operation are not directly synonymous with victory or defeat. Arguments that they are fall to WP:SYNTH. What we know is that Israel came, it caused a lot of death an destruction (without suffering much in return) and then left of its own accord. Stating that Israel withdrew against the result parameter is not permitted per MOS:MIL. Such a simplistic statement is somewhat misleading, since it might imply that Israel was forced to retire, where this was not the case. We might state that the engagement was inconclusive but again, to do so, we would need RSs that explicitly state this to be the result. None have been presented. There is nuance to what has happened for which an infobox is totally unsuited. The nuance is best left to prose. It cannot be effectively represented by simple phrases, it does not belong in the infobox.
None of the RfC options presented comply with the guidance per MOS:MIL and/or are explicitly supported by RSs. In this case, where there is nuance to the result, the guidance would leave us with two options: to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed (through sources) such as an aftermath section or we may remain silent on the result. In this case, there is nothing that resembles an aftermath section. There is no section within the body of the article to direct the reader for an explanation of the result. It isn't even mentioned in the lead! Consequently, we cannot apply this option at this point in time. Even if the lead were amended now (but not the body), we would not direct the reader to the lead from the infobox. Ultimately, the only option left to us at this time that is consistent with P&G is for the result parameter to be left blank. This is a perfectly acceptable option explicitly supported by P&G.
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points from the [body of] the article. It tells us not to write the article in the infobox and that the article should remain complete without the infobox. This obsession with the infobox is clearly contrary to our guidance on infoboxes. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4 per the wording used in the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Option 3 or 4 for now – to say exactly how this military engagement has finished. After several days there may be some more analysis regarding whether this may be considered Palestinian victory.--Oloddin (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Option 1 HOWEVER given that 80% of the city was destroyed, I think it might be fair to characterize it as a pyrrhic victory. However, it also might just be WP:TOOSOON to characterize the outcome of this, as it might have no impact on the greater strategic situation as this conflict moves forward, but at minimum, a city has been leveled. Might need to wait for the academics to characterize this one. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4 for now, considering the possibility of conflict resuming. NasssaNser 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave blank, Option 5 as a secondary but equal vote it's just too early, and it seems that Israel has had overwhelming but incomplete success. Therefore, we should leave it blank (and hopefully stable) until we have a proper analysis. FortunateSons (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave blank - there are no good quality reliable sources that would attribute victory to either side, thus this would be WP:OR. Marokwitz (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or 2 I don't understand why there should be any confusion at all over this. When you lay siege to a city, your goal is to capture it. It is a victory if you capture and hold it entirely, and it is a defeat if you fail to capture and hold it and root out the defenders. Israel failed both in its goal of capturing Khan Yunis and in its goal of completely destroying Palestinian fighters in the city, there is no reason why it should be described as anything other than a Palestinian victory (and it does not matter when news agencies repost Israeli officials claiming they won as a form of borderline propaganda). RealKnockout (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Counter point: This news article from NPR states, “Israel's defense minister said the military has defeated Hamas in the southern city of Khan Younis. You have not provided a source either to say it was a "Palestinian victory", while I just provided a source that states Israel won. Could you provide a source for "Palestinian victory"? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source does not say anywhere that Israel won, it's simply quoting a statement by the Israeli defense minister claiming Israel won, this doesn't mean anything.
The only part where the article legitimizes the claim is when it says "The appearance by Gallant and the senior officers lent credence to the claim that Israel's military had effectively dismantled the Hamas forces defending the city." But it is well-known now that the IDF no longer has a presence in Khan Yunis or its surroundings, so even that point relies on a reality that no longer exists. RealKnockout (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wait or determine first which sources can be used to decide who won. Senorangel (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4 for now. To declare Israeli victory we would need statement from (multiple) reliable neutral source(s), not just Israel claiming so. -what else would they say after all. Clearly this was not an Israeli victory in the ordinary sense, but equally denying a victory to them is not for the other side. We should stick to uncontestable facts, and in this case withdrawal, whether tactical/temporary or not, was the result for the time being. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 6:I believe it wouldn't be appropriate to decide between "X withdrawal" or "Y victory" without conducting thorough research and documentation, which hasn't been done yet. I strongly disagree with making a decision based solely on the statements of the involved parties. It's advisable to keep the result section pending until scholarly research is conducted; redirect it to the "See Aftermath" section, where the outcome can be described in detail..--Imperial[AFCND] 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Options 3 or 4, or inconclusive, or just leave blank: There are far too few independent and secondary, let alone expert sources discussing these conflicts in sufficient detail and without detail to make comprehensive determinations about the tactical, strategic implications, etc. Though, on the face of it, another pointless carpet bombing and series of morality-devoid genocidal massacres. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 or 4 per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visegrad24

[edit]

Visegrad24 is not a reliable, credible, or accurate source, it is literally a set of social media accounts run by a singular polish citizen currently resident in the UK. it has been known to post active propaganda and false information; especially on behalf of the Hungarian government. The section dependant on its "reporting" needs to be removed. Alastair Alan Percy Warner (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? Visegrád 24 should be discussed at WP:RSN due to the reliability linked (usage by CNBC, Daily Express, Euractiv and The Times of Israel) and misinformation listed in the Wikipedia article. You can open a discussion at WP:RSN to determine its reliability. Until a reliability discussion occurs though, it is presumed to be reliable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources in their own wikipedia article, including cases of false information reported specifically about the Israel-Hamas War. But I will do so. Alastair Alan Percy Warner (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree: I find that the March 2024 section gives undue weight to Visegrad's Tweet, which, in my opinion, seems to have been intended to go viral and spark debate rather than serve as a reliable assessment of Hamas's capabilities in Khan Younis fit for Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing this out SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

Due to an edit by Based guyy over on List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war, the list article contradicts this articles result by stating the siege was a “Palestinian victory”. This contradiction was changed by myself to match this article (i.e. no “victor” yet), however, Based guyy reverted that change. Therefore, the list article and this article contradict each other and attempts to change this have failed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
The edit on the other article showing a "Hamas Victory" appears to have been undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidential Standards

[edit]

The claim that 2 Merkava tanks were destroyed isn't backed by anything other than Hamas' word. It's just one of those videos where they shoot an RPG, hit and then go. No evidence of the tanks' destruction. The claim should be removed or, at the very least, the article should reflect that it's merely a claim without any solid backing. EpistemicKarma (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking into it to see if it has any backing. If I (or anyone else) cannot find any other source for it soon, I will remove it from the article shortly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Source and claim removed as I could not find a reliable source to back it up! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now I see, however that, using the same source and with exactly the same degree of evidence the claim is that 3 Merkavas were disabled. Again, no evidence to that effect, just the acceptance that engagement means the tanks were disabled. EpistemicKarma (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli reentry+Current events contradiction

[edit]

It appears Israel has reentered the city and proceeded to restart the siege, which Portal:Current events has already covered. I would make a proper edit request that we add the new info to fit, but I don't have enough certainty this is the case other than the below article, which might just be describing a one-off raid.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-troops-storm-back-into-eastern-khan-younis-bodies-recovered-hospital-2024-04-22/ PhilosophicalSomething (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait to see if it’s a renewed operation or a brief incursion/raid The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox#Result

[edit]

Per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters, the parameter result should either display "X victory" or "Y victory" alone. Else, link to "See Aftermath". Imperial[AFCND] 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ImperialAficionado, True. You should contribute to the RfC above on the result. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this result at least be inconclusive or at worst a pyrrhic victory for either Hamas or Israel BarakHussan (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RESULT, we wouldn't use pyrrhic. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

[edit]
Yfz206 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) the 3000 killed have no backed source (other than israeli source) and so this informations should be pointed.[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

[edit]

To be added to the beginning:

"Battle of Khan Yunis" redirects here. For the battle between Ottoman Empire and Mamluk Sultanate, see Battle of Yaunis Khan.

Isvind (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should we prepare a 2nd Battle of Khan Younis article?

[edit]

Instead of saying "ongoing" here, as it seems the IDF is preparing to attack Khan Younis yet again, we should make a 2nd Battle of Khan Younis article Genabab (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed:

In the info-box

−
Hamas remains combat effective
+
Hamas retains some combat effectiveness

Under "Battle -> March 2024"

−
Hamas "remains combat effective" in Khan Yunis
+
Hamas' Qarara Battalion of the Khan Younis Brigade "remains combat effective"
  • Why it should be changed:

1. The current reference used for this claim does not state that "Hamas remains combat effective". It claims that "Hamas’ Qarara Battalion (Khan Younis Brigade) remains combat effective" [emphasis mine].
2. The current reference is from March 9, while the battle ended on April 7, so this reference cannot be used to determine the outcome of the battle.
3. I found a different reference, also from the Iran Update, dated April 7, that explicitly claims "Hamas retains some combat effectiveness"

  • References supporting the possible change:

The current reference (March 9 article) - [1].
New reference (April 7 article) - [2].

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Khan_Yunis&oldid=1259714384"