Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

You need to mention in the infobox that the vast majority of the 900+ dead in Israel are non-combatant civilians

It's crucial information in understanding these statistics. Fewer than 100 of them are military-affiliated. This was a massacre against civilians in Israel.

This is especially necessary since it is mentioned that the 1,500 dead from Palestine were militants. 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to back this up. I'm not disputing it, it's just how Wikipedia works. AncientWalrus (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is IDF spoksperson's update on national TV (Kan11) from 2.5 hours ago, stating the number of IDF casualties is 123. The general number of confirmed casualties is at the moment above 900.

https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1711651520628859274?t=fGmiSU3inGLE06gLRRtNFA&s=19 Doombrigade (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the whole casualties section of the wikibox should be divided into civilian/military but would have to find enough reliable sources to do so. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It's misleading to have such all-inclusive casualty figures under the lists of combatants, it's not moral^(typo)normal practice on war articles. Maybe put a disclaimer e.g. (includes civilians) until the figures can be split authoritatively. ----Pontificalibus 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to highlight a larger problem with framing this article (and naming it) the "2023 Israel-Hamas War"—for example, virtually none of the Israeli dead thus far, including the majority of the IDF personnel killed, appear to have been war "combatants" in any typical sense of the word.

Our encyclopedia currently has a 13,000-word article on the Russian invasion of Ukraine but only an 8,000-word article on the Russo-Ukrainian War—and that's a "typical" international war!

I'm no expert on Wikipedia article structure, but it's obvious the Hamas attacks weren't exactly the first salvo in any kind of typical war—which almost certainly explains why the majority of our September 11 attacks article isn't simply folded into our article on the War on terror.

Shouldn't most of this article should be titled and framed "2023 Hamas Terror Attack on Israel"—with a small portion of it in a different article with its current title, that can then explicate any actual "Israel-Hamas War" that follows the terror attacks?

Curious to know everyone's thoughts!

ElleTheBelle 05:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. There is so much going on here, it should be separated into multiple parts, as you said.

The war declaration and the bombing campaign in Gaza itself are only reactions to the terrorist attack that proceeded it! 2601:40:C481:A940:5C7A:B21C:4997:997A (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the idea that casualties need to be as specific as reasonable: their age (children/adults), the manner (solider fighting, hostage execution, etc) and time they died (what phase of the conflict) as well as their status (civ/sol) are cats that should be considered. But however they end up being grouped a reader should clearly understand what any statistic represents. Footnotes are great.  // Timothy :: talk  06:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I also agree that the casualties need to be described with specifics. Civilians and Soldiers are very different targets. WonderCanada (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment If we are lacking precise numbers due to insufficient sources, this could be reflected with a note by the number. Agree on the need for specificity. entropyandvodka | talk 04:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I posted some commentary earlier that was since archived, setting out why the current infobox treatment of hostages/captives/POWs is unsatisfactory. There was support for a change to the language. I also provided sources regarding numbers. I'll repost my recap here for ease of reference:

Under "Status", instead of "Approximately 200 Israeli and foreign hostages taken by Palestinian militants", something like "[#] Israeli and foreign nationals taken hostage or captured by ...."

And under "casualties and losses", instead of "200+ hostages", something like "[#] hostages and POWs [or, prisoners of war]".

The 200 figure also seems inflated, based on RS. More recent reporting by RS indicates somewhere in the range of 100-150; unfortunately, there is little disambiguation between soldiers and civilians.

Refs: Politico, citing NYT ("some 150 Israelis were seized by Hamas militants"); WP ("evidence suggests ... at least 64"); CBC ("more than 100 ... as many as 150").

I conceded that "hostages" could be maintained for the time being but I reiterate that RS are also using more neutral language ("seized" in Politico; "captives" in WaPo). WillowCity (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli hostage killed

according to hamas 13 Israeli and foreign hostages have been killed in Israeli air strikes france 24 أحمد توفيق (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can give much credence to any self-serving statements by any side. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We have no clue if they're telling the truth. ///they could have killed them before/after the bombings and blamed it on Israel. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't trust self-serving statements from any side, Hamas, IDF, Netanyahu, or Trump's claim that if the election wasn't rigged, he would be POTUS and the war wouldn't have happened. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i understand that may be this statements be wrong and false and hamas manybe try to reduce the air strikes but can't we put this statement in the article and write that hamas didnt provide any evidence about them being killed.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Hamas alleged that 13 hostages were killed in explosions I think is fine, but only after we have more understanding of what happened. FOr now it's better to leave it alone. Keep ahold of it, and if nothing new arises then bring it up later 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ahmed that it could be included with attribution. Indeed, it's appeared in a reliable secondary source, so I think that it should be. Riposte97 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt’s role

One thing I’ve noticed is that while Israel frequently gets blamed for Gaza’s predicament (including before the attacks), it takes two to tango. The blockade wouldn’t have been possible if Egypt hadn’t also sealed off its own border with the strip. And Egypt is not letting in Palestinian refugees, either, even now that there’s a war. Surely, the same people blaming Israel for everything aren’t just going to let Egypt (a much larger country) off the hook? And conversely, you’d expect pro-Israel commentators to try deflecting blame to Egypt more often, but they seldom actually do. It’s really weird that Egypt always seems to get a free pass from both sides. Any sources on why this may be? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOTFORUM. Riposte97 (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Brigades

IDF has more than 150000 active soldiers. Gaza division should be around 7500 soldiers. How many were positionned at Gaza border on October 6 ? RadXman (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Teacher in France murdered after calls for Islamic Jihad

https://www.bfmtv.com/grand-lille/arras-une-attaque-au-couteau-dans-un-lycee-un-enseignant-tue-et-plusieurs-blesses_AN-202310130403.html

Student chanted "Allah Akbar" and stabbed teacher, after Hamas called for Muslims to rise up world wide.

Along with the Israeli Ambassador who was stabbed, maybe a section for other attacks by Islamic community around the world is justified, due to this proclamation by Hamas. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/report-hamas-calls-for-global-jihad-invasion-of-israel-attack-jews-worldwide-on-oct-13/

There will be more of it 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

i don't think the french attack are related to this war, Muslim fundamentalists were always angry from france so this attack will happen even if the current war didn't happened.--أحمد توفيق (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

doubtful

there haven't been reports of any Islamic terrorism in France like this in a while. I don't find this a coincidence whatsoever. Fact is, Hamas called for Islamic Jihad, and the next day a teacher was murdered by Islamic terrorism.

Absolute connection, here. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless the suspect admits he did it for Hamas then there is no reason to admit such. Correlation does not imply causation. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be included should a link to the current conflict be found then, which I suspect is just a matter of time. Meeepmep (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This AP story connects this attack to the backdrop of the Israel–Hamas war. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/france-maximum-security-alert-after-terror-attack/

here you go 69.249.102.223 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

“Beheading babies”

The claim that hamas beheaded babies is very well shown on the war crimes page even if there is no verification and no bodies, and they dare say “Joe Biden confirmed it”. Was he there to see it? Even the Israeli forces don’t want to confirm this claim and the times of Israel deny this claim, and it should be removed from the war crimes section, just like every “alleged” Israeli war crime has been. Why is it still there?

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-10-11-23/index.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s been discussed & cleared already. Look up. 2A06:C701:45F1:1300:2132:9A49:9F6F:913E (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your sources don't say that Hamas didn't behead infants, but rather that he denies the claims, which makes a lot of sense. Here are sources that are more reliable than the spokesmen of a terror organization:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

New york post and CBS by the way is not known for supporting Israeli agenda. But I guess you'll keep calling it biased untill you see the pictures yourself? דוב (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally included the times of Israel in my citation but alright. If there’s no proof then it’s not going to be included, just like all of Israel’s alleged crimes, some of which were eventually proven to not have happened The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is accurate. "Beheading babies" should remain in the article because it is a hot topic on the subject and ostensibly occured. Icrin7 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It has not been cleared, I just checked and it’s still there The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

See this source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-babies-killed-hamas-terror-attack-kibbutz-kfar-aza-first-responders-ay/ David O. Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

And Iraqi soldiers are tearing babies out of incubators. And Gadaffi has rape gangs fueled by viagra. And WMDs are- We should not be including these claims in wikivoice until the dust settles. There is an extreme amount of hedging happening on many of these. Even Biden's claim to have seen the photos was clarified as not actually occurring by the White House. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source to that? That biden lie and didn't really see the photos? Currently there are more than enough reliable sources of international reporters who have physically been there. Besides the president of the US said he saw the pictures. So all of the international reporters and the president lie or struck by a fog of war? Those are credible reports and witnesses and there is no reason for them not to be used as sources, specially when it's reliable and big news companies like The guardian and CNN. I'm not sure also why you see it as so farfetched while not so far away videos have been posted by Hamas themselves. דוב (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source mentioning it:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-biden-has-not-seen-or-independently-confirmed-hamas-beheaded-israeli-children/ David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, taking back president biden. Can you refer to the various sources who back up this claim? דוב (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Beast discusses that Biden's statement was clarified to the Washington Post [1], and that he was relying on news reports and statements by Netanyahu. Sky News report from yesterday says that it stil unconfirmed [2], and the IDF has said they won't confirm it, according to Insider [3]. However, given that the claim has been coroborrated by Yossi Landau, regional head of ZAKA, who was there at the scene and interviewed by CBS [4], I think that some confidence can be given that the allegation is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If there's so much doubt regarding the veracity of the claims then the article should state the claim in doubtful or spurious terms. In the context of a war situation where conflicting and slanted claims are being relayed, I think it should be clear that a claim as sensitive and grave as "beheaded infants" should be held up to a very critical light. Would be far more reliable for someone who isn't IDF-adjacent (i.e. HRW) to confirm something like this. ‒overthrows 03:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that some degree of uncertainty should be applied to the claims, but at the same time, I think its beyond merely a "rumor" at this point, which is what The Intercept describes the claim as [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Head of Zaka and several international reoporters is more than enough for it bo considered more than a "rumor". דוב (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli government "has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister’s office." added to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Overthrows @Hemiauchenia this was further clarified by the Washington Post and Al Jazeera English that there was no independent verification of the claim by the US or any non-Israeli organization. I think the language should be updated to reflect more caution on such an inflammatory topic. Wschreyer (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnesses are more than enough to verify the claims. Al Jazeera is not a reliable or credible source. Washington post didn't deny the beheading, they just clarified the origin of the sources. דוב (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is listed as a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Because reports are conflicting and there has not been independent confirmation I'm requesting that the article simply reflect that this is not a widely accepted fact. 24.14.199.122 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Support, at the very least, using more qualified language to describe this, maybe by mentioning there are "conflicting" or "unconfirmed" reports about this happening. Unless neutral third parties can confirm this, we should hold off on definitive "this did/did not" happen framing. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The reports about beheadings and rapes are unconfirmed, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

confirmed by whom? Witnesses can count as confirmation. דוב (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEONING Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Four sources that confirm the claims:

• i24news
• CBS
• New York Post
• Independant

Currently seems more like you're the one who doen't follow WP:IDHT. דוב (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The dead baby photos the Israeli government put out have been covered by NBC News, though they say the specific allegation of baby decapitation is still unconfirmed [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

New confirmation have been posted by Prime Minister of Israel, including pictures. Although the pictures here is of burnt babies and not beheaded.1 Other sources affiliated to the government posted decapitated images of citizens. דוב (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, the beheading of babies is still unconfirmed, and most RS seem to be couching the reports as just that - reports. As ghastly as it is, the beheading of adults is not what is being specifically contested here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not confirmed. Anyone could easily fake those images. And Isræl is on a war. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:BDE3:7671:1DD0:87C2 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current article now feels inconsistent between the two paragraphs about the beheading. I suggest that the first instance

"Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded and burnt in their homes. The bodies of 40 babies and young children were taken out on gurneys, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims.[REFERENCES]"

Is changed to

"Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, finding the bodies of victims mutilated. There were at least 100 civilian victims, including women, children, and burn victims. This event sparked a report about 40 beheaded babies. See #[SECTION ON UNCONFIRMED REPORTS]"

The references can then move to the unconfirmed reports section.

As for the unconfirmed reprots section, the paragraph that starts with "Reports of Hamas beheading babies..." is quite difficult to understand because each sentence seems to change between saying 'yes the heading was confirmed' to 'no the beheading wasnt confirmed'. Would it be easier to read chronologically -- such that you list which reports happened per day? Because I would think the Jerusalem Post sentence is the most recent statement and it confirms the beheading, and it should be the last sentence. Hovsepig (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Beheading babies" should be removed at least for now as most serious sources (outside live feeds don't touch) and various other sources have already "debunked" it. Due tommon sense (and a sober encyclopedic style), it is for now sufficient to state that Hamas committed a pogrom/mass murder/massacre among the locals. There is no need to go into gory details and in particular no need for bringing up any which are unconfirmed/disputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

But the allegation does seem to be becoming an important talking about during this war. I think we should keep the beheading paragraphs. But I think we should move the first paragraph about the beheading and merge it with the second. The first mention of the beheading doenst talk about the conflicting reports (and seems not up to date) while the second mention talks about the current status with regards to newspaper confirmation from the Jerusalem post Hovsepig (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's important to keep it in the article.

What's so hard about saying it's been alleged, but contested? 2601:40:C481:A940:9D32:3F:E894:5BA3 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Claims of rape removed again

I don't understand what's going on here. We had MULTIPLE sources reporting on survivors claiming to have witnessed rape. What is the issue here?

"We go to hide in a bush, a big bush in the creek. And we was in the bush something like six or seven hours. A lot of terrorists go around us and search for people to kill. The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that." -https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive

This is a source interviewing someone who is identified as survivor of the attacks who is attesting to witnessing rape inflicted upon the victims by hamas militants. We had others, but they're being nitpicked and dismissed. This is getting into POV territory. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read the new, cited, secondary source that covers the primary sources comprehensively: "What we know about accounts of sexual assault during the Hamas attack". Nurg (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the sources that were removed backing up the statement of sexual violence. In addition to PBS, which seems to be equally as reliable as the source you're providing. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.

A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware". Well there's at least one then.

I read it. I get it; it's a fair point, but it's also a fair point that we have sources that said that this happened that are just as reliable as yours that said there was. Unless there's consensus for this change, which reading the talk page there definitely is not, There's multiple editors on here that disagree, so it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperative editing to make such a change without reaching a consensus. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, given what's in the source that was added, this statement is not correct. According to the source, there's at least one known case of rape that was committed that I just cited. Here's the statement claiming that Israeli officials stated they had NO EVIDENCE of it. "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape."

That's just not true. That's not what was said. It's POV, pretty clearly POV, and should be reverted. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Chuckstablers, the allegations should be added there are evidence for rape. We can't rewrite history, censor Wikipedia or try to write a narrative. Currently there are more than enough sources (and videos posted by Hamas) to confirm the claims. דוב (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Define confirmation again, witnesses are considered as confirmation. דוב (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can include there are claims but also needs to include the Israeli officials have said they have no evidence to substantiate those claims. nableezy - 23:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to, regarding the sentence "Israeli officials have said they have no evidence"? dov (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The Forward piece cited above, this. Where it says While sexual assault is a common feature of violent conflict worldwide, the Israel Defense Forces told the Forward Tuesday night that it does not yet have any evidence of rape having occurred during Saturday’s attack or its aftermath. nableezy - 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

that not a reliable source as you can see if you will open the article they give no confirmation to this statement Malmul12 (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that videos showing the physical damage of the rapes has gone viral and shown on national television in the US, it is fair to include it in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why the allegations of rape as listed under "Unconfirmed", when the vast majority of the "Casualties" section is equally as unconfirmed, with widespread use of "reportedly" or "reported to have been/reported to be", as is typical in every conflict. Even the number of hostages, and number of casualties on either side, are technically "unconfirmed", as is once again typical. The justification provided inline for placing sexual assaults under "Unconfirmed" is that it's too soon to know whether there had been a pattern of sexual assault, but that's an entirely different question. It's not like rape is easy to prove outside of warzones, or like you'd expect people to pull out their phones and film their friends being raped for video evidence. We can just put it in Casualties, attribute to eye-witness reports rather than state in wikivoice, and just state it's unconfirmed, rather than highlighting it its unconfirmed-ness in a separate section. DFlhb (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the justification is that even the Israeli military is saying they have no evidence for this. Unconfirmed claims generally dont belong, but these unconfirmed claims have been covered and then documented to have had no substantiation. nableezy - 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That false the Israel defence force had never claimed. that and you didn’t add any reliable sources to confirm that

https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/

this site which all of you how claim that the the idf said that there are no evidence don’t provide any sources to this claim not an official’s statement nor video evidence Malmul12 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, I think the IDF statements are enough to treat it as explicitly unconfirmed. I argee that we'd usually delete stuff like this if it hadn't grown into 'a thing' though wide coverage, as this has. DFlhb (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia as propaganda tool in the Disinformation section

The paragraph "At times unsubstantiated claims were widely spread by news organizations that were later retracted. Reports of Hamas beheading babies were reported and repeated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's spokesperson Ta Heinrich, while reports of sexual violence against Israeli women were repeated by President Biden. Both claims have been unsubstantiated and news outlets and the White House later clarified that Biden had based his claims off of Heinrich's comments and news reports." is pure propaganda.

Remove the whole paragraph. Per WP:NPOV, WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTADVOCACY , WP:DE 79.181.247.63 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it propaganda? Genabab (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That it ignores sources and rewrites history. I posted above more than 5 sources with different origins that confirms beheading of babies. דוב (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be correct, claims were made and subsequently were not confirmed by IDF/IsGov Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli government or IDF don't need to confirm the claims for them to be truth. North Korea calls themselves a democracy so do we need to refer to it as such? I posted above valid sources of witnesses. Also the sources used in this paragraph don't deny the beheading, they just say that IDF and Israel didn't comment on it (didnt deny or confirm). דוב (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

https://forward.com/news/564318/sexual-assault-rape-proof-hamas-idf-israel-gaza/

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-beheading-claims-intl/index.html

https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/there-is-no-proof-palestinian-fighters-beheaded-babies-the-only-source-is-a-radical-settler/

etc etc Witnesses saying something does not constitute proof, especially when authorities are not able to confirm. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnesses are considered proof and have been considered as proof in Wikipedia since it was created and since humanity as started. There are over 5 international reporters with different origins that support this claim. This is more than enough to for the least not call it a "misinformation". Unless you prove all of those reporters are liars or that their Journalism certificate is invalid, you're nowhere in a situation to call those "fake news". Also head of zaka as a witness is pretty important, specially when zaka where the ones who helped indentify the bodies. דוב (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I queried the veracity of these reports since the very beginning because they did not appear in the major news outlets. Now major news outlets are reporting them as unconfirmed, so that's what they are, unconfirmed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

so that's what they are, unconfirmed

Then go ahead and edit the article! It states they have been confirmed. 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the policy links you made apply. The paragraph is adequately sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the paragraph in the article? 2A02:14F:17B:5310:0:0:B690:CD5F (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It was removed by an administrator just over three hours after this thread was created (diff). I’m going to assume good faith and assert that it was done to prevent an edit conflict from breaking out. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Israeli government has not confirmed the specific claim that Hamas attackers cut off the heads of babies during their shock attack on Saturday, an Israeli official told CNN, contradicting a previous public statement by the Prime Minister's office.

Source.VR _talk 17:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care.

Everyone knows it's propaganda and this statement will probably vanish by the time the war will end. Just like a Shahid. 79.181.247.63 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarified with a separate section for unconfirmed reports. Reports of rape by eye witnesses from Supernova are widespread and independent but by their nature have confirmation lag behind reports of deaths. – SJ + 20:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's better; we can't call things "disinformation" without reliable sources calling them that. DFlhb (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reported by major news organizations and as-yet-unconfirmed (but in no way denied or debunked) by government sources is hardly "disinformation". Were that the case, news reports about Israel's nuclear arsenal would be "disinformation". ElleTheBelle 13:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Give that the US Presented is back-tracking on statements about having seen pictures of beheadings - only now stating that he was told of about such images - are editors willing to act to prevent (or ban?) people from posting wild, questionable and dangerous statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1F0:1491:0:0:A134:1734 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we state this was terrorism in wiki voice?

The lead currently says:

Hamas' initial offensive is considered to be the deadliest non-state act of terrorism in Israeli history, as well as the second-deadliest event of that kind worldwide, surpassed only by the September 11 attacks in the United States

This takes as fact that the Palestinian offensive is an act of terrorism. While it is considered so by Israel, the US and many other countries, I think such an assertion is POV and requires attribution. (The assertion above is also inaccurate, because ISIL's Camp Speicher massacre has a higher death toll than all the total Israeli dead so far, which is around 900).VR _talk 21:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because hundreds of RS's say it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Not any other official body. Thats POV.

At the very least one can Put a note that it was certain media or poticians. Eu/c explicitly did NOT say it. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s only “terrorism” if Arabs do to. When Israel does it Wikipedia editors will whitewash it and simply call it an “airstrike” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The USA and the EU both recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. The fact many offical parties in various countries, along with the literal definition of Terrorism of the use of violence against civilians, leads me to accept the definition of the offencive as an act of terrorism Doombrigade (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas attacks civilian locations with no military activity of any type (beyond the protection of said locations, which at times is arguably military). They, in turn, use civilian locations for their terrorist purposes in the Gaza Strip to prevent the IDF from attacking their terrorist supplies and the terrorist leaders. Israel always considers this when deciding what to attack, but is frequently forced to attack civilian locations which the Hamas (and other terrorist groups) use as their headquarters or storage facilities. Animal lover |666| 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Apart from MOS:TERRORIST, here is the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/hamas-attack-israel-us-opinion-divided  :

"The attack also inevitably revived demands for news organisations to follow the White House lead and call Hamas terrorists, not only because of the nature of the killings but because the US, EU and UK governments have banned the group.

Kenneth Roth, the former head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, criticised the White House stance.

"It is not helpful to use the term 'terrorism' in a war when the White House only ever applies it to one side. Better to remind both Hamas and the Israeli government that humanitarian law makes it a war crime to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians," he said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.VR _talk 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The conflict has if anything only better exemplified the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exhibited by Western governments in their inability to condemn both sides without equivocation. In a world where Hamas are unequivocally terrorists, Israel's generals are unequivocally war criminals. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH and Wikipedia is WP:NOTRIGHT. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion but the facts is Israel don't attack civilians ever! its only attack targets that used by the Terror organization Hamas its indeed sad that there are secondary damages

But the reason they happen in the first place is because Hamas uses civilian facilities as rocket launching facilities towards the civilian population in Israel.

in response Israel DONT attack those facilities before they informed the civilian population and only after they have a sufficient time to vacate only then they attack. but sometimes the Hamas terrorist's force civilians to stay there and so they can use there death to accused Israel in war crimes just as you do know read a little about Roof knocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking Malmul12 (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own opinions. WP:NOTFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

that not a opinion it a fact derived from RS as you accused Israel you have to provide evidence from RS so I remain unbiased and don't side with either side and in order for you to "Israel's generals are unequivocally war criminals" you have to provide evidence or RS that proves that Israel's generals are target civilians Malmul12 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The crux here is the notion that Israel "is frequently forced to attack civilian locations" - no, it is not; that is their claim and their rhetoric, but it has been shown frequently in Gaza that many targets have been unevidenced as places with any military function. Both sides exhibit war criminality. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"its their(israel's) claim and rhetoric" is an unsourced personal opinion. same can be said about hamas and their rhetorics who are asking gazans to ignore israels warning so they can use dead human shields to gain sympathy on international stage.if women and children will leave north gaza in huge numbers it would directly impact the ability of "palestinians to play victim and accuse israel of war crimes (forced upon them)". these statements made by me are also unsourced opinions.even if they are true i should keep it to myself. so stop justifying hamas and stop creating false equivalences. Codenamephoenix (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t an is Israel bad debate. I agree with statements that if Hamas is terrorist, then Israeli generals who target civilians are war criminals. My answer to both is yes. When Israel starts bombing civilian areas, which they’ve hardly yet but certainly will soon according to their own declared intentions, they have committed war crimes. That is objective, because the UN says it’s objective. Hamas is regardless terrorist, as they’ve murdered civilians for no reason and taken hostage babies. This whole debate is absurd (Redacted). 71.104.111.79 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That is simply not true.

Israel has never attacked civilian for the sake of killing civilian.

In fact every single time that civilian are hurt is because Hamas take people prisoners and use them as humans shields.

not only that but Israel have very unique and humane protocols in order to prevent the harm of civilians such as Roof knocking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking Malmul12 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is insane. An organization that is recognized by the UN as terrorist can be called terrorist, or at least it can be said that it is recognized as terrorist. 71.104.111.79 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

THIS IS ARABS 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:194E:592:461E:104 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What else do you call the beheading of children, the murder if innocent families, and the burning alive of civilians? To me that is a clearcut case of terrorism. Full stop. 149.97.165.53 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Beheading of children based on no sources, no bodies of decapitated children, not a video or even a single of photo of the supposed slaughter?

I’ll tell you, it’s called “misinformation” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I can give you photo evidence of babies corpses' burnet to a crisp just say you will agree and i will sent you those but those are realy bad photo's so I warn you in advance just tell me how do you want me to publish those photo's Malmul12 (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I do want to point out that false claims of atrocities on children have been used as propaganda and resulted in war in the past. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be professional, Giving example from one instance on the other side of the planet as an argument is demagogy in the least. Gabi.guetta (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't true at all. If Hamas had only attacked military bases as opposed to killing (for the most egregious example) very young civilian children at point-blank range in their homes and revelers at a music festival, I don't think RS or Wikipedia would be calling it an act of "terrorism". Similarly, if there were evidence that civilians were intentionally targeted by Israeli airstrikes, that would be "terrorism".

Either way, Wikipedia relies upon RS and is not based on the views of editors. If RS say "terrorism", so does Wikipedia. The right avenue for complaint would be to argue that specific sources for whose characterization you disagree should not be considered reliable due to bias. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It is regularly described as a terror attack in mainstream Swedish news coverage, (as well as in both right- and left-leaning news commentary). See e.g. [7][8][9][10]. St.nerol (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an act of terrorism by any definition of the word, there is no POV about it. When your attack intentionally targets civilians, it's terrorism. If we can't agree on that then 9/11 is a matter of POV as well. 2A0D:6FC2:6B71:3D00:50E7:51D1:83CF:C354 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That depends on whether RS do so, and they do: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli dead is 1,300 so far 46.117.238.105 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The death toll is irrelevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London fir example lists many terror attacks with far fewer deaths and casualties.

Hamas are committing so many acts of terror according to assets.nationbuilder.com/webelieveinisrael/pages/1237/attachments/original/1696852702/Operation_Swords_of_Iron_Briefing_Pack.pdf?1696852702 and are even more attrocious than ISIS according to timesofisrael.com/pentagon-chief-austin-says-hamas-atrocities-are-worse-than-what-i-saw-with-isis/ Thereligionofpeacedotcom (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"definition of terrorism"

the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.

source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/terrorism

as Hamas was used violence to attack non combatant civilians filmed it fits every definition of terror attack so what debate could possibly be? Malmul12 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should use whatever is already defined in Wikipedia, as that dispute was previously resolved, and we don't have to go through it again here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Based on which we can define it as a terrorism (and refer to Wikipedia's own definition of terrorism). WDYT? DiverDubinsky (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. WP:NOTSOURCE. We cannot add anything without reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

we cannot take wikipedia as a reliable source,however we sure can use reliable sources from the page in question.There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism, although there exists a consensus academic definition created by scholars..

as per UNGA: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code but i believe that definition wont be accepted here as its considered american POV.

The UNGA's statement can be considered to constitue what terrorism is as its as NPOV as it can get. if these hamas attacks fits this description , it should technicaly be considered terrorism. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are sources of definitions. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

thats why i am suggesting to discard any definition by anyone (as it would always cause pov issue for someone) and consider only UNGAs statement , considering its "UNITED" NATIONS which implies it speaks for all humans in this world. but i understand its a well contested topic and people much experienced and smarter than me are already discussing about it.it was only my suggestion. Codenamephoenix (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We publish from reliable sources. We do not look at multiple sources and come to our own conclusions. WP:SYNTH We cannot use contentious words because we think they fit a situation. We document. We do not not analyze. WP:TERRORIST O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Can you even call Gaza occupied?

If Israel disengaged from Gaza unilaterally in 2005, can you claim that the territory is occupied by Israel since they have no control over its politics, security, or finances after Hamas were elected? שי 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still considered occupied by the US[22], UN[23] and others due to the blockade. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Who cares what the UN says. They have more criticisms against Israel than any other countries, surpassing North Korea, Iran, and Turkmenistan. When it comes to Israel, they can't be taken seriously. Their reputation proves it. By definition Gaza is NOT occupied. Oppressed? Absolutely. But occupation? Not even in the loosest definition of the word. As an encyclopedia, this needs to be academic, and thus dictionary definitions must be used.2601:40:C481:A940:E9C1:4443:E2FD:A8C8 (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we're only interested in what reliable sources say. We do not define words or concepts ourselves. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The trick is that you can categorize only the sources you like as "reliable." Even the most flagrant bias can be hand-waved away if necessary. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a policy compliant comment to make, or a citation -- or are you just "hand-waving"? If not, you can discuss reliable sources at WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that claim Gaza is not occupied, and plenty that do. It is entirely at the discretion of Wikipedia admins which position is considered "reliable." I don't particularly care about this topic; only that claims like "we do not define words or concepts ourselves" or "our opinions do not matter" are lies: you do (and they do), through the choice of how you categorize sources. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider having near-complete control of all resources that enter or leave Gaza it as well as complete controlling its naval, air, and land borders some sort of occupation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Because there are no Israeli troops on the ground in Gaza. Gaza governs itself completely. By definition, Gaza is not occupied. The West Bank IS occupied, because the IDF patrols it - in this regard it is militaristically occupied.

What you described is a blockade, not an occupation. A blockade is not an occupation. It is oppressed, not occupied. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Our opinions do not matter. We go by WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with you in principle, this is irrelevant. If RS say it is occupied, it is occupied. Arakui (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

While Israel has enforced a blockade around Gaza for certain exports into the region, it has not "occupied" the territory since 2005. Using the term to describe Israel's involvement with the Gaza Strip post-2005 is inaccurate. You can disagree with the blockade, but it substantially different than an "occupation" by its actual definition. Israel has had no military presence inside Gaza since 2005, thus it couldn't have been "occupying" Gaza.

"Israel maintains that it has not occupied Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 and that a territory cannot be occupied without 'boots on the ground.'"

source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415886

"In 2005, under international and domestic pressure, Israel withdrew around 9,000 Israeli settlers and its military forces from Gaza, leaving the enclave to be governed by the Palestinian Authority."

source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/gaza-strip-controls-s-know-rcna119405 AstralNomad (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. The UN is not a WP:RS any more than a Palestinian NGO or Israeli politician is—these are, by definition, biased parties involved in the dispute.

First, numerous actual RS state the obvious fact that Gaza hasn't been occupied by Israel since the latter withdrew—here are just a few from the last couple days:

• Associated Press: "Israel... could reoccupy the territory and try to uproot Hamas."
• Time: Gaza is "not formally occupied like the West Bank."
• Carnegie: "Israel will retaliate to a greater degree than it has before, potentially leading to… reoccupation of parts of Gaza."
• Slate: "Will Israel reoccupy Gaza?"

Secondly, there's a question of common sense, and the definition of "occupy": unilaterally withdrawal is the precise opposite of "occupation".

Last but not least, while there's no question that Israel has control over its border with Gaza—just as Egypt does. But if Israel is "occupying" Gaza simply by blocking travel and shipments, then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well.

Calling Gaza "Israeli-occupied" is biased, contrafactual, and objectively false—it's a term created for the purpose of Palestinian propaganda, and our encyclopedia has no business repeating it in Wikivoice.

ElleTheBelle 04:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing bias with reliability. Many biased sources are also reliable. Some aren't. The UN is not a party to a dispute. The UN is a body which has many parties. Andre🚐 04:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Egypt's border is an international border, but Palestine is a unique country like a home, and Gaza is one of its rooms, Israel locked this room with 2M people and controls electricity, Water and food from inside the home and you compare this with what? DRIS92 (talk) DRIS92 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel is occupying all of Palestine. Israel should not exist as all those lands, except the Golan Heights that belong to Syria, are Palestinian. Gengeros (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the ICRC view:

The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt). Even though Israel no longer maintains a permanent presence inside the Gaza Strip, it continues to be bound by certain obligations under the law of occupation that are commensurate with the degree to which it exercises control over it.

See also Jaber, Safaa Sadi; Bantekas, Ilias (2023-10-05). "THE STATUS OF GAZA AS OCCUPIED TERRITORY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. Cambridge University Press (CUP): 1–20. doi:10.1017/s0020589323000349. ISSN 0020-5893. for another recent view from a much higher quality source than news sources. The above OR ("then surely Egypt must be "occupying" it as well") is not something that serious sources take seriously. nableezy - 05:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The ICRC is hardly an expert in occupation status under international law. And there is an enormous amount of scholarly and legal debate as to whether Israel continues to occupy Gaza, as a strictly legal definition. No one seriously suggests Israel militarily "occupies" Gaza by any common or typical sense. A smattering of the many serious scholars who find that Gaza is no longer legally occupied:

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-016-0070-1
• https://www.jcpa.org/text/puzzle1.pdf
• https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/https://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1350307
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/why-gaza-is-not-remotely-occupied-i/

It's absolutely also worth noting, as many RS have, that Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar has, on more than one occasion, admitted the obvious: that Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel. He has stated both that Gaza is no longer under siege and that “Gaza is free of occupation.”.

Our encyclopedia needs to be clear: despite Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza, some still claim that Israel has obligations because they meet some legal definitions of an "occupying" force, but that such claims are in dispute and Gaza's legal status as "occupied" territory is, at best, unresolved. And it needs to be made explicit that this is an issue of a technical legal definition—Wikivoice must not claim that Gaza is "occupied" by Israel in any common-sense understanding of the term. ElleTheBelle 06:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the body that has a specific mandate under the Geneva Conventions to protect victims of armed conflict is not an expert in those conventions is curious. Anyway, the ICRC is among the most respected human rights organizations on the planet and publishes through Cambridge University Press the International Review of the Red Cross, it is among the best sources out there. Yes, there is some dispute on if Gaza remains occupied, but both the UN and the ICRC maintain that it is, and scholarly views agree. The one high quality source you have does yes agree with the Israeli Supreme Court that Gaza is not occupied but it purposely gives no real analysis of that. We can do similar to what we do in Israeli-occupied territories, say that the UN and a number of human rights organizations hold that Israel continues to occupy Gaza, and that Israel disagrees. nableezy - 17:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with nableezy on this, broadly. International orgs are defacto reliable along with many academic sources that the control of Gaza's border constitutes an Israeli occupation, your links above are a mix of old (2009, 2014, 2016), law review articles that are hardly authoritative, and maybe 1 article to support the idea that "some Israel-leaning academics have questioned with Gaza is still occupied; still, many NGOs and academics consider Gaza to be occupied." Andre🚐 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It isnt as open and shut as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there is an actual dispute among sources, so we do what we always do, give both pieces of information, it is considered occupied by a, b and c, while y and z dispute that. nableezy - 20:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The term that should really being used here is the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. You are arguing semantics as we see millions of Palestinians trying to flee and Israel mowing them down trying to cross the border. Gengeros (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Displaced numbers in Israel

There are many thousands of people displaced in Israel, as their homes near Gaza are destroyed. Why are those numbers not mentioned? barabum (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They can be mentioned in the casualties section of the info box, but there needs to be a relevant citation of the number displaced The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be included in the main text of the article. The numbers are uncertain from what I can find, ranging from 1,000-10,000 Israelis displaced. It is unfair for the article to only mention the possible displacement of Gazans during an Israeli invasion. Icrin7 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Last number I saw of displacements in Gaza was 338,000 and that was before 1.1 million were told to leave their homes. (There is likely some duplication between those numbers.) If your aim is fairness, frankly it looks even worse if you include numbers on both sides given the disparity. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If you've got RS for it, it should be described in the Impact section, under the In Israel subsection. entropyandvodka | talk 10:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The number was already present in the infobox. I've added it to the Impact section too. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)