Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

confirmation of northern invasion 11th october

Hamas and hesbollah have sent drones and rockets to the north as per Times of Israel and i24 news Residents across north told to shelter as several aircraft appear to infiltrate Israel | The Times of Israel LIVEBLOG: As Israel Readies For Counteroffensive, Terror Attacks Continue, Death Toll Crosses 1,200 - I24NEWS


can anyone add this to the corresponding area? LionFireKing404 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Add exactly what to map? Map does not depict anything aerial. Cactus Ronin (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel Airstrikes "targeted strategic buildings"

Apologies if this is a minor gripe, but I do think this is important and I can't edit it myself as I'm under the 500 edits count. The line in question is from the header: 

"After clearing militants from affected areas, Israel responded with airstrikes in the densely-populated Gaza Strip targeting strategic buildings and military targets..."

I believe it should be rephrased as "...ostensibly targeting strategic buildings and military targets" or "...claimed to be targeted at strategic buildings and military targets" or something of the like. Given that the next clause states that they bombed hospitals, mosques, homes, and a refugee camp and the only source that they were "targeting military targets" is necessarily the IDF itself this seems appropriate.

Frankly I would remove this clause altogether since it's not sourced in the header or elaborated on in the body of the text anywhere. Would appreciate it if someone could make this change. Jhodders (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide multiple reliable source publications that support your concern. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why would he need sources when all he is saying is that the first sentence is contradictory to the second? It's not very good writing, at the very least.
And there is no citation for it, either. 68.111.7.219 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We generally avoid words like ostensibly and claimed because they imply doubt. If sources disagree whether something is true, then we describe who said it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Inbal Lieberman of Kibbutz Nir Am

Evidently, no casualties were reported among the residents of Nir Am. According to various sources, this extraordinary outcome is attributed to the actions of Inbal Lieberman. The question arises as to where this information should be incorporated and what level of detail is deemed appropriate

Sources:

Infinity Knight (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Translation request - Arabic to English

Can an Arabic speaker translate, this الدفاع الألمانية: وافقنا على طلب إسرائيلي باستخدام اثنتين من طائراتنا المسيرة في القتال ضد حماس?

Google translated it to "German Defense: We agreed to an Israeli request to use two of our drones in the fight against Hamas". However, another editor said that the translation was Germany sending drones to Ukraine, not Hamas. Can someone verify (not using Google or a translate tool) if "Ukraine" or "Hamas" was said? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The German defence forces: we have agree to an Israeli request to use two (I’m assuming two types) of our drones in the fight against hamas”
the Arabic text you posted does not mention Ukraine. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I thought the translation from Google was right, since there is a secondary English source saying the same thing, but given the translation disagreement, I wanted it translated here. Thank you! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Add jenin brigade into the war since they joined earlier today 103.209.207.126 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Source(s) first, please. Yue🌙 03:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Collateral damage" - can we not?

Please change "The war has led to immense collateral damage, including the widespread deaths of civilians, and there have been allegations of war crimes" to "The war has led to immense destruction and loss of life, including the widespread deaths of civilians. Sources such as Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Human Rights Council allege war crimes by Palestinian militant groups and the Israeli authorities." The last phrase ("...Palestinian militant groups and the Israeli authorities") could be changed simply to "both sides" but I don't think that's necessarily better.

The above change reflects the content of the articles cited, and avoids the passive voice and the use of the term "collateral damage" (which is particularly problematic). Wikipedia itself notes (in keeping with the sources cited) that collateral damage is a controversial and potentially euphemistic term, and the very HRW article cited at the end of the sentence describes the war crimes as intentional (i.e., "collective punishment" requires intent) and not "collateral". WillowCity (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian link at the end of the sentence also redirects to their topic/live feed page. Perhaps we should link the actual statement by the UNHRC ("The Commission has been collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes committed by all sides since 7 October 2023") instead. WillowCity (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Both of these suggestions seem sensible to me. Riposte97 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Collateral damage is certainly a phrase typically used by militaries and the governments that command them to euphemistically minimize undue impact to civilian infrastructure. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Supporters of Israel

Unlike Iran which denies direct support while supporting the attack; US directly supports Israel and sends armaments and so do European nations; so I do not know why they removed US as a supporter of Israel RickyBlair668 (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There was an RfC on the use of "Supported by" in military conflict infoboxes, and the consensus was that the practice should be discontinued and avoided, with exceptions existing only if there was general agreement on the respective talk page(s) to do so. Yue🌙 06:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It's also sufficiently blindingly obvious that it hardly needs saying. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"USA military aid to Israel"

This is completely redundant to the "Military reactions" section. VintageVernacular (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Merged already. Borgenland (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Effect on the Russo-Ukrainian war

More material (e.g. Sen. Josh Hawley) one with sufficient authorization could still add. Alousybum (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Imho that article seems speculative. Might be prudent to wait and see what happens in Washington before including anything concrete in the article. Riposte97 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
In a while the topic will be either a footnote or an article, wait and see.  // Timothy :: talk  06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest terrorist attack in Israeli history?

Multiple sources have made this claim and called it "Israel's 9/11", but how accurate is this really? What consitutes a "terrorist attack" versus an "act of war"? You don't see most of the war battles throughout history listed among the list of terror attacks, so why would this be any different? If this is truly to be considered a "terror attack" then wouldn't the death toll rank it amongst the likes of attacks such as the Camp Speicher massacre in 2014 and 9/11 in terms of death toll? Undescribed (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Undescribed A terror attack is an attack carried specifically on civilians of a certain country / or people, in order to hurt or kill them.
Usually careied by extremists, intended to slaughter civilians, *to promote their agenda / ideals*, and literally "Installing terror onto the streets".
A declerance of war, is a country attacking another, and attacking the other's *military*, to seize land, and control the population. Not to slaughter them.
Usually in order to hurt the other side, and win specific things such as a complete control over the country, a weakening of the country, seizing specific land (See nagorno-karabakh), and more.
A WAR ON TERROR / WAR INCLUDING TERROR, is a war in which a terror organisation/entity, such is Hamas, is involved. Hamas slaughters civilians and innocents to promote his political agenda, and is controlling a certain amount of land (See Gaza Strip), and is, de facto, a country.
And when a large scale armed conflict, and with two entities fighting from their controlled areas, it's war.
When at least one side is using violence, mass murder, and yes, literally, "Terror", on the other side, it's a war including terror.
Again,
The terms are broad, blurry, and general, yet usually when the term "War on Terror" is used, it's specify a terror organisation, involved in a large-scale, armed conflict, consisting of two different entities, usually fighting from their controlled land (Usually); in which the terror organisation uses its arms to kill innocents of the other side, to promote their political agenda/Ideologies.
An example for a war including terror, is WW2 and the Holocaust. When Nazi Germany invaded several countries (War), and used its power and reasources in order to enslave, starve and slaughter population they regard as enemies of theirs (Thus promoting their political agenda with murder: Terror), such as Jews, Gays, Gypsies, prisoners of war, Communists, etc.
  • NOTE: The difference between a war and a military operation, is that a war is usually a large-scale armed fight, while an operation is a smaller one.
  • NOTE: Again, the terms are broad, in some cases even refrencing the same thing, and in some cases meaning two completely different things.
רם אבני (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Attempts to define terrorism by it's intentions have mostly failed. 9/11 needed new narratives to explain it as terrorism. It was different from any previous suicide attacks. After 9/11, there were numerous similar suicide attacks against US and pro-Western targets worldwide in places as obscure as Bali. The comparison to 9/11 is simply a statement about the impact this is likely to have on Israeli society and especially young people. There is no universal definition of terrorism. Hostage taking is terrorism. This isn't complicated. Ben Azura (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • It is generally described as a terrorist attack in most RS, but the question is legitimate, see e.g. here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @My very best wishes: I originally removed this comment because I did not see a reference to anything that's actually been included in the article. The phrase "deadliest terror attack in Israel's history" is not in the article. So I did not see the relevance for including it on the talk page here, especially since the topic is one that could easily slip into forum-like discussion. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is one of refs [1] mentioning it as the "the deadliest attack in Israel in decades". My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jprg1966 Yet it is factual. And therefore somebody needs to find a source who tells that, link it, and re-write the fact that it's the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history. רם אבני (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    The reason why it is still relevant is because I was thinking about adding the statement to the article, but wanted to first get consensus on whether it constitutes a "true" terror attack like 9/11 which it has been compared with by multiple sources. If I just add it without discussing on the talk page first it will probably be removed. Isn't that what the talk page is for? Determining what information is relevant to an article? Undescribed (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Undescribed Not sure, yet I support you in adding said statement.
    Maybe the 9/11 part can come as a side note: "(...) It is the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history; regarded to be "Israel's 9/11". רם אבני (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    OK, that's fair. I apologize, I misunderstood what you were asking. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    I just don't want to jump the gun on adding said statement, even if it is reliably sourced. This is a very high traffic article at the moment. I've even found sources claiming this to be the "second-deadliest act of terrorism in world history after 9/11". Even with a reliable source this seems like a rather controversial statement, no? Undescribed (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's difficult to weigh. I think with multiple RS, you could put it in the "analysis" section: "XYZ sources asserted it is the second-deadliest terror ...". I would avoid putting in the lead, though. That's my 2 cents. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Undescribed Well, you can certainly use a refrence of the amount of dead in each major terror attack. Possibly there's a table in Wikipedia of the deadliest terror attacks. Not that I know of.
    Controversial? Definitely not. If it is the second-most killed terror attack in the world, by amount of dead, then it is.
    You cannot argue against the amount of dead people.
    And when we're refrencing "the terror attack", we of course mean the suprsise terror invasion, who killed 700+ Israelis, and started said war (Which is the subject of the article).
    And not regarding specifically the war, but the attack that started it.
    (Which by the way should be another article) רם אבני (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think that is the main dilemma at this point. This article needs to be split with a standalone article focusing on the initial attack. Thats another reason why I'm so adamant about adding statements about it being "the deadliest terrorist attack ever in: xyz". This article is about the supposed war now, not a single attack. This type of statement should be added to the article about the attack that started the war, not in the war article itself. Just my two cents. Undescribed (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Undescribed May you please create a discussion on spilitting between the terror suprise attack and the war?
    (Which probably still for now counts as a continuing terror attack, since some Kibbutzim, Cities and areas still has Hamas' terrorists lurking around.
    When they hault from lurking around the gaza envelope, (Not to be confised with the gaza strip), and in Israel, then it'll probably be counted as the END of the terror attack, and then just a war.
    By "hault" I mean be killed by the Israeli military, or escape to areas that are safe for Hamas' people.)
    Sorry to put the responsibility on you, it's just 5:15, and I really wanna head to sleep.
    Thanks! רם אבני (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @רם אבני: And just like that, someone already removed the statement about it being the deadliest terrorist attack. What a surprise lol Undescribed (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    The terrorist thing is well understood by now, we apply this label in WP voice if the balance of reliable independent RS is using that descriptor. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier Please define clearly "balance of reliable independent RS" and who is the arbiter that is going to decide whether the threshold has been met. Thank you. 38.23.187.20 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    If it was removed after it was agreed in the discussions, then it may be griefing.
    I suggest we open a discussion on applying protection for the article, in order to prevent griefers. רם אבני (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Soldiers and police seem to account for about 2/3 of the killed. Attacking them is not terrorism. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's a source calling it a terrorist attack:
https://www.jewishagency.org/
More importantly, this is the deadliest attack against Jews in a single day since the Holocaust:
https://www.jta.org/2023/10/08/israel/was-hamas-attack-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust
https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-hamass-attack-on-saturday-the-bloodiest-day-for-jews-since-the-holocaust/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/worst-massacre-of-jews-since-the-holocaust/ar-AA1hVS0R
https://news.yahoo.com/deadliest-single-attack-jews-since-115911584.html
https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/worst-atrocity-since-holocaust-jewish-leaders-back-retaliation-20231010-p5eb3v 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Accoridng to Israeli media and sources 1000+ (mostly civilians) killed/murdered by Hamas. Deadliest mass killing of Jews since the holocaust. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
haaretz gives the number 600 after previously saying 900. About 2/3 seems to be combatants. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Counting Israeli dual-nationals as separate

Israel citizens with dual nationality shouldn't be listed separately, i.e. Shani Louk (raised in Israel most of her life, resident at time of death, served in IDF, but born in Germany) should not be listed solely as a 'German national' under Israeli casualties. She was not a foreign tourist, but a permanent resident of Israel and Israeli citizen. Only people with non-Israeli citizenship should be listed as such (ex. the Thai foreign workers). Doing so, is inherently linked to political reasons to involve as many international Western powers as possible (USA, UK, Germany etc.). It has gotten to the point where IDF soldiers, who died in combat, are listed as 'British nationals' (in the case of Nathaniel Young as reported by BBC). Nobody sees how ridiculous this is? UK citizenship laws don't even allow its citizens to serve in a foreign military, and if an Israeli soldier (who happens to hold dual nationalities) is made a casualty, he/she should be counted solely as Israeli. Otherwise this is misleading information. If a non-dual Israeli American, British or German citizen was made a casualty, by all means list them separately. User6619018899273 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the Foreign and dual-national casualties table should have some info about those with dual citizenship. For example we can have something like Americans (killed): 10 (2). Where 10 would be the total amount of American Citizens and (2) could be those with dual-citizenship. Cristi767 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course, otherwise we are dabbling in this sensationalism like news articles titled "Americans killed!" when all the aforementioned Americans are dual Israeli citizens (in many cases permanent residents of Israel), it is far more appropriate given the context of Palestinian vs. Israeli to list them all as Israeli first and foremost, or in any case dual Israeli-American. There is a big political motive behind this, to list them as solely American in order to involve the USA on behalf of Israel, perhaps militarily. We need to be honest and state the factual info as per sources, and not omit this important distinction.User6619018899273 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cristi767 I second this solution. It provides additional information and avoids the confusion feared above. Riposte97 (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No, I would suggest to count/sum them in the both categories, i.e. a person would be counted as Israeli and British citizen, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
If you insist then edit and list them as both, in this case Israeli-British. What I see currently is only 'British' under the casualty section for people who are described as dual Israeli-British citizens in the news articles.User6619018899273 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I assume that all people who appear in table Foreign and dual-national casualties are also counted among "1,200+ killed" [in Israel] in the infobox. Do not see a problem here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
1300 killed now, see the source
https://t.me/tg301military/5244 77.248.247.89 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

syria involvement?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/10/israel-hamas-war-live-us-redoubles-israel-support-as-bombs-rain-on-gaza

"Hamas has continued to fire rockets at Israel, with Israeli forces and Lebanon-based Hezbollah fighters also exchanging fire. Israel’s military has also said that shells launched from Syria landed in open areas within Israel."

This seems significant. should we say that Syria is involved in the infocolumn? Or is it too early for that? Genabab (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Too early. See the above discussion: #Syrias involvement. Yue🌙 07:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

UN and war crimes

Please explain how "collecting evidence of war crimes committed by all sides" does not mean that they have charachterized the conduct as being war crimes @Alcibiades979:? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Plus you have violated 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Because conduct means: "the act, manner, or process of carrying on" as per Merriam Webster, the inference then becomes that Israel and Hamas's being in and of itself in the conflict is criminal. Where as stating that war crimes have taken place doesn't pass judgement on. In a nutshell its the difference between saying someone committed crimes and someone is a criminal. Beyond that collecting evidence is also different from making an accusation. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Instead of finding alternatives however you just simply removed mention of the UN, and violated 1RR. There's no difference; someone who committed crimes is a criminal. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Collecting evidence does not mean that they believe that war crimes have been committed. Once the evidence is collected it may or may not prove this. Alaexis¿question? 11:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Instead of palestinian militant It should be palestinian terror organizations. As the definition of terror is: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demandsV

In the case, should not the Israeli 'Defence' Force be termed a terror organizations? For as you made clear, the definition of terror is: violence used as a weapon of intimidation. Given this, might not the terror bombing of civilian areas - in order to punish a population - be called a War Crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.27 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

thats called whataboutery.israeli defence force cannot be compared to hamas or other terrorist groups. its not wise to play victim when idf retaliates after this sort of attack:
Legitimacy and Recognition:
IDF: The Israeli Defense Forces is the official military organization of the State of Israel and operates under the authority of a recognized government. It is recognized as a legitimate military force by many countries.
Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups are not officially recognized as legitimate military forces. They are often considered terrorist organizations by many countries and international bodies.
Objectives:
IDF: The primary objective of the IDF is to defend the State of Israel and its citizens, maintain security, and protect its sovereignty. It operates under the laws of armed conflict and aims to minimize civilian casualties.
Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups often have political, ideological, or religious objectives that may involve the use of violence against civilian populations, including Israel, with the intent of advancing their goals. Their tactics often involve deliberate targeting of civilians, which is considered a violation of international humanitarian law.
Methods:
IDF: The IDF is a conventional military force that follows the rules of engagement, international laws, and treaties. It uses military strategies and tactics in response to security threats and operates with the goal of minimizing collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups typically employ asymmetric warfare tactics, including guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilian areas,rape and other forms of violence that often result in significant civilian casualties.
Organizational Structure:
IDF: The IDF has a hierarchical structure, command chain, and established rules of engagement. It operates as a standing military force.
Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups often have more loosely organized structures, with smaller cells and less centralized command and control. They often operate covertly and are more difficult to track.
International Status:
IDF: Israel is a recognized sovereign state, and the IDF's actions are subject to international scrutiny and criticism, particularly in cases where there are allegations of human rights violations.
Hamas and other terrorist organizations: These groups are generally considered non-state actors and are often subject to sanctions and condemnation for their actions, particularly for targeting civilians.
ALSO terrorist is a very vague term and its definition is blurred. we should use "islamic terrorism/fundamentalism" and make it more specific. whatever hamas is doing perfectly fits the definition(i.e fighting for occupied land and how to fight is also covered in islamic texts ). so islamic terrorism is the best option her as per my opinion. Observer1989 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Speaking about the Israel side, would their bombings of Gaza qualify as indiscriminate attacks? This is a tricky question because a civilian building occupied by the militants is a legitimate target. Yes, a number of civilians have died. But using civilians as hostages/shields is a war crime by the side that does it (i.e. Hamas). This is all complicated. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    They would qualify as indiscriminate, as well as disproportionate. Assuming there is truth to the claim that in every bombing there was a legitimate military target, and even assuming Hamas was using human shields in every case, that doesn't alleviate the legal obligations of Israel. Human Rights Watch has previously found Israel's strikes in Gaza to be war crimes, and stressed those findings again when issuing statements about the present bombings. entropyandvodka | talk 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
    I see. This is United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Any urban warfare will result in deaths of numerous civilians or collateral damage. This boils down to Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law, see last paragraph in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Your analysis is not currently supported by WP:RS sources. We need to slow down a bit and see what the best sources say specifically and explicitly about Israeli actions in the current situation. References to past events are not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course if they are going to do something like the destruction of Grozny, while blocking the exit from the city for civilians, that would be internationally condemned as a war crime.My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is the major concern with the Israeli conduct of the war, aside from the obvious dispute between targeting civilians and collateral damage, is that the siege of Gaza could result in a humanitarian crisis, something that, were it to, say, result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, it clearly would.
The Israelis, to my understanding, a waging the siege as a reprisal for the kidnappings. I'm, anyways, curious as to whether there hasn't been any analysis as to just what is supposed to happen in so far that Hamas does not back down. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Instead of palestinian militant It should be palestinian terror organizations. As the definition of terror is: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demandsV 2A0D:6FC7:51D:DF76:98D3:C3D8:B4D4:F532 (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been raised numerous times. Once again, we do not conduct WP:OR as editors. Riposte97 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Why the Documented and Officially Confirmed rapes and baby beheadings "are only reported by some sources"?

These are not alleged accounts; those are facts confirmed by International organizations. Therefore it is wrong to write that those war crimes "...are claimed by some Israeli sources".

Again, these war crimes and acts have been confirmed by international organizations.

"Some" Wikipedia user has omitted this in one of the last edits.

Now you all have to look back in the article history to find those references that were omitted by the aforementioned Wikipedia user. 2A02:14F:1F2:A1DA:0:0:9FDC:528F (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

when almost the whole islamic world is supporting hamas and justifying their actions it would be foolish to think muslim editors(who are in good numbers) will not be biased and wont try to dilute or whitewash these incidents.it directly undermines the palestinian narrative.it cannot be allowed. Observer1989 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The claim of baby beheadings has been debunked. Furthermore, I would implore you to not assume every Muslim or Arabic speaker is in cahoots to downplay what’s going on. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
debunked by whow? which reliable investigative source? israeli army never denied anything and now you will twist their words and take it vas reliable source when it suits your narrative? now they are reliable source? there are multiple international sources,interviews etc confirming beheadings. but i am pretty sure every action of hamas will get "debunked" here somehow.lol.. i am also telling the same to other poor editors who wants to label freedom fighter hamas as terrorists that dont be surprised when certain editors and admins start whitewashing the acts of hamas.and i never said all arabic speakers support hamas.i implied majority arabic as well as non arabic followers of islam support hamas.might be my personal opinion but i stand my ground.not asking anyone to include this in article.just providing free information.take it or leave it.dosent matter Observer1989 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Per the latest information, it appears that IDF can't confirm that the beheadings happened to babies. They are acknowledging that beheadings are happening though. It appears that most media sources are reporting based off of the PM's office initial statement, though it's been somewhat walked back. It's definitely not debunked and the article refers to the Israeli Official making the statement to CNN. KD0710 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Multiple reliable sources already confirmed the beheadings. Can an authorized editor please change it so that there isn't any equivocation? AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2023claims

If that case, you will be able to mention all the "multiple reliable sources" that have confirmed this outrage? Also, to show that there is not any equivocation, should not an editor update the article in line with the best evidence?

The kidnapping of Nimrod aloni

The kidnapping of IDF officer Nimrod Aloni is a fake. See https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-misinformation-fact-check-e58f9ab8696309305c3ea2bfb269258e Please correct the informarion about him within the page. Shaishyy (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Already done. Borgenland (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the unverified allegation.

Regarding the statement in the lede section: "Survivor interviews provide claims of wartime sexual violence, including instances of rape committed by Hamas militants." Can anyone verify whether this might be an overblown wartime allegation from an Israeli official?

Before featuring it prominently in the opening section, we must first acquire more substantial and definitive evidence for this. StarkReport (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not improbable. An Israeli friend of mine whom I trust had friends at that rave party. The daughter of one was raped three times before, presumably, being taken back to Gaza. That is not coming from an Israeli official.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes sadly there is a correlation between people who are willing to kill civilians in cold blood and people who are willing to commit sexual violence. The fact that the period of lawlessness was only a few hours long in most places would suggest it was not widespread though, hopefully. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
A source that appended ahead of the line was about Israeli official alleging rape. While it would be unfortunate and horrible if this turned out to be true. But we must exercise caution and prioritize more and better WP:RS and WP:OR sources for this.
We should prioritize seeking independent sources rather than relying solely on Israeli sources to substantiate this grave claim, adhering to the core WP:PROVEIT. StarkReport (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It should be qualified as an allegation, if only from one source, and not stated in wiki voice. If that's the case it might not be due in the lede. entropyandvodka | talk 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Qualified as according to that source, rather, not qualified as an allegation because it is only from one source. entropyandvodka | talk 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
For the time being, we should remove the allegation from the article's introduction until concrete evidence can substantiate the claims. StarkReport (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree on seeking independent sources.VR talk 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I am an Israely, and this whole discussion about weathr teenage girls were raped or not raped during the attack is extremly insensitive and offensive towrds the Israely people. I have seen many videos by Hamass oficial sources claiming and being proud of raping our girls saying proudly its something to celebrate! A Hammas terrorist interrogated admitted there was a mass rape at the rave of our young innocent girls next to their friends bodies. there are numerous videos of young girls kidnapped by hammas with blood oozing between their legs.... I know its hard to hear and belive but this is our reality, they are killing and raping our people and celebrating our death. This whole article is infuriating, why doesnt it call the attack by its name, just like president Joe Biden have said in his speech- a terror attack? Orohayon (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How many Palestinians entered Israel, and how many were Hamas militants?

Has anyone seen estimates of the number of people who entered, and how many were militants? IDF spokesman Richard Hecht said “Approximately 1,500 bodies of Hamas militants were found in Israel around the Gaza Strip” which is the figure we have in our infobox here. There are a lot of videos on Twitter showing masses of unarmed Palestinians in Southern Israel (e.g.[2][3][4][5][6]) so either there were many more than 1,500 people who crossed the border, or not all of those 1,500 were Hamas militants. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking for the past couple of days and haven't been able to find an estimate; I would, however, assume that there were many more than 1500 because we know many militants escaped back to Gaza with hostages. BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes good point. It should be a multiple of those whose bodies were found, unless the majority of those who went out-and-in then went back out again afterwards.
Finding an estimate for the number of civilian Gazan Palestinians killed while in Israel would be valuable too. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There are videos that show Palestinian civilians walking in and out of the Gaza barrier (so technically they do step inside Israel), but I doubt many civilians ventured far into Israel. Taking a few steps inside Israel (perhaps as a curiosity, since Gazans are never allowed to leave the tiny strip) is different from militants driving several kilometers inside on a mission to kill.VR talk 00:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Four of the five Twitter videos above are clearly far inside Israel. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
After the attack was known Apache helicopters were deployed preventing anybody to cross the border. Many of these Gazans must have been trapped and finally killed.
So the 1500 adds Hamas terrorists and "curious".
With around 10 attacks involving around 100 fighters I think 1000 is a good estimate without precise sources. Probably an overestimate.
RadXman (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas fighters embarked on a rampage unprecedented even in previous Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, .... widely reported as the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of civilians and captives

Taking enemy combatants and using prisoners of war as bargaining chips for future negotiations is a military practice as old as human conflict itself. But the Hamas fighters embarked on a rampage unprecedented even in previous Israeli-Palestinian confrontations, spreading fear through what was widely reported as the indiscriminate murder of hundreds of civilians and captives. [1] Andre🚐 05:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Analysis: Why did it take Israel three days to return to Gaza's boundary?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-10-12.

Israeli airstrikes in Syria

@Parham wiki and Nauman335: The Israeli airstrike in Deir ez-Zor Governorate is unrelated to this conflict. Israeli airstrikes have been taking place almost every week since 2013, see Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian civil war. Furthermore the references does not make a connection with the airstrikes and the ongoing Hamas-Hezbollah clashes, making this WP:SYN. Ecrusized (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized so we have to remove Syria attribution from infobox Nauman335 (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized Oh, thank you. I took it from the October 2023 Syrian-Israeli exchanges article, I should have looked at the source before posting it. Parham wiki (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox, 1,500 militants killed in Israel (per Israel)

I have removed this claim from the infobox for the time being as it is highly dubious. Only self reported casualties of the belligerents should be used for the time being. In the past, Hamas announced its casualties after a few days. Ecrusized (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's still better to put it out there regardless of whether it is dubious.
Israeli source is the only reliable source at this moment.
We need to get claim from both sides DaChigger (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
We need to put back the casualties of Hamas militant. Even if it's an overestimation, it is still a source.

For every war on Wikipedia, we present claim of casualties from all sides for all sides. DaChigger (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's undue weight since there is no claim by Palestinian militants. Also, it is highly dubious first party claim. Ecrusized (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: I think the Israeli claim of 1,500 militants killed claim should not be placed into the infobox, it should only be added inside the article. It adds undue weight since there is no claim by Palestinians on the number of Israeli's killed. Furthermore the number of 1,500 militants killed comes from first party sources, WP:NPOV. 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be clearly presented as an Israeli claim so readers can form judgment accordingly. Unsure what the POV concern is; if the number is "too high" does that somehow impugn the Palestinian cause? But if it's omitted entirely that excludes a significant aspect of the casualty situation on the Palestinian side. Certainly, Hamas claims should be added when/if they make them, or other sources become available. PrimaPrime (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@PrimaPrime: There is no third party source regarding the 1,500 militants being killed in Israel. Coming from Israel first hand, it could very well be a war time propaganda since Israel has already declared a state of war for the first time since the Yom Kippur war. War time propaganda was actively reported in the past during the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars, see Israeli Military Censor. Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There's no third party source for any of the casualties. It's all based on claims made by the sides. Since this is a claim made by one side about the other it gets a disclaimer. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Important - The number was revised down to 1,000. IDF spokesperson quoted here and also by the public broadcaster here. Johndavies837 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with including the number. All such claims should be attributed to their source, but they're otherwise acceptable to include. In a war, it's normal for each side to dispute the specific number of casualties and fatalities. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted, I have removed the dubious tag and updated the figure with the revised estimate. Ecrusized (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been found 1500 terrorist bodies in the gaza strip (IDF)

The IDF spokesman for foreign media told reporters this morning that 1,500 bodies of terrorists were found in the Gaza Strip. He added that the IDF has "more or less restored" control of the border. Later, the IDF spokesman stated that the army is in full control of the area - but there may still be clashes with terrorists Ballins55 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been added. Riposte97 (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli Airline overturns 41 year policy to bring Israelis over the world to Israel for their military drafts

Times of Israel writes:

El Al to fly on Saturday for 1st time in 41 years to bring reservists to Israel

By SHARON WROBEL

El Al Israel Airlines announces that for the first time since 1982, it will fly on a Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, to bring back Israelis called up for emergency military reserve duty as well as security and rescue forces stranded abroad.

Israel’s national airline says it is preparing to operate flights this Saturday from the US and Asia to help bring back Israeli army reservists whose return to the country is vital during the current war with the Hamas terror group.

Reserve soldiers will be flying back on Saturday free of charge on two Boeing 787 aircraft leaving from New York and Bangkok. The cost of the flights will be borne by El Al and large US financial institutions, El Al says in a statement.

El Al says breaking its decades-long policy of not flying on the Jewish Sabbath has received halachic approval as the rescue flights are considered part of what is known in Hebrew as pikuah nefesh — the Jewish legal principle that saving a life trumps nearly all other religious requirements.


Quite a historic moment since Israelis from across the globe are being required to fight against Hamas terrorist groups.

שי - LionFireKing404 10:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand due to Wikipedia's neutrality rules that Hamas can't be mentioned as a terrorist organisation (much to my frustration) but an adapted version should be included שי - LionFireKing404 10:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it should probably be mentioned. Would it fit best under 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Reactions_in_Israel? Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes but I can't edit the page because I have less than 500 edits. If you can, or if another editor can then it'd be appreciated. שי - LionFireKing404 13:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Already done. Used a different source tho. Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks once again Borgenland שי - LionFireKing404 15:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas justification for the attack

We say that Hamas used a justification for the attack as the following: increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa mosque, and Gaza killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis. The source is a WSJ update to their dynamic updates, citing Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad in a BBC interview, who said the attacks came as a response to settler violence in the West Bank.

However, in another interview he says that the attack was to fight against "the occupation" by Israel.[7] This matches AP which says: the militant group ruling Gaza, which has said it launched the attack in response to mounting Palestinian suffering under Israel’s occupation and blockade of Gaza.[8] When this interview took place, Hamad was on an interview spree and argued aggressively with each interviewer to justify these actions and used different arguments against Israel in each case.

It seems WSJ randomly took a snippet from one interview and held it up as the official reason Hamas gave. I think we should be clearer that the West Bank settler justification comes from one spokesman and we should more closely reflect the justification from AP. And furthermore, we should remove the specific cases from the past year as reasons given by Hamas unless they are in particular mentioned by Hamas. At current they seem like WP:OR. Regards, Solipsism 101 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So you want to remove the reference that a Hamas spokesman stated the attacks came due to settler violence? Bobisland (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian Islamic Jihad active both in Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon

As documented by the article itself, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and its military wing, the Al-Quds Brigades, are active in both the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon, having launched attacks against Israel on both fronts. With this in mind, the way the belligerents are geographically divided in the infobox doesn't seem quite right. Even if the bulk of PIJ activity has come out of the Gaza area, Hezbollah is not this conflict's sole belligerent in Southern Lebanon. Not sure what the best solution is; one idea is listing PIJ twice, in both categories. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to list groups in the territory in which they are based. Many of these groups have an overseas presence, and things could get very confusing very quickly trying to cross-cite them all. Riposte97 (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Citation 151 about the Kfar Aza massacre is paywalled

Here's a free article.

It claims 40 babies were murdered with some being beheaded. Please add that, too.

Please change the wording of "reporters found no dead bodies" to "sources cannot independently confirm the report"

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/hamas-terrorists-murdered-40-babies-including-beheadings-says-report-2fdcCmtBjFvAcCCf5MDwKU 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled sources are allowed and there is nothing wrong with them. See WP:PAYWALL. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


"Israeli army tells Anadolu that they have no information confirming allegations that ‘Hamas beheaded babies’" https://twitter.com/anadoluagency/status/1711812910035407131?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1711881155581190601%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es4_&ref_url= --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC) https://theintercept.com/2023/10/11/israel-hamas-disinformation/ The IDF refuses to confirm the claim.

Too macabre, as reporter states, for me to discuss further. In French. Here you go...https://twitter.com/margothaddad/status/1711756690574479651#m
No more disputes over this matter 2601:40:C481:A940:E908:2F8E:C8E4:99D6 (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This incident is now included in the article. This topic is now redundant. Riposte97 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, I misread. The IDF inability to confirm may well be relevant to the article as it currently stands. Riposte97 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox casualties

The title frames the conflict as "Israel vs. Hamas" but lists Palestinian civilian casualties as under "Hamas". If the article is treating Hamas and Palestine separately, shouldn't civilian casualties go under the box? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The casualty section makes no sense because the Israeli side's casualty figure includes foreign civilians who were killed by Hamas. Civilian killings should not be counted together with military casualties. Yue🌙 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Ya it’s usually like this, as of now literally? All Palestinian civilian casualty claims are attributed while none of the Israeli ones are Bobisland (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Civilian casualties are clearly labelled as such in other articles, major examples being World War II and the Vietnam War. The problem is not just attribution; grouping Palestinian civilians who were killed with Hamas militants who were killed is problematic, as is (for example) Israeli civilians and foreign workers with Israeli military casualties. Yue🌙 05:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @DenverCoder19 that the civilian box should be separate and blow, a la other precedents such as Tet Offensive. It may take some time for authoritative figures to be compiled, admittedly. Riposte97 (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Germany

Is Germany a direct combatant? It sounds like they just approved the uses of drones? Does anyone have any clarification? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are I must say I am super surprised we classified Germany as aa combatant before the US. LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See talk page message above this one. Translation request was needed as another editor said the original report in Arabic was drones for Ukraine and not Israel. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As a reply to why it was added, both Al Jazeera & Reuters were reporting it was German drones and the German government gave them clearance to use their drones. Unlike a typical thing from the US which is "have these weapons", where they become Israels. These are on lease from the German government. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Should any other country that is supporting Israel and be added to the infobox? LuxembourgLover (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The "supported by" lines got moved out of use in the infoboxes and require a talk page consensus to add them to an infobox (per the hidden editor note in the combatant infobox section). The US is probably the only other country that could be added, since they are directly giving military support. Germany's was added strictly because the German government was leasing two of their own drones to Israel to fight Hamas, but not truly "giving" them the drones, which means the German government has a partial response in fighting Hamas. The US is similar, but instead of leases, it is more just a "these are yours now" style of supporting. I would not be opposed to adding a "Supported by" subsection in the infobox which is where the US (and maybe Germany with a consensus) would go. But at least for Germany's addition, this is a statement that the German government is militarily supporting Israel with their own weapons, so they are a combatant. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Reuters source says this (I just direct cite them), how to interpret this?
"Germany has leased five of these drones from Israel's arms maker IAI (ISRAI.UL), with two of them still deployed in Israel for training German drone pilots, the source said.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius on Wednesday approved a request by Israel to use the drones, Spiegel reported, adding the 16 German pilots in training were returning home because of the Hamas attack."
so Germany leased these drones from Israel's IAI, but now Germany agreed that Israel could use them. And these drones will be piloted by IDF? Haers6120 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Side comment, the Arabic - Al Jazeera reference for this was translated in the discussion above this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
So, Germany canceling their lease on two Israeli drones makes them a co-belligerent? That seems like nonsense. 84.54.70.4 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the "supported by" lines from the infobox again. I would not be opposed to discussing whether it can be used in this article (preferably in the form of an RfC), but that should happen before it is used. Renerpho (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Replacing WSJ with BBC

@XavierItzm: Did you mean to replace a WSJ cite with a BBC cite? The WSJ reporting seems to just as well support the statement, so I'm a bit curious as to the reason for its removal (rather than simply adding the BBC cite alongside it). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Please see full discussion on this above. Yes, I had pasted the WSJ ref in complete error, got called on it, I apologized, and my reply to the people asking me to fix my error is to place the BBC ref that I had originally intended. Please see full details above in the relevant section. Feel free to add the WSJ if you feel it complements the BBC. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah! Should have seen that before opening this up. Page is getting quite long. My apologies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@DRIS92: Is there a reason you overwrote a bunch of changes to the lead in this edit, including the reference thing here and some other tweaks? Your edit summary indicates that this may have been collateral; are you willing to self-revert the relevant portions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, DRIS92, any reason? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a very mixed bag of edits. Three things that come to mind in a first reading: replacing a free site with a paywalled site that doesn't say quite the same thing? You change the meaning of a point that is being hotly debated in WP:RS (what does sending the USS Ford exactly mean?), finally you add a severe claim (banned chemical weapons) backed by no top level sources, let alone a consensus of RS? I really don't understand these changes and they should be reverted.
I may or may not agree with some of the points/opinions above that matters not: you need sourcing and consensus. There is room for improvement in the article, but it involves making it more NPOV not less.
I think this was pretty much an innocent mistake, but the editor should none the less self rv and be much more careful in the future. If I am dreadfully wrong, please explain?  // Timothy :: talk  07:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Turkish dual nationals

There are 2 - 1 killed 1 missing - Turkish/Israeli nationals. Please update the list.


Ref: Ref: https://gazeteoksijen.com/dunya/israil-hamas-savisinda-6-gun-saldirida-1-turk-vatandasi-oldu-1-turk-de-kayip-191349 2A02:3102:9D00:1940:6394:CC6A:4EC2:1149 (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

President Herzog's statements, should be added to warcrimes section

The same way Hamas have denied their targeting of civilians, the following claim should be mentioned too in terms of impartiality.


LIVEBLOG: Israel Continues Aerial Counteroffensive, Death Toll Crossed 1,200 - I24NEWS


"We are not retaliating. We are targeting the enemy, in order to uproot the capability of the enemy to carry on with its campaign of Israel. Trying to destroy it as part of an empire of evil which has its claws all around us, from the north with Hezbollah, from the south with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Look around us, in the entire region, the havoc they have created everywhere Iran has touched. In Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon This is exactly what I talked about in the Joint Session of Congress in July where I explained it is always our dream to make peace with our neighbors but we cannot accept terror. Unfortunately the world has seen the worst terrorist atrocity in quite some time." שי 09:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with war crimes. He doesn't mention war crimes at all here. Maybe it belongs to the Reactions section. Alaexis¿question? 09:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Hamas deny that they have targeted civilians, this reaction is mentioned in the war crime section. I was suggesting that the reaction from the Israeli president should be added as well, otherwise the article shows one side clearly denying the claims and showing nothing from the other side addressing the situation.
If you were to add this to the reactions page, the Hamas statement should be moved there as well. שי 09:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point now. However I'm not sure that he was referencing the actions described as potential was crimes (such as cutting off the electricity and food supplies). If he did, we need to find his full speech. Otherwise we can wait until we get the explanation from some other official. Alaexis¿question? 10:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian deaths

Should we sum the number of killed militants and civilians to have 2,555? We can then open a parenthesis to mention the number of civilian and militant deaths separately. Aminabzz (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been addressed above. Riposte97 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Significant bias in a paragraph in the lead section

The paragraph "The crisis represented a tipping point in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the Gaza–Israel conflict, which followed a violent year that saw increased expansion of Israeli settlements and Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa mosque, and Gaza killed almost 250 Palestinians and 32 Israelis; Hamas cited these events as justification for the offensive, and called on Palestinians outside of Gaza to join "the fight against the occupiers".In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war, and some opposition parties have called for the formation of a national unity government." is biased in the following ways:

  • It uses language that is favorable to Hamas and critical of Israel. For example, it describes the Israeli government as "occupiers" and the Israeli settlement expansion as "violent."
  • It omits important information that could provide a more balanced perspective. For example, it does not mention that Hamas has a long history of launching rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.Here is a more neutral version of the paragraph:

"The 2023 Israel-Hamas war was a major escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was preceded by a year of increased violence, including Israeli settlement expansion, Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians, and clashes in Jenin, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Gaza. Hamas cited these events as justification for its rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, which began in the lead-up to the war. In response, Israel launched a targeted military operation to eliminate Hamas's rocket launching capabilities and protect its citizens."

The following changes were made to make the paragraph more neutral:

  • Language that is favorable to one side or the other was removed. For example, the phrase "occupiers" was removed, and the phrase "violent settlement expansion" was replaced with the more neutral phrase "settlement expansion."
  • Important information that was omitted was added. For example, a sentence was added to mention Hamas's history of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond that one of the parts that I don't like is: "In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war..." It's not exactly clear what this is referring to. It makes it seem as if he's either A. declaring war in response to the lead up that Hamas cites or B. in response to this nebulous "crisis tipping point". However Israel declared war against Hamas in response to Hamas's invasion of Israel. It's not as if this were a mutual event. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it can be rephrased to. the lines of "In response to the Hamas rocket attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared states of emergency and war." Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Alexandria Bucephalous I agree but I would go further to say that this background should not be featured so prominently in the lead. All this detail should be moved into the Background section, or at best be given a single sentence referencing the wider Arab–Israeli conflict. Merlinsorca 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
For reference, if we look at the lead section in September 11 attacks we don’t see almost a full paragraph discussing the history of Al-Qaeda’s grievances with the U.S. as justification for the attack. Merlinsorca 10:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree ! The background information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be featured so prominently in the lead of the article on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. The lead of an article should provide a brief overview of the topic of the article, and it should not be used to provide a detailed history of the conflict.
The background information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important, but it is not essential to understand the main points of the article on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. This information can be moved to the Background section of the article, or it can be condensed into a single sentence in the lead that references the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Alexandria Bucephalous comments, far from being balanced, are pro-Israel. Does not the statement that the Israel launched a "targeted military operation" to eliminate Hamas's rocket launching capabilities and "protect its citizens", sound more like a press release from the IDF? For should not the bombing of innocent civilians by termed a Human Rights Outrage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.27 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The phrases "targeted military operation" and "protect its citizens" are often used by several organisations to describe their actions in the context of conflicts. Whether these phrases are fair or biased can depend on various factors and perspectives:
  1. Precision and Intent: The term "targeted military operation" implies that the primary objective is to hit specific military targets while minimizing harm to civilians. In any conflict, it's essential to make a distinction between military targets and civilians to comply with international humanitarian law. The use of precision-guided weaponry and intelligence can support the claim of a targeted operation.
  2. Self-Defense: The phrase "protect its citizens" is often used to convey the idea that the military action is a response to threats posed by groups like Hamas. In international law, states have the right to self-defense. Israel argues that it is acting to protect its citizens from rocket attacks. The fairness of this claim depends on the proportionality of their response.
Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Interesting how complete blockade of basic necessities such as food and water to 2 million civilians constitutes a "targeted military operation" in your eyes. 2600:4040:2867:EB00:28C4:6AC4:32A8:A254 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The notion that the carpet bombing of Gaza is "targeted" is messaging that seems somewhat straight out of Israeli army press materials, though they've for sure "targeted" medics, journalists etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Small world, right @Iskandar323 !
The bombing is Gaza is well covered ( here, here and here among others), and I could find only 1 source that mentions "carpet bombing" which was an article form Opindia. Opindia, is a blacklisted source on Wikipedia as I am sure you know well.
Would love to see you being able to provide an reliable sources, if you can. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Also reported is the Israeli use of bunker busters in the densely populated area. Fyi, your Indian source isn't the only one to use the same slang as me. The Cradle, whatever that is, has to, as has the The Mirror, but yes, it's somewhat slang. Most sources just say "heavy bombardment". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The majority of sources do not mention "carpet bombing". As of your point of using bunker busters in the densely populated areas, this does not constitute indiscriminate bombing as bunker busters ( as the name suggests ) target underground bunkers only. Carpet bombing or Saturation bombing is a large area bombardment done in a progressive manner to inflict damage in every part of a selected area of land. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
someone deleted the entire paragraph which I reverted to reach consensus, in my trimming I made it more neutral? What do you guys think Bobisland (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • How about something like this: "Before the attack, Israeli-Palestinians clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin had killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis.[a][2][1][3][4][5][6] Its short, just one sentence, and objectively states the obvious facts that have been used as context by numerous RS.VR talk 01:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    • We can see that the lead of the Six-Day War devotes an entire paragraph to events that happened before the actual war.VR talk 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
      Indeed, the paragraph needs to be more neutral, however reducing it to just one sentence does not make much sense. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    I do not see how this sentence is explaining anything. It confused me the first time I read, which is why I came here. It is just there with out any connection to what is said before or after. I prefer Alexandria Bucephalous paragraph over this, but as Merlinsorca said, it should not be in the lead. 115.69.35.140 (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    I concur, I believe that my original paragraph is a relatively good summary but it should be put in the later sections. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    I like the idea of having one or two sentences to cover the background as part of a larger paragraph like War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) but I would prefer less detail. I don’t think it makes a good reading experience to list the exact locations and death tolls of background events directly in the lead section, and other war articles seem to avoid such specificity.
    Note that it will be very tricky to write something for this because this attack was a seemingly highly planned surprise attack that coincided with a holiday and anniversary. Attack on Pearl Harbor would be a good reference.
    Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict due to an uptick in violence in 2023. Hamas cites the Israeli occupation and blockade as rationale for launching the initial attack. Merlinsorca 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Merlinsorca: support your version Makeandtoss (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for the Pearl Harbor ref ! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    Hi @Makeandtoss @Vice regent @Alexandria Bucephalous, I’ve updated the second paragraph with the wording I used here. I placed the second sentence at the end of the paragraph for a better flow. Please let me know if there are further changes that should be made. Merlinsorca 15:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    actually, I moved it again to the fourth paragraph where I saw similar info - justification of the attack. I think it’s better there and fits in while using fewer words. Merlinsorca 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    There seems to be support below for adding the number of casualties[9] and I've provided sources there too that mention them, so I'll add tht to the sentence.VR talk 16:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
    So now there is one sentence in the second paragraph that reads "Prior to the war, tensions rose in the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict as clashes at Al-Aqsa mosque, Gaza and Jenin killed 247 Palestinians and 36 Israelis." I hope that's ok.VR talk 16:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: There should be a page specifically for the 2023 South Israel Attacks, the initial terrorist attack that sparked this war, separate from the war page itself

I went into detail with it on the other page, but essentially right now we have this page for the war initiated by this terror attack(the equivalent of, say, the US War in Afghanistan page), and we have pages for some specific incidents in that initial terror attack like the Re'im Festival massacres(the equivalent of pages for the Pentagon Attacks, North Tower, South Tower), but we don't have a page specifically for the initial 2 days of massacres primarily targetted at civilians(an equivalent of the September 11 attacks page overall).

This will be especially important when the ground campaign of the war starts. We need a page SPECIFICALLY for the terrorist attacks that triggered it overall. Not just the page for the resulting war and the pages for specific events in that larger attack. I propose the name South Israel Attacks or South Israel Massacres(though I don't think the year will be needed in this case given the sheer magnitude of the event, you could easily slap 2023 in front of either) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:8CA:D767:50FD:E1DD (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have happened recently with the creation of 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Linking this to the discussion below. Riposte97 (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "More than 200 Israelis killed in surprise Hamas assault on Israel, 232 killed in Gaza". Before Saturday's violence, at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners had been killed this year, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference apn1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Almost 1,100 killed in Israel war with Hamas". Before Saturday, the conflict had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, this year, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials
  4. ^ "Hamas launches large-scale "combined attack" on Israel". So far this year at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners have been killed in the conflict, including combatants and civilians on both sides, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
  5. ^ "Israel pounds Gaza as PM Netanyahu warns of 'long and difficult war'". Before Saturday, the violence this year had killed at least 247 Palestinians, 32 Israelis and two foreigners, including combatants and civilians, according to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference aj1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_8&oldid=1197332314"