Talk:Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip

Scope

While I agree that this is an encyclopedic topic, it would make sense to define the scope of the article in a clear way. Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels already exists and refers to the Gaza-Egypt border. I see three alternatives:

• Make this article exclusively about cross-border Gaza-Israel tunnels
• Make this article about cross-border Gaza-Israel tunnels and within-Gaza tunnels used for military purposes ("Gaza’s internal tunnel network is reportedly even more complex than cross-border routes and involves multiple branches that run under refugee camps in Khan Younis, Jabaliya, Shati and other densely populated areas. These hide weaponry and are designed for Hamas leadership to remain protected and mobile." "[http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/23/gaza-undergroundhamastunnels.html Gaza's Undeground")
• Make this article about the so-called "faction tunnels" controlled by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other armed factions in Gaza, whether internal or cross-border. ("From the outset, there was a de facto distinction between the factional tunnels, used for military and operational purposes and off-limits to government inspectors and customs authorities, and the privately owned tunnels, which were Gaza’s primary source of imports." "Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege")

Of course, coherence of the topic, rather than either side's propaganda interests should determine the scope.--Carwil (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is explicitly restricted to the attack tunnels.ShulMaven (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree about narrowing the scope to non-smuggling tunnels, including the cross-border tunnels to Israel, since there is already an article on the smuggling tunnels. The title is far too general and all-encompassing at this time and needs to be changed forthwith. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Attack," "terror" and POV

Let's be clear that the terms "attack tunnel," and "terror tunnel," as well as "resistance tunnel" ([1]), are POV terms that impute a purpose to the tunnels which is disputed (thus the opposed terms). We should attribute the terms in the lead and describe the uses to which the tunnels are put in the rest of the article without these words prefacing tunnels.--Carwil (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title

However, since "Palestinian tunnels" is too overencompassing, and there is already an article on the smuggling tunnels, we need an appropriate title. If "attack tunnels" is too POV (which is dubious), perhaps Palestinian offensive tunnels. Thoughts? Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While the scope is still up in the air (see above), I would suggest that "Military tunnels in Gaza" works nicely. These tunnels are being used to shield militants and military materiel (e.g., rockets), allow movements, attack Israeli soldiers in Israel ("offensive") and in Gaza ("defensive").--Carwil (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian attack tunnels is objective. Tunnels are used to cross a border and carrt out attacks. Specificity and differentiation from Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels is important.ShulMaven (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not objective. It's what you think is objective. Other people with different backgrounds and different preferences in reading material might think "Palestinian resistance tunnels" or "Palestinian defensive tunnels" (like the D in IDF is defense) are objective. Whatever the title is it mustn't reflect these kinds of things that come from the way editors think about the conflict and the belligerents. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

True that "terror tunnel" is most widely used descriptor.ShulMaven (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"terror tunnel" should definitely be an alternative name in bold because it is very widely used in the Israeli media, at least at the moment anyway. Not sure whether having it as the article title is ideal though. I suspect nothing is going to be ideal and someone will be unhappy whatever the title. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Palestinian attack tunnels is accurate, neutral and specific. Current title Palestinian tunnels obfuscates.ShulMaven (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It can't remain as "Palestinian tunnels", that's for sure. "attack tunnels" isn't accurate or precise. It isn't neutral either. It is specific and that is why it isn't accurate, precise or neutral. Look at the way the mainstream press outside of the conflict zone discuss them. It is predictably not the same as the way they are discussed by the Israel media. See the BBC for example "The purpose of the defensive tunnels is to enable the Hamas command structure to reside safely underground while their armed forces conduct a mobile defence against Israeli forces."...and what follows that in their article about the tunnel network. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That article begins with the smuggling tunnels, then shifts to attack tunnels: "In 2006, the Palestinians tried something new - a tunnel was dug underneath the Gaza-Israel border and an assault team emerged behind an Israeli border post."ShulMaven (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It covers the whole spectrum of tunnel types including "defensive tunnels" that are used to enable "surprise attacks on the IDF units". Note the presence of both terms, defensive and attacks. And the cross-border tunnels for "assault team[s]". Look at the language used by other non-Israeli mainstream media to describe the non-smuggling tunnels. You will see all sorts of terms, 'cross-border tunnels', 'tunnels under Gaza-Israel border', 'tunnels the [Israeli] military said...' etc, 'tunnels...used by Palestinian militants' and so on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved it from "Palestinian attack tunnels", which was totally unacceptable, IMO. I would suggest to move it to "Gaza tunnels", but that is a redir to Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels. To me this whole article looks like a POV-fork, and should probably be deleted. Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It was POV for sure, but your move created a problem that is just as bad. You should have sought consensus first. You just replaced one problem with another. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian attack tunnels is accurate, neutral, specific and validated by a Palestinian militia document obtained by the news Web site al-Monitor and published in the Washington Post describing the objective of the underground network was “to surprise the enemy and strike it a deadly blow that doesn’t allow a chance for survival or escape or allow him a chance to confront and defend itself.”[2]ShulMaven (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked, everyone has the right to oppose occupation. Iow, Palestinian defense tunnels would be more accurate. Huldra (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"defense tunnels" unsupported by common usage, usage supports terror, attack, kidnapping, militant as descriptors of the tunnels.ShulMaven (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Military tunnels" seems neutral. The other suggestions above, not. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"military" is a problematic word in this usage because it implies an armed force operating under the lawful control of a government, and technically, the government of Gaza does not have a legal military. Rather, the political party that runs Gaza has an illegal armed militant organization.ShulMaven (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While there are two parties involved in this warfare, the military tunnels are being used solely by one of them, namely the Palestinians. The title should preferably indicate that. Also, keep in mind that the main article is Tunnel warfare. So apart from the neutral, but somewhat lacking title Gaza Strip military tunnels, another viable NPOV option, and a more accurate one, would be Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip. Aviados (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip seems both neutral and accurate, and it takes into consideration the Palestinian militant perspective that regards kidnapping and attacks on civilians as legitimate forms of warfare. Thank you, Aviados.ShulMaven (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. As Carwil has stated above, these tunnels are being used for offensive purposes, but also to shield militants and weapons and to allow movements. Hence, "military".

Also, I see that the term "military tunnels" has been used in non-Israeli mainstream media, such as the Independent (July 26, 2014), AP / Washington Post (July 26), CBSNews (July 26), FoxNews (July 26), AP / ABCNews (July 27), and the New York Times / Boston Globe (July 28). Aviados (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're suggesting Palestinian military tunnels ? It's shorter. But I do worry about objections over the fact that Hamas is not technically a military. Are there any non Israel/Arab conflict involved editors we can call on re: using the term military to refer to an extra-legal group like the Hamas militants?ShulMaven (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" is neutral and appropriate for this topic. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just driving by, but based upon what I've read from the above comments, I agree..."Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" is the most appropriate. Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a Palestinian but a Hamas operation. Hamas should be in tht title, with the Israeli POV 'terror tunnels' also.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with Hamas tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is truer to and more to the point. I concur. Robertvincentswain (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hamas is the (de facto, and actually also de jure) ruling power in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. That it conducts the operation means the Palestinians do. Otherwise, using the same logic, the title of the article Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels should be Hamas smuggling tunnels in the Gaza Strip. 89.138.83.10 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, per the title, I agree that "terror tunnels" is loaded. "Resistance tunnels" is extremely POV. I think that "tunnel warfare" is a better descriptor than both of these alternatives, but not particularly good. "Palestinian Tunnel warfare" legitimizes the tactic, putting it on a level similar to "trench warfare". A good way to show its purpose (terrorism) is by changing "Palestinian" to "Hamas", its more accurate. --monochrome_monitor 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→Please pardon for not knowing how to work Wiki. I have tried to change part of te main article. The part I try to change is the portion which claims "Hamas officials admitted up to 160 children died digging the tunnels." However when I click the reference links,#9 and #4, well #9 does not exist at all and #4 references #9 in the #4's article. In fact, every claim from news sources regarding the 160 children dying refer to the report that is no longer available at #9's link. Honestly, all information on the page that uses #9 as support should be removed.

Again, apologies for not knowing how to work wiki to edit properly. Thanks for any help.←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←←← — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.32.104 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"terror tunnels"

There is currently a claim in the lead that the topic is "also referred to as...terror tunnels". The two sources for the claim are an Israeli Ministry of Foreign press release and a Washington Post article that uses the term in quotation marks, quoting from an Israeli military press release. A more accurate and Wikipedia compliant way to represent the sources would be to say that the topic has been referred to as "terror tunnels" by the Israeli military and Israel Ministry of foreign Affairs.

But then a second question arises. Is it due/balanced to discuss Israel's preferred public diplomacy term for the topic in the first sentence of the lead? Dlv999 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it belongs further down in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The origins of the tunnels is misleading, and possibly untrue.

In this article, it says:

"The tunnel construction employed in the 2014 Israel Gaza War has its origins in an attempt to sidestep the economic asphyxiation, what Palestinians call a siege (hesar) of the Gaza Strip economy, by the Israeli economic blockade on the coastal enclave which has been in effect since 2007."

It says the warfare tunnels had it's origins due to smuggling as a result of the blockade since 2007, but Gilad Shalit was abducted in 2006 via tunnels before the blockade.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htm

"Shalit was captured on June 25, 2006, by militants from Hamas and two allied groups who tunneled into Israel from the Gaza Strip. "

Also, the term "asphyxiation" doesn't seem like a NPOV term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, but for the time being let's go with the NatGeo account, which I admit may be wrong. There are I'm sure other sources on this. The journal of Palestine studies link doesn't work for me. I've subbed more neutral language. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The word 'asphyxiation' comes from Nicolas Pelham's article, which the Jerusalem Post article, wrongly cited by the editor to make out Hamas was responsible for using child labour, mentioned. I corrected the error of citation, and since the JerusalemP article used it as background, that secondary source reference justified the employment of Pelham's paper, which predates this particular conflict. The point re the 2006/7 difference. The Israeli blockade of 2007 was directed at Hamas, but the Economic Blockade, or extreme restrictive measures to penalize development in that area, was enacted from the 1970s onward, as Sara Roy detailed in her academic paper 'The Gaza Strip: A Case of Economic De-Development,' as early as 1986. A far reaching set of restriction was imposed after the Al-Aqsa Intifada broke out (for a brief overview see Blockade of the Gaza Strip). 'Asphyxiation' was probably used by Pelham with Dov Weinglass's notorious comment in mind. He was advisor to Ariel Sharon, the man behind the Gaza disengagement policy, and told Haaretz back in 2004 that withdrawl from Gaza under the Bush formula is designed to paralyse negotiations with the Palestinians: 'it supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians,' by freezingg the possibility of statehood. If the journal of Pal Studies article doesn't work, email me and I'll send you a copy.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That may as well be true, but the article saying the warfare tunnels have it's origins in the blockade that has been in effect since 2007, even though they were used before that year is still misleading. Even then, smuggling tunnels before 2007 also smuggled in weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightmare72589 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All observers agree that the effect of Israel's sanctions on Gaza since 1967, through to the 1980s, then again from 2001 to 2005, and more radically still from 2007 to 2014 have 'asphyxiated' (neutral), 'choked', 'strangled' the possibility of any development there, as has the three-times devastation of what little industrial and agricultural recovery has been done under those conditions. Any number of mainstream sources will tell you that: google Gaza+economy+èblockage + strangle/choke. I.e.'Another war in Gaza [Editorial,'] Baltimore Sun 14 July 2014.('It says the attacks won't stop until Israel frees hundreds of militants and ends its blockade of Gaza, which has strangled the territory's economy and made life miserable for the 1.8 million people living there.'). The major smuggling into Gaza is not of weapons, but of means of building and subsistence. Hamas's tunnels are strategic certainly, but the background indicates that this is based on the Rafah economy's development of tunnels to overcome the Israeli choking. And the use of Egyptian-Israeli is incorrect. Under Morsi there was some relief, and it was even somewhat lenient under Mubarak. Since Sisi's coup d'etat, the blockade is a joint Israeli Egyptian thing, and that is recent, not true of 2007-2014.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The building materials that Hamas smuggles in from Egypt also aid in the construction of the attack tunnels that they build, as evidenced by the sources in this article. As well as Hamas making a lot of money from the tunnels itself by charging people to smuggle items into Gaza. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4543634,00.htmlKnightmare72589 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Asphyxiated is a loaded term. It's better to describe it as "blockade", "embargo", then say that it has severely hurt the economy.--monochrome_monitor 23:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations

I added a bunch of citation tags today because many thoughts are not referenced. Even if the following thought is the same ref it really should be in both places because how does one know that its in the next ref? Its not very clean this way. Also the sentence "October, 2013, IDF discovery of an "attack" or "terror" tunnel at Kibbutz Ein HaShlosha." makes no sense. It seems to be only half a thought. Also why does it have its own section? - Galatz (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the page. Where two sentences address similar issues, one can assume that the next reference is applicable. And when reading the lead, one can assume that more detailed information, with citation, is available in the main article. WP:CITELEAD explains this, although it emphasizes that "challengeable" statements should get clearer citations. Are there statements in the lead you find not only bare of citations, but likely to be in doubt?

The sentence fragment is poorly written, but changing discovery to "discovered" would clarify the meaning, I suspect. I moved it out of "use in attacks" since the tunnel described in the sentence does not appear to have been used in an attack.--Carwil (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I felt that there were a few instances where the next sentence although might have been from the same source, it was a new topic enough that it needed citations.

As for that last sentence it does make more sense that way, but I am not really sure its relevance. I guess I feel we should either show more instances of discovering them or expand a bit more on the particular tunnel and explain its relevance to the article. It just feels very out of place. I do feel though that explain more instances of finding them it great for background and context. - Galatz (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Cost estimates

I'm editing the estimates of the cost of the tunnels pretty closely because while there's a lot of verbiage out on news and blog sites, most of it is unattributed: "are estimated to have cost," "is said to cost," or even "some have said." Even a news source that meets WP:RS reporting that kind of statement does not provide us with a verifiable, attributable source, which is necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I will do my best to include attributed comments on the cost here. As best I can tell, all of the estimates being cited here come from the Israeli military, but if there's another source, please add it. Since we can't verify that Hamas did spend whatever is estimated, we must begin such sentences with "X estimates…" not "Hamas spent…"--Carwil (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Executions — A WP:REDFLAG issue

The following sentence clearly fall under the category of "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources":

According to an IDF report, a number of Gazan excavators working on Hamas tunnels were executed on the suspicion of sharing information with Israel.

For now, the Times of Israel article cited is not such an exceptional source. In fact, it does not refer to "an IDF report," but to the Mako media network's army blog, which in turn cites an unnamed source. If this issue attracts the reporting of reliable sources, it can be re-added to the article, but I'm removing it for now.--Carwil (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Fox News [3] its from Walla news, but its all in Hebrew and my hebrew isn't as good to be comfortable with that it says on Walla. Perhaps someone else can take a look - Galatz (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Times of Israel linked to Mako's blog page. Fox just mentions Walla. Possible that it's out there, but we need the original, with a decent translation. I lack the knowledge to judge whether Mako or Walla are "high-quality mainstream publications," but WP:REDFLAG requires some pretty high standards here. Anonymous sources aren't WP:RS, so we're just relying on the reporting instincts and credibility of the publications involved. Further, the fact that the anonymous source is an Israeli informant raises more problems: like the fact that his (her?) sourcing may itself be have been purchased by that payment. Again, if this is a credible story, verifiable sources will emerge.--Carwil (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. It seems FoxNews have mistakenly named Walla!, when the real source is in fact mako.

I only see that Walla!, like Haaretz, reported on August 7 that Hamas had announced that its operatives had executed a few Palestinians suspected for helping the Israeli forces.

Here are the relevant parts from the mako article:

Dozens of tunnel diggers in Gaza have been put to death over the last weeks by Hamas's military wing out of fear that they would give away information to Israel about the tunnels' routes, the means [i.e., weapons etc.] they contain, and their entrance and exit shafts. […] ["]They were afraid that some of them may collaborate with Israel," said a source in Gaza who knows the Gaza tunnel industry well. […]

When the tunnel digging was over, a few dozen diggers were put to death, after suspicion was aroused that they were collaborating with Israel or that they were holding valuable information regarding the entire assault tunnel industry. "Anyone suspected he might pass information to Israel about the tunnels was put to death by the military wing. They were very cruel," a source in the Strip revealed and added, "They put to death some of the diggers, because there was a rumor that some of them were working with Israel or were in touch with Israeli citizens [they had known] from the time they had worked in construction [in Israel]. They were afraid Israel would find out about the location of the tunnels and about the people involved in digging them."

The article mentions a collaborator, smuggled into Israel, who serves as a source for information regarding the conditions of the diggers. The source for the executions, on the other hand, isn't necessarily a collaborator. Aviados (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Strategic objectives (Rosh Hashanah attack)

I added an article from Army Radio stating that the tunnels were for military not civilian targets. Sorry that I don't have the chops to make the reference fancier but it does work, please improve it. All the claims either way seem to be citation needed or "a spokesman" or "an israeli newspaper." This seemed one step more direct than the Times of Israel. The reference to ---later the same day it was reported that 31 tunnels were found--- seemed out of place to me , but I did not want to take it on myself to delete any text. Gentlemath (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead.

@Tritomex: I see that you have added citation needed tag for the last sentence. That is just a summary of the article, basically the section "Strategic objectives", per WP:LEAD and WP:SS. As far as I know, there have been no attacks on any civilian communities so far. The Israeli view that they are constructed for "terrorist attacks on Israel" is already present in the paragraph. I have added a couple of citations from the section down below. Kingsindian (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:The problem is that the claim is not correct, (used for the first time during the 2014 conflict -see Gilad Shalit kidnapping) while the phrase " and in practice only Israeli military targets have been attacked through them" may look as a minimization of their importance. So in my opinion this claims needs to be sourced or removed.--Tritomex (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have added Gilad Shalit in 2006 and replaced "first time" with "multiple times". As to the minimization, I am not sure what that means. The Israeli statement that their purpose is for terrorist attacks inside Israel is already mentioned in the lead. Together with that, this fact is fine to mention, and sources are cited for that. As I said, it is just a summary of the "strategic objectives" section. Kingsindian (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Ok thank you for correction.--Tritomex (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material summarizing context bellow

@Kingsindian: Why did you remove material which is mentioned the context bellow and which is well sourced?

@Tritomex: As I mentioned in the edit summary, I do not see what it has to do with tunnel warfare, and why it belongs in the lead and not ten other things from the article. Kingsindian (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

@Wlglunight93: Regarding your edits.

• edit1 - you had removed the Viet Cong part with summary WP:OR. I have now added a reference for this. Please keep in mind WP:PRESERVE and tag stuff with citation needed template, instead of removing it.
• edit2 - you had added the number of tunnels destroyed in the conflict. This information belongs to the conflict page, and is already present in the section 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Israel. This page is about Palestinian tunnel warfare in general. So I have removed this sentence to avoid duplication.

Let me know if there are any questions/issues. Kingsindian (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Child labor, deaths in tunnels

I removed the following sentences, which User:Wlglunight93 has restored:

According to Hamas officials, some 160 children died, as of 2011, while building the earlier Rafah tunnels. The organization has done nothing to stop the use of child labor.

The source cited in both cases is Nicolas Pelham's article in the Journal of Palestine Studies in 2011/12 (full text here). A second source, a 2014 Jerusalem Post article, uses Pelham as its sole basis of information, but misrepresents Pelham's claims about child labor. As I've outlined at Talk:Gaza_Strip_smuggling_tunnels#Child_labor:_Source_text, Pelham's article refers to child labor within already built tunnels, and their supervision by the Hamas governing authorities' Tunnel Affairs Commission.

(An additional point: Most smuggling tunnels were built and run privately and precisely those tunnels were under the TAC. As Pelham states, "From the outset, there was a de facto distinction between the factional tunnels, used for military and operational purposes and off-limits to government inspectors and customs authorities, and the privately owned tunnels, which were Gaza’s primary source of imports." The factional tunnels were those controlled by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.)

In restoring the text, Wlglunight93 argues that the Jerusalem Post's statement that:

The paper, titled Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon: The Unintended Dynamics of Israel's Siege says that little had been done to stop the phenomenon of child labor during the digging of the tunnels by Hamas in Gaza.

to justify the text in this article. Per WP:RS, peer-reviewed sources like the Pelham article are preferable. Also according to this policy, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." In this case, we have the original academic source and a misdescribed report of it. I am barred by the 1RR on Israel-Palestine topics from removing this text again today, so I offer proponents of this text 24 hours to discuss the matter here. If there is no rebuttal, I will remove it again.

Finally, I did consider rewording the text, as I have done on Gaza_Strip_smuggling_tunnels, but unless and until there is a direct parallel—that is, reliable reports of children smuggling through these military tunnels, it doesn't seem to be a relevant fact to repeat on this page.--Carwil (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Where exactly in Pelham's article did you find the claim that child labor was exclusively limited to already built tunnels, or that the death only occurred in already-built tunnels? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mention of child labor needs to be added back into this article. There was no reason to remove it. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been mentioned in the long explanation above, and the explanation on the other page, the Jerusalem Post article was quoting the Pelham reference, but there is nothing in the reference which supports it. It is possible that the JPost reference is simply confused. There is indeed mention of the child labour in the smuggling tunnels page. Kingsindian (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

No where does in the paper does it say that child labor was specifically only used in already existing tunnels, nor does it say they were only used in smuggling tunnels. The paper makes mention of tunnel warfare, and I quote:

"In January 2006, four months after Israel completed its Gaza pullout, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative elections. Israel responded by systematically tightening its borders. On 12 March 2006, while Hamas was in negotiations to form a unity government, Israel closed Erez terminal to Gazan laborers in Israel, who once constituted 70 percent of Gaza’s workforce. In June 2006, when the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants (and spirited away by tunnel), Israel shut down the Karni terminal, Gaza’s primary crossing for goods (already closed for half of the previous six months). Israel also prevented the use of the Rafah terminal for passenger traffic and severely restricted access for the European monitoring mission there."

and

"Given their quest for weapons and the need for funds to finance operations during the intifada, the various Palestinian political factions operated the longest and deepest tunnels. This fusion of security and business interests, of militia activity and private entrepreneurship, was to become a hallmark of future development."

It makes no sense in mentioning the warfare part of the tunnels if it's solely about smuggling, nor does it make sense that if children are so prized in tunnel building because of "how nimble they are", that they would decide to only use them in smuggling tunnels. It's not like Hamas is saying "Using children for smuggling tunnels? That's A-Ok. Using them for warfare tunnels? That's crossing a line!" Knightmare72589 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid you did not appreciate the point made. Nobody is saying that the Pelham source is not talking about warfare, so your long quote is not addressing the issue. The point is that the JPost source saying that children are used in tunnel building is not supported by the Pelham source, on which it is based. There is no evidence provided that children are used in tunnel building. If there is, I will be happy to include it. Kingsindian (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

From the study: "In response to public concern at a rising toll of tunnel casualties, particularly of child workers."

Another quote from it says: "A similarly cavalier approach to child labor and tunnel fatalities damaged the movement’s standing with human-rights groups, despite government assurances dating back to 2008 that it was considering curbs. During a police patrol that the author was permitted to accompany in December 2011, nothing was done to impede the use of children in the tunnels, where, much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble bodies."

I don't know how anyone can possibly say children weren't used in tunnel construction.

Another article says the same thing. "To dig the tunnels, children and adolescents were employed in conditions of slavery; 160 of the child workers have died in recent years due to tunnel collapses during construction." Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ynet source is again repeating the Pelham source, so it is the same as the JPost source. As I said already, the quote you gave from the Pelham source does not say that children were used for tunnel construction, it says child labor was used in them. See for example this page [[4]] which describes children in Victorian mines. They were used to working in the mines, not constructing it. "Victorian society was shocked to discover that children, as young as five or six worked as trappers, opening and shutting ventilation doors down the mine before becoming hurriers, pushing coal tubs" Again, the fact that children were used in smuggling tunnels is mentioned on the other page. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but many sources are saying the opposite and the language used says the opposite as well. It makes zero sense to use tunnels that basically only children can go through if you're planning on smuggling things or using them for military purposes. You wouldn't be able to smuggle in most things and you wouldn't be able to carry out military operations that are bigger than a child. That is not to say children aren't used in smuggling, but making tunnels as big as to where only children can use it is illogical. Also, if the tunnels are infact only big enough for children, then children had to have built the tunnels since only they can fit in it.Knightmare72589 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I think you are technically correct: Pelham never explicitly states that children were used for digging the tunnels. Nor does he state that they were not used for digging, nor does he specify how they were used except mentioning their nimble bodies. How do you imagine the children were used, and how could this use kill at least 160 children ? And before you say it is not up to us to guess what he meant - I agree. It is up to secondary sources, and it is exactly what they did. WarKosign (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Pelham says how the 160 children got killed. In 2009, the quality of the tunnel construction was poor, and the tunnels caved in, killing and injuring many people. The construction improved later. All the news articles use the Pelham source. When we have the original source available, it is silly to use the newspaper sources. Newspapers are not known to be paragons of scholarship. The numbers come from Hamas officials (primary source), the Pelham source is reliable, secondary source. The newspapers are tertiary source. I do not wish to argue more about this issue. If anyone feels strongly that these claims should be included, I suggest opening an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz quote

I have reverted this edit. Multiple reasons:

• Alan Dershowitz is not a military analyst. Not sure why his opinion is important about strategic objectives. The statement "No country should have to tolerate this breach of its sovereignty and this danger to the lives of its civilians." is irrelevant to strategic objectives.
• The claim that 17 July attack was directed against civilians is already present in the article, so his other sentence is redundant.
• I count 4 Israeli and 2 US sources already quoted in the section. Enough. Please, consider that there exists a world outside Israel and the US. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Dershowitz Again

Kingsindian describes pretty clearly the problems with this Dershowitz interpretation:

• Alan Dershowitz argued that the goal of the tunnels was to facilitate "mass casualties and kidnappings", citing the proximity of tunnel exits to civilian targets such as Israeli kindergartens as well as the 17 July "attempted mass casualty attack" that preceded Israel's ground incursion.

In addition, WP:RS advises against using op-ed pieces to source factual content. Now, Dershowitz's comment about sovereignty is indeed his opinion, but this sentence puts in two other claims (proximity to kindergartens, and a mass casualty attack) that are dubious at best. As we see later in the article, the tunnel wasn't so much proximate to a kindergarten to the village of Sufa, which was over a kilometer away. And the notion of mass casualty attack is a POV claim that must be attributed to the Israeli government.

@יניב הורון: has reverted my edit removing Dershowitz, and is invited to discuss the matter here.--Carwil (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your stated reason for removing Dershowitz's statement was that it was stated in WP voice, which was not true. MOS as you quoted it specifically says that it has to be attributed to the author, as it was. It can be argued that this statement is undue, however it is not clear-cut. Dershowitz is a scholar of criminal law and an author of several books, and is at least notable enough to have his own article. “WarKosign” 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not in Wikipedia's voice, and Dershowitz's opinion has been repeated by several others and is a fairly representative opinion of a wider segment (beside Dershowitz in and of himself being notable). It should be in - attributed.15:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Dershowitz's opinion does not include "the proximity of tunnel exits to civilian targets such as Israeli kindergartens" nor the claim that the July 17 infiltration was an "attempted mass casualty attack." These are (dubious) factual claims. I'm neutral about including his view that, "No country should have to tolerate this breach of its sovereignty and this danger to the lives of its civilians." But including the other material is an end-run around the need for reliable sources that violates Wikipedia policy.--Carwil (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, nowhere do I mention Wikipedia's voice. But POV speakers may not "cite" so-called facts in dispute here.--Carwil (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Next time, at least read the source you are objecting: "Had the tunnel not been discovered, there would have been mass casualties and kidnappings. The tunnel itself contained railroad tracks capable of quickly carrying a small vehicle back into Gaza with the kidnapped victims or the bodies of the murdered Israelis."--יניב הורון (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you mis-understand me. Inside or outside of the quotations, they are not a matter of opinion, but matters of fact. The substance of these claims is addressed further on in the article. Putting them in Dershowitz's mouth neither clarifies his opinion, nor provides additional information (since he is no expert on the contents of the tunnels, nor on Hamas' strategic objectives).--Carwil (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reorganized lead according to scheme

I have reorganized lead according to MOS:LEAD. This is the scheme I have used:

• Definition and broad purpose of tunnels, which everyone agrees.
• Brief history up to the present. Gilad Shalit, Operation Protective Edge. Number of tunnels.
• Purpose of tunnels (military or civilian?): According to UNHRC, Hamas, Israel.

I have removed a few duplicate lines, while keeping references intact. These are already present in the lead, either literally or paraphrased.

• One IDF expert said the low-tech network was effective in enabling Hamas "to move, conceal, surprise and disappear. (present in first paragraph, paraphrased)
• In official statements, the Israeli government characterized these events as attempted attacks on civilians.
• Israeli security sources stated that the tunnels were being prepared for massive attacks against Israeli civilians.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also the structure that I was trying to create. Thanks. --Carwil (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. I can see logic on both sides of the argument, but neither side has a consensus. If the article is expanded to include West Bank tunnels, then a move would certainly become in order then.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip → Palestinian tunnel warfare – [1] This warfare isn't only in the Gaza Strip as several of the tunnels extended deep into Israel. This is extensively mentioned in the article, no problem there, only the title doesn't follow suit. [2] There are no other articles on Palestinian tunnel warfare. Hence adding a restricting geography, especially when its borders are crossed anyway, makes the title fail WP:CONCISE. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggested name implies that the tunnels are used in the West Bank too, while the original name doesn't suffer from the problem. By far most of the length of the tunnels are in Gaza Strip and not in Israel, so I don't think it's a problem. “WarKosign” 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They are built and used into Israel and are not only in the Gaza Strip. Actually this is a part that receives much attention. There is no need to add "in the Gaza Strip" to the title when this is both incorrect and unnecessary for differentiating from other Palestinian warfare tunnels that do not exist. All the details about the location are provided correctly in the article. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it limited to Hamas and thus could be moved to "Hamas tunnel warfare"? Correct me if I'm mistaken.--TMCk (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not: Palestinian Islamic jihad and Fatah, (and perhaps other armed actors) seem to use them too: [5] [6].--Carwil (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

--TMCk, I can second Carwil's response but it is an excellent question! gidonb (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Weak oppose — I see the concern about the cross border nature of a minority of the tunnels, but WarKosign is correct that the simpler title implies the West Bank is included too. The de facto political split between the territories warrants specificity (a la not calling Vichy France policies "French" policies). Any suggestions on addressing both concerns?--Carwil (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The correct specificity is already included in the article. No problem there. Excessive specificity in the title, however, conflicts with WP:CONCISE. Nothing is implied by the improved title beyond the fact that the article deals with Palestinian tunnel warfare, which is correct. Locations are both the Gaza Strip and Israel. The latter is discounted by you yet shouldn't be. That is the part where the title is plainly wrong. gidonb (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added a POV warning to the article since the article title incorrectly asserts that the tunnel warfare is limited to the Gaza Strip. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Further undermining the logic of your claim: Palestinians also dug warfare tunnels in the West Bank [7] and Lebanon [8]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead

@Gidonb: I reverted your edit of the lead because it violates WP:LEAD. If, as you say, the tunnel warfare is common in West Bank and Lebanon, please add this content to the article, then it would make sense to mention it in the lead, and maybe rename the article. “WarKosign” 13:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@WarKosign: actually the current intro does not meet the intention of MOS:BOLD and I improved that part. The current lead does an awful job at introducing the topic. Mine used clear language. However, you want more content throughout the article before it can be added to the intro. That's a reasonable request. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Attack tunnels" redux

For reasons of NPOV (discussed above), "attack tunnel" doesn't belong in our captions. I don't think this really merits debate, but I'm refraining from reversing @יניב הורון:'s revert myself, for now. I invite someone else to remove "attack", but will be happy to discuss the issue here.--Carwil (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Attack tunnels is widely used for cross border tunnels intended to launch attacks in Israeli territory from Gaza. Conversely defensive tunnels describe tunnels that are in whole in the Gaza strip (of which there are supposedly more) and are used by Hamas when defending inside Gaza. Smuggling tunnels refer to tunnels (into Egypt) used to smuggle goods (e.g. subsidized petrol from Egypt) and weapons. These are all technical terms and should not be a POV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Untruth

Some passages of this article mention the Gaza tunnels as made to attack only military targets in Israel. What happened in recent days shows a different truth. I think this article must be amended. Too many civilian killed need justice, even in Wikipedia. Thank you 5.90.203.61 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a means of delivering justice. That said, if you have independent reliable sources that discuss the use of tunnels by Palestinians against Israel, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip → Gaza Metro – WP:COMMONNAME: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]-- Sunfyre (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Slightly bizarre name, even if some sources use it. PatGallacher (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• The topic of the article seems to be more about the Gaza tunnels. I think it would be better to rename it. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support I believe this has definitely become the common name. I was looking for if Wikipedia had an article on this yet after hearing about the Gaza Metro in some reports, and only after some time found this page. I was happy to see this move request already in place, cheers! Johnson524 14:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -- It has a mocking tone not appropriate for an article title.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as I don't think there is a common name, and so a descriptive title is appropriate. Sources which do include "Gaza Metro", like those offered in support of the move, typically put it in quotation marks, and also attribute the phrase to particular groups (the IDF or Israel). Such sources aren't saying the phrase in their own voice, as we might have expected of a name which is actually a common name and which we would be using in wiki-voice. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  If a name is more commonly used, it might be more appropriate to use it as a title. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  As Johnson524 mentioned above, if 'Gaza Metro' is used as the article title, he could more easily find this article. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  We can use a redirect for that: Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects: Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title (for example, Edson Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it doesn't actually describe the thing and it's misleading. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose in the strongest terms possible, misleading and obviously derisive in nature. Killuminator (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above, but especially the remarks by Adumbrativus. There is no common name for this, so a descriptive title is necessary. A redirect for "Gaza Metro" should be here though, and perhaps warrants a mention in the article as a derisive nickname by one side of the conflict. --GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pumping water into the tunnels?

In December 2023 it was reported that the IDF was pumping seawater into the tunnels. Has pumping continued? I believe this is worth mentioning. Pete unseth (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

Right after citation 31, "Eado" should be changed to "Ido" as this is the common Israeli spelling for the name עידו Medstudent2022 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: that's how it's spelt in reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

Please change this passage:

<According to Tehran IRGC General there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels>

To:

<According to General Hassan Hassanzadeh, commander of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces in Tehran, there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels>

This is a better rendering of the information in the cited article, which can be accessed at <https://www.iranintl.com/en/202311028892>.

Thank you. Andrew Macklin (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there other sources confirming the statement? When and where did he say it? Who else has reported it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Response to query -- The intent of the edit was to smooth out the language and provide a more precise attribution making clear which "Tehran IRGC General" the passage is referring to. But for a similar estimate of the length of the tunnel system, attributed to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, please see https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/hamass-sinwar-we-have-10000-terrorists-within-israel-669265Andrew Macklin (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible Malformed Sentence in Lede?

Shouldn't "According to Tehran IRGC General, there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels." be written as follows:

"According to a Tehran IRGC General, there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels."

Or, alternatively:

"According to the Tehran IRGC General, there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels."

Or, if this is more appropriate:

"According to Tehran's IRGC General, there are more than 500 kilometers of tunnels." JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been inherently corrected per the implementation of the above edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)