Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

Regardless of the discussion above, I think this extremely POV sentence without attribution should be removed:

Shifting Palestinians out of the country had been a persistent element of Zionist thinking from early times.

Thanks--181.91.131.69 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It has an attribution and you copied that attribution here. If you think this is POV then you will need to build a consensus that supports that change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Done I removed that sentence. It was unnecessary and taken out of context from a much broader paragraph. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Undone. What are you doing SJ? That edit summary denied what the source text states, a prefatory remark to 1967 considerations for removing Arabs from Gaza. Secondly, you do not override Eggishorn's judgement that the request by an IP is inappropriate and lacks consensus. You have zero policy grounds for that excision, other than dislike of what Segev states (and his statement is an obvious truth, uncontroversial at that). Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No need to get snippy. Segev firstly said, that the "hope of moving Palestinians has been part of Zionist thinking." That is not what you wrote. In addition, if you continue with Segev, he writes that Israel encourage emigration, often paying Arabs to move out. You left that part out, which implies that Israel would forcibly move people out. You also weighed the paragraph heavily to skew it to one POV. After Segev, you have the non-RS Palestinian author, etc. You can't just cherry pick sources. As for policy, I have every right to edit this article. Not just that, but Segev's sentence was about Zionism, not the Gaza Strip, and using Palestinians to refer to Israeli Arabs is NPOV.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In any event, I modified the statement to better reflect what Segev actually wrote. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That is an equivocation. I wrote:

Having Palestinians emigrate out of the country had been a persistent hope of Zionist thinking from early times

The source states:

The hope of moving the Arabs of Palestine to other states had been a constant factor in the Zionist movement.

It's called paraphrase to avoid copyright violations. The rest of your comments are pointless. This is, I repeat, a synthetic paragraph about what Israeli politicians thought about the Gaza population 'problem' when they took the Strip. Tweaking endlessly to bulk out what this or that source also said goes against what good editing does, seize the gist and phrase it adequately. Segev's remark about Zionism is introductory to a half page of comments about various measures taken to get Arabs out of the Gaza Strip. You have completely distorted the clear drift of his remarks.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote that, not you. You wrote:

Shifting Palestinians out of the country had been a persistent element of Zionist thinking from early times

I changed it to:

Having Palestinians emigrate out of the country had been a persistent hope of Zionist thinking from early times

Which apparently you are 100% in agreement with, so we have no issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is revert 14:29, 28 November 2017‎

2 revert 14:47, 28 November 2017‎

You and Shrike have gone straight to report other editors at AE for lesser infractionsNishidani (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2017 (

That's not a revert. The first one was a revert, and you reverted. I then made a change to the wording, which is not a revert. And it was such a good change, you thought it was your change, as you posted above, claiming ownership of that edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That was a revert, you removed "Shifting" from Nishidani's edit. No matter, I've reverted your change as being poorly worded and not in keeping with the source. nableezy - 16:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you check with Nishidani? He was in favor of my edit so much he thought it was his. And your edit is taking what Segev said out of context. My sentence is much clearer and closer to what Segev actually wrote. And FTR, that was not a revert, if you consider that a revert, then any edit is a revert since it changes the prior edit. I ask you to revert back and follow BRD. Look at the sentences above and look at Segev's sentence and the rest of the paragraph. Your edit is a NPOV wording of that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I dont think I need to check with Nishidani to make an edit. And if you feel BRD is the way to go then you shouldnt be re-reverting after being reverted. And yes, your edit was a revert, a revert is any edit that reverses in whole or in part another user's edit. Did your edit not do that? And no, your edit is not closer to what Segev said, and there is nothing taken out of context. I thank you for agreeing my wording is NPOV, though I fear that may have been an example of carelessness in editing that manifested itself in your mangling of what Segev wrote to try to scrub inconvenient facts from an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 18:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• You wrote, "moving Palestinians out of the country" which is not in the Segev quote. Your quote also implies that Israel forcefully moves them out of the country, when the Segev quote continues that Israel repeatedly offers financial assistance to emigrate. My wording that, "Having them emigrate is a hope..." is much more balanced and much closer to what Segev actually said. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I can only work here on the assumption many editors try to pull one over with their tongue in their cheek, out of sheer chutzpah. but that's a palmary example of dry contortion.

Please construe as a normal piece of English prose Segev's words:

The hope of moving the Arabs of Palestine to other states had been a constant factor in the Zionist movement.

The subject of the verb move, meaning 'shift', etc., is 'Zionist movement'. The object of the verb is Arabs. The meaning is the Zionist movement aspired to shift Palestinians out of Palestine. To rephrase this as some 'hope' of 'having Palestinians emigrate' disembowels the transitive force of 'move' with Zionism as the subject (expulsion), to conjure up the innuendo that the Palestinians might 'move out' (with a little assistance from their Zionist patrons). In other words, you are screwing up a childishly straightforward sentence in order to absolve Zionism, in Segev's view, of an intent to move (transitive, object 'Arabs'), and place the intention to 'move' (intransitive) firmly in the Palestinians court. The distinction between the transitive and intransitive functions of verbs is something one is supposed to learn in the cradle.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Icewhiz again. You removed 'On June 19 1967 a highly secret Cabinet meeting decided to annex the Strip.

As anyone can see 'annex' was inappropriate. The source says that the Cabinet's secret deliberations left 'no doubt that Israel would hold on to united Jerusalem as well as the Gaza Strip.' So instead of changing 'annex' to 'retain/keep', you gutted the text. Your edit summary is totally uninformed. If anyone is curious as to the real record, suffice it to read Avi Raz's, The Bride and the Dowry: Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinians in the Aftermath of the June 1967 War , Yale University Press, 2012 which shows in meticulous detail that all negotiations were conducted as public farces, feinting to concede what would never be yielded. In any case, that should be restored as 'On June 19 1967 a highly secret Cabinet meeting decided to keep the Strip.

Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tom Segev is also a reliable source, why does that need to be attributed to him? nableezy - 18:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Segev doesn't need attribution of course. I put that in just to clarify the sentence's reference. The point he made is in every solid history of Zionism from an Israeli, or Zionist perspective, one shared by people diametrically opposed to Zionism, so you get it in writers as far apart as Laqueur and Ilan Pappé, because it is overwhelmingly part of the thoroughly documented historical record.(Pappé states that re Gaza 1967 in Ilan Pappe, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples,Cambridge University Press 2004 p.196 ('Expulsion was neither an alien concept nor an unfamiliar practice to the Zionist movement). To try and get this truism off the page is to edit in contempt of known facts. Some hundreds were uprooted from Jabaliyya Reguee camp and exiled to the West Bank in 1971, part of a larger programme which was only stopped when an outraged series of riots put an end to the attempt were examples of the implementation of those Cabinet discussions. Raz even discusses plans to drive the Gazans into the Sinai. The 'other side' of this magnificent national history was well put by an old man holding up a placard in Gaza in 2012 which read:

‘You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but I am to blame. I shot a rocket back.' Noam Chomsky, 'Gaza Under Assault, 1 December 2012,' in Noam Chomsky Because We Say So, Penguin UK, 2015

That is the obverse of those Cabinet 'brainstorming' sessions, the reality on the ground as that ideology was quietly translated into systematic ethnic torture. Enough of this bullshit.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM]. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see it yourself. That has absolutely nothing to do with Nishidani's comment. His comment is directly related to the topic, whereas your contribution here is not. nableezy - 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, pull your socks up. I could have had you on toast if I had taken those two reverts, and your refusal to acknowledge them as such as a violation of a fundamental rule AE brooks no tolerance of. I didn't because I refuse to treat other editors as they treat me, a target. Bad editing invokes remonstrative words, as per above. You want me to shut up, well, stick to the rules, acknowledge historical facts, and respect the clear and present meaning of RS, and I might not feel I have to waste my time. My time because stating the obvious has to be done repetitively here since editors refuse to respect the standard protocols of encyclopedic editing. Laila tov.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What was wrong with this? "Having Palestinians emigrate out of the country had been a persistent hope of Zionist thinking from early times" That is more neutral and more in line with the entire paragraph than "shift" And I didn't tell you to shut up, I told you to stop using the talk pages as a forum. That is not the point of a talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding holding on from the 19th June meeting - this was in the context of a peace offer that would have relinquished the Sinai back to Egypt (as well as arrangements with Syria and Jordan) This did not advance much beyong this meeting and possibly some feelers. This was not so much a decision on Gaza but rather a wider diplomatic move, or idea, that went no where at the time.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Whats wrong with it? It's written in the passive voice, and so does not adequately reflect the point that Seqgev made. That it was not simply a wish that the Palestinians would move on their own, but that there was a concerted effort to force them to leave by making their lives intolerable. That was what the Chomsky quote is about, that Zionism had as a goal the removal of the Palestinians and the method to accomplish that goal was to make their lives unlivable in their own land. nableezy - 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If you continue on the paragraph it mentions Israel offering financial incentives and the hope of them emigrating. No where in that quote, or on the rest of the page does it mention making lives miserable. That is editorializing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

And of course Malik Shabazz comes along in his usual threatening and bullying manner and removed a valid template. I point you to this sentence on the template's page, "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions." Instead of threatening or bullying, why not engage in talk page discussion? The template is valid and you have no policy reason to remove it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please try to read more than the first sentence or two. "Please try to improve the article or make a good faith attempt to verify the citations in question before adding this template, and discuss the matter on the talk page. If only one citation is problematic, or there is a desire to tag particular citations, consider using {{failed verification}} instead." Adding a tag that says the article may contain "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text" when you don't like another editor's one-sentence summary of a single source is outlandish and inappropriate. If you don't like my behavior, WP:ANI is that way and WP:AE is the other way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

SJ. Both Segev and Eshkol's remarks are obvious literary allusions to the noted passage in Herzl's diary. Much of what you and Icewhiz are contesting are historical facts which, nota bene, you cannot get by just looking at one (of many) pages in any one source (Thus while Icewhiz had a point about 'annex' referring to Segev p.515, checking Segev I see now that on p.608, he has Eshkol in those deliberations calling for the annexation of both the West Bank and Gaza, so my memory was correct. It is again chutzpah to confuse the transitive and intransitive function of verbs, and rewrite a source's transitive (Zionism moves Arabs out) as though it implied an intransitive meaning (Arabs move out). There's a world of difference between 'The landlord moved me out of my Baltimore apartment' and 'I moved out of my Baltimore apartment, and the landlord offered to help me in relocating'. The template pretended that this nescient abuse of English to spin an innocuous meaning out of a straightforward statement which says the opposite, and was thus egregiously inappropriate. It justified editorial illiteracy.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. The Segev article does not say that Israel forcibly moved out the Palestinians. It says they hoped to have them move out and offered financial incentives for them to emigrate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with stating that there have been calls (which we can attribute to specific people and times) to annex Gaza to Israel - the view of many officials post-1967 is that this was a corner of Mandatory Palestine returned to Israel following an Egyptian occupation (this view has however changed through the years - from the area most desirable to keep in 1967, to the one most desirable to divest) - I removed a sentence that said "On June 19 1967 a highly secret Cabinet meeting decided to annex the Strip" - which was simply not correct - there was no such decision, and the June 19th meeting ended with a decision for diplomatic overtures (that would've kept some territories, including Gaza, in Israel) vs. Syria+Jordan+Egypt basically went no where - we could perhaps detail this failed initiative in greater detail - but we would have to say much more than "decided to annex the Strip" (when in fact Israel did not annex the strip).Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Stop talking off the top of your head, engaging in an uninformed WP:OR, particularly on a topic you appear to have little knowledge of. To repeat a rule you continually violate, no editor has the right to second guess the truth in the face of what RS state. We must hew strictly to RS evidence, and not privilege our personal impressions over the available evidence. What you get on this point is source conflict, in part due to the fact that these deliberations were segregated as too sensitive asnd secret to be made known. What we therefore get is sources saying that Eshkol was in favour of annexing Gaza, or that the cabinet decided on annexation, or was minded to annex but suspended an outright decision. One simply tweaks a sentence to allow for that ambiguity, sourcing it thus:

• 'On June 19 1967 a highly secret Cabinet meeting decided to annex the Strip.
• '(Eshkol) nonetheless called for annexing them both.'
• The Israeli retreat from the 19 June 1967 decision regarding Sinai, in addition to the decision to annex the Gaza Strip, most likely precluded an agreement with Egypt in the early post-1967 period ‎
• According to that Cabinet resolution, Israel intended to annex the Gaza Strip.
• 'The meetings (between June 14 and 19,1967, Nishidani)would become the most serious discussion the government would ever hold over the question. It culminated in the decision on June 19, 1967, to return the two occupied regions that were previously an internationally recognized part of a sovereign state, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, back to Syria and Egypt, respectively. The cabinet preferred to annex the two regions that had no clear sovereign, the West Bank and Gaza. But concerns over the potential international opposition and the implication of incorporating the indigenous Palestinian population into the state of Israel led the Government to suspend a decision.’
• 'every Israeli cabinet since 1967, while insisting that there would be no return to the June 1967 borders, has decided not to decide' the political future of ther West Bank and Gaza Strip. But government policy, including economic policy, was grounded non three understandings. Israel would not formally annex the territories, Israel could not withdraw from them. And Israel would not allow them to become a net budget burden'
• 'On June 19,1967, the Israel cabinet decided by a margin of only one vote to exchange occupied land for peace. But this offer was to be addressed only to Egypt - withy reference to the Sinai- and to Syria, regarding the Golan Heights-not to Jordan or the Palestinians.Gaza was specifically referred to as “fully within the territory of the state of Israel.”'

That gives one something along the following lines:

'On June 19 1967 at a highly secret Cabinet meeting, an intention emerged to keep or annex the Strip, a position favoured by Eshkol. The Gaza Strip was described as 'fully within the territory of the state of Israel.' Fears of an international outcry however led to a suspension of the formal implementation of any such decision.

Evidence from sources is all that counts.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the protocols of the 19th of June meeting were released, we do not need to use previous guesses work in RSes on what went on there (part of your sources predate the release). WP:V is not enough. We are required to present a WP:BALANCEed, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BALASP coverage in this topic. In this case - stating that the cabinet decided to annex the strip, beyond being a gross oversimplification of the 19th June meeting, is highly misleading to any reasonable reader when we omit the fact this wasn't done. The Israeli cabinet engaged in a wide range of discussions in the months following 1967 concerning Gaza and the wider situation - either we put this in in a balanced fashion (and not in a tabloid sensationalist nit-picking aspect) - or we leave it out. Furthermore - we should clearly state what actually happened on the ground post-1967 (for which there is no lack of RSes) - the Gaza strip was not annexed, it was placed under a military administration, the population and economy grew, there was an anti-Terror operation (the "Sayeret Rimon"), etc. etc.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote and drop the dopey pseudo-policy flag-waving.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I read the long wall of text. Your suggested new text is better than the previous "On June 19 1967 a highly secret Cabinet meeting decided to annex the Strip", however it still contains WP:OR (or at least un-sourced text) - "Fears of an international outcry however led to a suspension of the formal implementation of any such decision." - where are the RSes for this? And furthermore it gives UNDUE weight to particular internal cabinet deliberations over what actually occurred on the ground or other deliberations.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a wall of text. Those are the sources, which you evidently haven't read since you are asking me to source what I have sourced and quoted. You have 3 short sentences based on them. That you didn't read the sources is indicated by you claiming an impeccable secondary source on Golda Meir is WP:OR, which means you do not have the foggiest notion that WP:OR is what editors do, not what sources state. The complete picture of the Cabinet discussions now emerging is not yet available through reliable secondary sources, and therefore unusable, and in the meantime one goes by what RS have stated, which reliably state that the outcome of the discussions was that Israel considered Gaza 'fully within the territory of the state of Israel'. Stop wasting my time.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That some senior political elements (though equivocating that with Israel isn't straightforward) considered Gaza as part of the British Mandate and hence Israel - is not in question (there were, however, also other viewpoints in the cabinet). Sourcing for - "Fears of an international outcry however led to a suspension of the formal implementation of any such decision." - is not clear.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. You're not serious. You are asking for RS evidence for 'fears of an international outcry' when I posted it before you eyes above. You don't even know that the assertion Gaza forms part of Israel was in a formal government document, not the view of some 'senior political elements'. As I said, you keep talking off the top of your head, instead of reading sources, and even when they are provided you ignore them. I think I am entitled to ignore your comments, since you are responding without even a glance at the evidence posted.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Flag

I believe the Palestinian flag used here is not representative of the Gaza Strip as such, but only as part of Palestine as a whole, and would rather it changed to the flag of Hamas. Glide08 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion. The PA hasn't been in control of Gaza since Battle of Gaza (2007) - and in the meantime Gaza was involved in 3 separate wars/conflicts the PA wasn't involved in. Including Gaza with the PA flag is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hamas is a Palestinian group. Gaza is part of Palestine. The flag isn't a "PA flag", it's a Palestinian flag. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The Gazans are Palestinians. Hamas is a political party. A party flag has nothing to do with a country's flag. The recent unity proposals also would make a change of flag questionable.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The flag is a flag designated by the Palestine Liberation Organization for Palestine. The PA and the PLO are presently not in control of Gaza. I don't know if the correct flag in this circumstance is Hamas - but it definitely is not the PA's flag when Gaza has been acting independently of the PA for a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The flag is a Palestinian flag. It's a nationalist symbol, not the symbol of a particular group. Otherwise, do you mean to tell me that Ismail Haniyeh has now joined the PA? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should hoist the Jolly Roger or maybe insert the Israeli flag, for the same reason as given above for changing the flag. Just because. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Malik Shabazz Jolly Roger is the best option--Shrike (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a flag here at all? I agree that the flag of Hamas is not supposed to be here, but I also don't think there should be any flag at all. The Gaza Strip is a territory before it is an entity. Just like you have an article for Crimea and the Republic of Crimea, there is an article for the Gaza Strip and an article for the Hamas Government in Gaza. Kingsindian said "Gaza is parrt of Palestine". That is true, but also East Thrace is part of Turkey, but we don't need to put a Turkish flag over there. The Hala'ib Triangle is under the control of Egypt, but we don't need an Egyptian flag over there.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless the water strategy succeeds in making the Gaza Strip unlivable by 2020-2025, as many predict it will, causing mass emigration, (and perhaps even if it does), the Gaza Strip foreseeably will remain 'Palestinian', particularly since Sharon's 2005 withdrawal flagged an intention not to incorporate it into Greater Israel. The Palestinian flag won't, I guess, alter, whatever happens. For that reason, I think we probably should retain it.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Bolter21 is right: Unless Gaza has its own flag (distinct from that of Palestine), there shouldn't be any flag. I think all articles about regions and political subdivisions show the local flag, if there is one, not the national flag. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The logic here is:-

(a) the Palestinians have a national flag (b) Gazans are Palestinians (c) therefore we should not have the Palestinian flag as an emblem of Gaza (because they haven't been given a state).

That is counterfactual historically on two grounds. The contemporary Algerian flag to cite one example, was formally declared that of the new state of Algeria in 1962, but it had been the flag used by the Algerian government in exile in the preceding period, when France still dominated that country, etc.etc.etc. Secondly,

The important role that the flag plays as a potent symbol of pride in nationhood From the vexilloid of ancient Greece, to the ensign flying today from the stern of a Greek ship, including countless pennants, flags, standards, burgees and banners over the intervening millennia, the flag has played a central role in the identity of people, tribes, armies, cities, states and, particularly, ships. John N.K. Mansell, The Concept of the Flag State 2009 p.16

All I can see here is the denial of a potent symbol of pride' in a nationality, that of the Palestinians. The Hamas flag is political-partisan: the Palestinian flag, though that adopted by the PLO, has come to be flown as a symbol of their nationality by all Palestinians. Israel for decades banned it from any site under its authority. Why should that prohibition extend itself to an article on a place where Israeli authority does not exist?Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for anybody else, but my logic is (a) Gaza is not a state itself, it is either a geographic region or a political subdivision of a state (I don't know which, and it doesn't matter), (b) articles about geographic regions (such as Southern United States) don't display national flags, (c) articles about political subdivisions (such as Aruba or Ohio) display local, not national, flags, (d) so why would this article display a national flag? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: my comment above was dealing with what the flag represented, not whether this article should have a flag. Arguments can be made either way. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't think East Thrace is a good model, because East Thrace isn't under occupation. Nationalist symbols are usually more salient in times of occupation. Although not strictly comparable, I note that Catalonia displays their flag, because nationalism is more salient in their identity. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Malik. I think the national flag should be displayed because the Palestinians perceive themselves as a nationality. There are two areas totally under (within their confines) a Palestinian national authority, Area A and the Gaza Strip. That these are politically divided at the moment does not mean the flag Hamas and the PA fly cannot be used of the Gaza Strip. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't see any basis for including a flag here. If Gaza had its own flag, or if you (or anybody else) could point to another article that includes the national flag in a regional article, I might agree, but I couldn't find any. (I know the situation with Palestine is probably unique, but I think that as an encyclopedia, we should try to be consistent. That's why we have the Manual of Style, templates, etc.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

(a) On a point of logic, what is 'unique' is, ipso facto, a stand-alone reality which rebuffs analogy, or comparison. By definition unique things are beyond generalization, and consistency. The point was eloquently argued by Arnold Toynbee in his overture to his A Study of History. (b) Unlike the case with England, Scotland and Wales, we do do not have a regionbal flag for the fourth leg of the United Kingdom, i.e. Northern Ireland]], whose de jure flag is that of the United Kingdom itself. That is tbe exception you requested.One might also look at Ladakh, which though stricto sensu subregional, is in line for autonomous status and wears the Indian flag. At Puerto Rico we have both its state flag and the American flag, etc.

Your uniqueness point is cogent to me. One cannot impose on historical or contemporary anomalies the generalizing state/regional logic generally but not always used throughout the encyclopedia. We have so far a State of Palestine which does not exist, but the articles brandishes its flag. And we have a part of that state, which is an autonomous and self-governing reality, but cannot have a flag.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for finding some examples that I wasn't able to think of. I'm reconsidering whether this article should include a flag. I also wonder whether, instead of Template:Infobox country, we might do better to use Template:Infobox settlement (like Ladakh). The settlement infobox allows the inclusion of the country, and its flag, in a way the country infobox doesn't. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have much time yesterday (it shows up in some typos), and will cast the net a bit wider, if I can find the time. Thanks in any case for your measured analysis. I can see merit in one aspect of the perspective I oppose. What worries me is that the 'encyclopedic aims' are, unfortunately in the I/P area, ineludibly entangled in geopolitics (which is not the case in your, or I might add, Bolter's approach). One should always, in delicate areas, without special pleading, take in to account WP:Systemic bias. By the way, best wishes for the New Year.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I support no flag per Bolter21. Beyond the questin of which flag is appropriate (which is questionable per the rebel province status here), sub units do not inherit national flags. Sometimes they do have flags or coats of arms of themselves. If there is an official Gaza flag, we should add that.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Kingsidian, you said East Thrace is not a good example because it is not under occupation. Alright, how about East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? I don't see any reason these territories should have flags in their articles, especially after it creates a problem, as both the Israeli and Palestinian/Syrian flags should logically be there. You also mentioned Catalonia, but this is not a good example, because Catalonia does have a flag just like any other autonomous region in Spain. Nishidani, the article about the Gaza Strip is not the article about the entity. I'll refer you back to the Crimea/Republic of Crimea example. I think that if we include the Palestinian flag here, we can also include the Israeli flag over the Jezreel Valley. It is an extreme example, but this is how I see it. I feel that saying there should be a Palestinian flag because Gaza is Palestinian and Palestinians wave the Palestinian flag means the inclusion is more of a statement than a piece of information in an encyclopedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that if we include the Palestinian flag here, we can also include the Israeli flag over the Jezreel Valley.

Israel does not occupy the Gaza Strip, and in 2005 decided to abandon any claims to it. It occupies the Jezreel valley, since it is in Israel, as the Palestinians are in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli flag flies in every public office, I presume, in that place. That one can make that sort of analogy bewilders me.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Israeli flag does not fly on every article on a place in Israel. Nor does the US flag fly over every wiki article on places in the US, e.g. Death Valley or Maryland.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. Why, when we deal with anything to do with Palestinians, anything, editors have to drag in Israel, on the assumption that how we define Palestinians will somehow damage Israel? Israel has nothing to do with how Palestinians define themselves inside a territory they govern autonomously, and to think otherwise is just pure great power meddling and hectoring.

I suppose the next bloodyminded move will be to go to

Gaza Governorate

North Gaza Governorate

Deir al-Balah Governorate

Khan Yunis Governorate

Rafah Governorate

and remove the Palestinian flag in the map from each on the fatuous grounds that since the parallel district of the Jezreel Valley in Israel is not flagged with the Degel Yisra'el in our article, ipso facto, no Palestinian flag should be shown for the corresponding units of any area self-governed by Palestinians. Fa Chrissake, get off their fucken backs for once. It's their miserable world, what's left of it, and none of your business. Sheer editorial bullying out of the misguided imperial view that nothing Palestinians do can be done without our consent.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. We should check if there are additional uses which are not appropriate. The flag should certainly remain on SoP and other relevant uses, but it seems there is at present some overuse.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, indeed (that was sarcasm). Don't you have anything better to do? This is my cue to take my leave from this idiotic discussion. There are no right answers here, anyway. MOS:FLAG is the policy, which as far as I can see, provides no clear answer -- which is probably by design, since MOS fights are among the stupidest on Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. Another example of Palestinae allergica. I really don't see the problem. If Gaza had its own flag, like Scotland or Wales, ok...but it doesn't. Changing it to the the flag of Hamas is absurd...we never, AFAIK, present the flag of the party presently in power as representing the place. Huldra (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything other than [[WP::OR]] or comments on other editors to support stating that this is the flag of Gaza?Icewhiz (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Palestine...Gaza Strip is still a part of the area it covers, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Per the template doc: File name of an image file on Wikipedia or on Commons that contains the country's current flag. (country=territory in this case, acceptable for template). Palestinian sovereignty is not the question, but rather whether this flag is Gzaz's flag.Icewhiz (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

"Oh for fuck's sake. Why, when we deal with anything to do with Palestinians, anything, editors have to drag in Israel, on the assumption that how we define Palestinians will somehow damage Israel?" Nish, I bring Israel because I live in Israel and Gaza is some 100km from me, so I feel very comfortable with these examples just like you sometimes bring examples from Ireland or Australia. The State of Palestine has a flag, the Palestinian Authority has a flag, the university of Birzeit has a flag, the Gaza Strip doesn't have a flag and it wasn't always an entity. Even if the SoP was independent with the West Bank and Gaza and there was peace, I still wouldn't see a reason to have a flag on the Gaza Strip article, or East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights etc.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That exasperation wasn't directed at you. You think things through: that you come to a different conclusion from myself is not a problem. As I said above, the circumstances of the 'State of Palestine' are very peculiar, and require real care to ensure we are not blindsided by analogies, in this case with Israel. The Gaza Strip is an autonomous remnant of Palestine, and, whatever form that State will take, it remains, barring quirks,not Israel, and indisputably Palestinian: it flies that flag, which under Israeli law since 1980 was forbidden to be displayed. Any Israeli with aspirations to neutrality should weigh in the balance this competitive ideological enmity embedded in his national tradition against any form of symbolic displays of an alternative national aspiration. It should not niggle over the specious bone of contention as though another society's identity were an intrinsic threat to the state. (as embodied in the 1980 law which prohibited use of the Palestinian flag in the conquered territories of 1967) If you look at British Overseas Territories, you will note that two, Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, unlike the other 12, don't hoist a distinct flag, but retain the Union Jack of the United Kingdom, exactly as the Gaza Strip flies the flag of Palestine. I guess some Cypriot-Greek patriot might get it up the nose at the sight of the former on what is, historically, for 3,000 years, a part of Greece, but the detached observer, with an eye to the vagaries of fortune, will simply register the fact without trying to 'iron it over and out' by denialism.

I have long been interested in the historiography of Niall Ferguson - it is brilliantly wrong but the average reader won't see that - it fits our narrative of world history. So I was happy to see Shashi Tharoor's Inglorious Empire: What the British did to India, come out some months back. It gathers in all of the details a lifetime of reading at the margins noted down, and brings out pellucidly how profoundly self-interested our Anglophone approach to the world is, reducing to dependency and rubble a country that constituted 27% of global GNP in the 17th century, a leader in steel manufacture, shipbuilding and textiles. Prejudice and grievances are woven into the fabric of our national lives, and is returning with force as the old order collapses. Sorry for the lecture, but it's Sunday, and on this day of the week, I wreak vengeance on my upbringing's unwelcome exposure to religious preaching by always making up my own sermon. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

edit request: 2017 events

After a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and the PA on October 13, control of five Gaza border crossings was handed from Hamas to the PA on November 1. After the United States announcement in December that the US embassy in Israel would be moved to Jerusalem, Salafist rocket fire from Gaza into Israel led to Israel air strikes, and a wave of arrests of the suspected culprits by Hamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sustain4people (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Tweaked by Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit Request: Ref 38

I refer to text "Under the blockade, Gaza is viewed by some critics as an "open-air prison",[37] although the claim is contested.[38]" I have carefully read Reference 38 "Erick Stakelbeck, The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You About the Islamist Threat, Regnery Publishing, 2011 p.143." The reference does not dispute that Gaza is an "open-air prison". The reference simply describes and derides the circumstances relating to one of the occasions when this view was expressed. While it may be true that the view is disputed by some, this is not the reference for it. Unless another pertinent reference can be put forward, I suggest deletion of the reference and the text it is intended to support, namely "although the claim is contested". --AcuristM (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

{{edit extend--Covenant242 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)ed-protected|Gaza Strip|answered=no}}

Covenant242 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Population update, please. On german wiki we have a number of 1.795.000 people. Data from Juli 2017. The source is

We use USA- CIA-Data, funny isn`t it? --Covenant242 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Occupation

The current title "Military Occupation" is unacceptable because it is not WP:NPOV, favouring Israel's isolated view. I have therefore changed it to "Occupation" because the issue is not confined to actions by armed forces. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gaza's military occupation is Hamas. The Palestinians are occupying this land that is legally Israel. The league of Nations divided the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They gave all of west Palestine to the Jews, based on their historical rights. This includes Gaza.--Jane955 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss unsourced views. Thank you. nableezy - 16:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Look up the San Remo Resolution 1920. You are welcome :) --Jane955 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that propaganda site. The source is given as Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is a scholarly publication, and most of the article (including the list of additional sources) is copied verbatim from there. However, the first two sentences have been added without notice. The claim "determined the precise boundaries for territories captured by the Allies" in the first sentence is factually false and every historian of the time knows that. I wonder if the editors of EJ are aware of this corruption of their work. Zero^talk 05:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Following the conference (the video explains well) the league of Nations created the Mandate for Palestine, in which 100% of West Palestine would be Jewish-Palestine and the East (today's Jordan) would be trans-Jordan or Arab Palestine. The British were supposed to oversee the transition. However, they gave in to Arab pressure and at the start of WW2, they didn't have enough manpower in this region and thought it was easier to just hand over Israel to the Arabs. They even blocked ships of Jews escaping the Holocaust. And to make things even worst, Amin al-Husseini (Palestinian founder) moved to Nazi Germany, recruited Muslim SS Divisions and convinced the Nazis not to allow Jews to escape to Palestine. Zero, Let's focus on the facts and not our emotions.--Jane955 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a forum and I'm not here to teach you history. And please don't mention rubbish sources like Myths & Facts around here, it gives readers a bad impression of our competence. Zero^talk 13:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Zero, Editors here should be aware of basic historical facts. Here is the Mandate for Palestine. They decided that a Jewish state would be created in the Palestine region (minus the Trans-Jordan). The reason that I linked the page is so people can see the map, where at the Wikipedia page British mandate for Palestine is confusing and does not have a map.--Jane955 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

'Editors here should be aware of basic historical facts.' I suggest you take your own advice, Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? By the way Jewish-Palestine (the region west of the Jordan river, that includes Gaza) is only 23% of the Palestinian region. Trans-Jordan is 77% of Palestine. So, in fact, the League of Nations gave the Jews a small part of Palestine and a tiny region in the Middle East.--Jane955 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing specific in your remarks. To the contrary, remarks like 'Jewish-Palestine (the region west of the Jordan river' are boilerplate propaganda culled from fringe pamphleteering, sites and blogs no one takes seriously. You appear to think, even in this ludicrous just-so (per)version of history, that somehow the LoN handed over to 11% of the then population of Palestine 100% of a territory, owned and worked, apart from some scattered areas, by Arabs, and that this ostensible gift of deed would have the same authority as god's gift of the same area to the post-exodic Hebrews (perhaps it does, since the archetype is itself a fiction). There are over a hundred scholarly books on these issues and the context. Read one or two.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at the map,that is how they called it "Jewish Palestine". The Jews living under the British mandate had a Palestinian citizenship. The league of Nations did write in the resolution about rights of Arabs in Jewish land and the rights of Jews in Arab lands. Of course the Arabs disregarded all the resolutions and kicked the Jews out of Arab countries, when Israel was created. These are well known facts. You can look it up. The region called Palestine has a natural division in the Jordan river.--Jane955 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Transjordan_(Article_25_and_Transjordan_memorandum) this section properly, including the footnotes and the original documents shown in the images. Please don’t comment here again until you are sure you understand everything in that section. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I will reply on my page.--Jane955 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you won't do your homework, then it's pointless talking to you. This is not a forum. Goodbye Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Territory composition

Having checked that Gaza Strip is mostly made up of remnants of the former Gaza District of the Palestinian Mandate, it also has the former subdistricts of Gaza and Beersheba. Can anyone add this? --2607:FEA8:A75F:F823:4D9:141B:F3C1:E294 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

URL FIX edit request on 12 November 2018

In section 1.1 Rule over Gaza, overview: in the last paragraph there is a broken link.

“ ref name="Gaza's Tunnel Economy">"Gaza's Tunnel Economy". Borgen Magazine. 4 August 2014.</ref> “

...should be changed to...

“ “

...because it’s missing the initial “<“ symbol. Owenjpgallagher (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the Gaza Strip

A proposal: given their relative weight on the page, shouldn't the sub-heading of "History" (save for the initial overview) be moved to a separate page on "History of the Gaza Strip", to be coordinated with History of Gaza too? --Dans (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Split

Propose to split much of the up-to-date material into a separate article named Hamas-ruled Gaza, including the infobox. Currently the West Bank article is about geography and State of Palestine is about the geopolitical entity; in case of Gaza - Gaza Strip should deal with geographic history and Hamas-ruled Gaza with the modern geopolitical aspects. As for governments, we already have Palestinian Government of 2015 for West Bank-based gov-t of SOP and Hamas government in Gaza for the Gaza-based government of Hamas-ruled Gaza (officially still uses the name PNA).GreyShark (dibra) 10:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

We can’t name an article about a state or territory using the name of a political party. Even if you take the view that Hamas is anti-democratic, which is a complex question, the world is full of one-party states yet none of those articles are named with a political party. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the governance material should be moved to the appropriate sub-article with a summary here though. nableezy - 21:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose split to Hamas-ruled Gaza. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Whatever we call it, the quasi-independent statelet in Gaza is a topic in its own right. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Please change: In the aftermath of the Gaza War, a series of To: In the aftermath of the Battle of Gaza, a series of Because: This is an obvious oversight/error in the current text. The paragraph is describing the Battle of Gaza that was fought between Hamas and Fatah. The Gaza War with Israel did not occur until nearly two years later. The two were entirely separate conflicts, and should not be confused. ForeverBeach (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

done, thanks. nableezy - 23:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done

I've reverted this, as we do not rely on our text as a source - the cited source (and others are available) - [1] - is from 2009 and describes: " As Israel's last troops left the Gaza Strip Wednesday, Hamas officials conceded that they are executing Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel during the three-week invasion. " - the aftermath of 2009 cast lead. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Compare however the numbers in the Sfgate with those given by B'tselem puts the number of those executed by Hamas in 2008-2009 at 8. (2008-2010) and for 2011 an additional 5.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think b'tselem is referring mainly to judicial decisions (or at least a warrant for summary executions) - as opposed to killing by gunmen without orders. E.g, see HRW - "During the chaos of Israel’s offensive, which killed approximately 1,350 Palestinian civilians and combatants and wounded about 5,000, Hamas security forces or masked gunmen believed to be with Hamas extra-judicially executed 18 people, mainly those accused of collaborating with Israel. Masked gunmen also beat and maimed by shooting dozens of Hamas’s political opponents, especially members and supporters of its main political rival, Fatah. The internal violence in Gaza has continued since Israel withdrew its forces. Palestinian human rights groups in Gaza have reported 14 more killings between January 18 and March 31, 2009. - so 18+14 or 32 through March 2009.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to take it. On the other hand, Hamas before international inquiries stated that (n the chaos of the invasion(s),' people not delegated to carry out executions did so. I don't believe any official side's spin in this area, and therefore cannot infer what might be the case. Certainly, since Hamas has that position, any text referring to killings at these times must not attribute to Hamas the responsibility. That 'or masked gunmen believed (by whom?) to be with Hamas extra-judicially executed'. Of course there, that 'mainly those accused of collaborating with Israel' should have been in the edit or its revert. Hillel Cohen's work thoroughly documents how deeply, since the beginning of Zionism, Palestinian society has been infiltrated to recruit, by blackmail and other means, collaborators (who in every theatre of war known to me, have been shot summarily). No justification of course. But in writing up these things, a neutral editor should link to collaborating to Collaborationism, which is treated as treason.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hamas is a terrorist group!

"but Gaza has since June 2007 been governed by Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic organization" I'm sorry but Hamas is a terrorist group and is recognized as such by many countries.

It should be changed from "a Palestinian Islamic organization" to "a Palestinian Islamic terrorist group".

Gotmax (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Saying it is just a terrorist group is a bit reductive, and I also note that a terrorist group must surely also be an organization. CMD (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Is calling ISIS a terrorist group reductive? I mean it has committed heinous crimes. Just recently, over 600 rockets were fired into Israel, killing six Israelis. Gotmax (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. However we are required to abide by WP:NPOV, and in so doing we do not describe contested views as though they were facts. nableezy - 23:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

But Hamas or at least the military wing are recognized by many countries including US, UK, EU, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. International positions on the nature of Hamas That is not a contested fact. That is not being neutral! That is being biased toward one side. I mean come on. This site itself says that! Gotmax (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a contested fact, there are a handful of countries that consider Hamas and/or its military wing proscribed terrorist groups. There are many more that do not. nableezy - 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's also less relevant to the governance of Gaza than say being a political party. CMD (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy, you're saying you can't put contested facts on a Wikipedia article right? SO, you're making the assumption that everything on here is currently already factual? Where does it say with 100% certainty that Hamas is NOT a terrorist organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrunch001 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I should add that YOU are being biased (as Gotmax says above) to not include "terrorist" since you yourself are taking a subjective stance on how to edit this article when you yourself agree it is up for debate. If you were trying to actually be neutral, you would write "a Islamic terrorist organization - although some countries do not consider them to be so" OR "Islamic organization - although some countries consider them as a terrorist organization." So why aren't you doing that if you're TRULY neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecrunch001 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

Change "by Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic organization[13]" in second paragraph to, "by Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic terrorist organization[13]" - see citation below.

Citation: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/

Since 1997, Hamas has been officially designated a terrorist organization by the US Dept of State (and 86 other countries in the world) so it would be inappropriate and misleading to call them anything else... Crunch (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. - Frood (talk!) 05:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Gaza and the 1947 UN Partition Resolution

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved Resolution 181, recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The resolution called for the territory of British Mandatory Palestine to be divided into two states, an Arab State and a Jewish State, as well as a separate regime for the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area to remain for the time being under international control. Each of the two states consisted of three areas with majority Arab and Jewish populations, respectively, intertwined with each other. The current Gaza Strip was part of an area assigned to the Arab State that extended further along the Mediterranean coast, more than halfway from the Palestine-Egypt border toward Tel Aviv-Jaffa, as well as along the Egyptian border southward.

The rejection of the partition plan by the leadership of Arab Palestine and the Arab states contributed to the fighting that began immediately and continued after the final withdrawal of the British on May 14, 1948. The subsequent Egyptian army campaign that initially reached the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem was eventually repelled by Israel, and the 1949 armistice left the Gaza Strip under Egyptian rule rather than Palestinian Arab rule as envisioned by the United Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.254.4 (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fix request: Updated source for Buffer Zone

Currently the article says "In 2010, the UN estimated that 30 percent of the arable land in Gaza had been lost to the buffer zone.[160][163]" That should be changed to "In 2010, the UN estimated that 17 percent of the total land area of Gaza and 35 percent of the cultivable land in Gaza had been lost to the buffer zone." with this source: https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_special_focus_2010_08_19_english_1.pdf

I have an additional request for the Buffer zone section. Under the 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agremeent and reaffiurmed in the 2005 Agreed documents on movement and access from and to Gaza the security zone/buffer zone was defined by maps [2] [3],[4][5] as 0.5 km (500 meters). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origninal Evade (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Population density - fix required

"The territory is 41 kilometres (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometres (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide, with a total area of 365 square kilometers (141 sq mi).[15][16] With around 1.85 million Palestinians[3] on some 362 square kilometers, Gaza ranks as the 3rd most densely populated polity in the world.[17][18]"

The mentioned source ranked Gaza ranks it as 6th and not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghbeeri (talk • contribs) 10:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 Update needed

"The population is expected to increase to 2.1 million in 2020. By that time, Gaza may be rendered unliveable, if present trends continue." - Surely in need of an update, especially in the lead. 86.128.75.185 (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

We can update it, as more reliable sources support this statement, or it has become a reality. As 2020 is already well underway though, I think we can surmise this was probably cautionary hyperbole. If you have further suggestions, be sure to include the source for the statement in your edit request. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The Big Question

Can the Gaza Strip be compared to the Nazi ghettos created in Poland from 1941-1943? There remain striking parallels between the two, Firstly the Israelis control both food and water and during times of Palestinian rebellion against their captivity this supply is frequently stopped leading to mass thirst and hunger. The Nazis did the same thing although continually against the Jews being kept in the ghetto. The polish Ghettos were walled off districts of cities, Gaza is also walled off at specific roads and crossing border points. The rest of the territory of Gaza is fenced off with some sections being electrified. If anyone attempted to escape or protested at their confinement in the Polish Ghettos they would be shot dead this has striking parallels with those escaping from Gaza or protesting their confinement in the retched conditions of Gaza city. On Friday March 30 2018 the Israelis defence force shot dead 15 Palestinians and left a further 1000 injured.The IDF also rolled burning tyres at the protestors. None of the Palestinians were armed, many of the dead with woman and children and all were within the Jaza territory. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/farmer-killed-israel-latest-gaza-strip-west-bank-hamas-protests-mass-sit-ins-benjamin-netanyahu-a8281116.html from — Preceding unsigned comment added by DucPalatine (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Gaza Strip ... to be uninhabitable by 2020

Nableezy the source says will render the region virtually uninhabitable by 2020 key word: virtually (on page 6). A Thousand Words (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC) (page ref added A Thousand Words (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

This is a response to the discussion Nableezy started on my talk page. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok? Add the word virtually. nableezy - 07:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

What is "virtual unhabitability"? What's the difference compared to actual habitability and how is the difference explained to the layman WP:AUDIENCE? The source doesn't say. The text you reverted back into the article misrepresented the Al Wehaidy report as coming from the UN and the reference link was broken. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Imho the edit I did added material about actual demographics into the Demographics section instead of diverging into infrastructure which belongs in other sections. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, we are near the end of 2020 ... if the Gaza Strip is uninhabitable now, there should be plenty of WP:RS sources to support writing about it. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want the actual UN report (the 2020 prediction is very well known and widely reported) then it is here https://unsco.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/gaza_in_2020_a_liveable_place_english.pdf, "Gaza in 2020 A liveable place? A report by the United Nations Country Team in the occupied Palestinian territory August 2012. I also think it is true to say that the Gaza Strip is uninhabitable now by any normal applicable standard. There are multiple available commentaries about this and many current demands that the siege be lifted for precisely that reason. eg https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/12/26/covid-in-besieged-gaza-a-blockade-inside-a Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As Selfstudier says, the definition is according to the usual statistical means that determine conditions that are considered livable: 95% of the water consumed is 'technically' not drinkable, since it is considered toxic. They drink it, and, epidemiologically, run the risk of compounding their already serious precariousness healthwise. You can live, to use a hyberbole, in the area of Chernobyl, but the longterm prospects are for a severely reduced lifespan. A lot of the kibbutzes along the border of the Strip have delightful swimming pools.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should use sources from 2020 to describe living conditions as they are up to 2020, not predictions from seven years to say something about 2020. Any analysis of habitability should be WP:V verified in WP:RS. Nobody has opposed writing about actual living conditions such as water quality. A Thousand Words (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The article can source rs as saying whatever, there is no rule that we cannot report rs that make verifiable authoritative predictions about the future and in this case the prediction was as well widely reported. If you think there is a WP policy forbidding this usage, please point me to it, WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows it. To put it into perspective, some rs are now reporting on the reality matching the prediction and we can report on that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I fixed up the lead to reflect a current situation and to show that the sourced prediction was made in 2012.As reporting continues we can expect to see further updates on the living conditions there. The consensus of current reporting appears to be that Gaza has been "unliveable for a while not just reaching it now in 2020. The article body could really do with a section about the current conditions. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Pound

Adding Egyptian pound to currency such as in the State of Palestine and Palestinian territories page.

Egyptian pound (NIS; EGP) |Israeli new sheqel (ILS) |Jordanian dinar (JOD)<ref>According to Article 4 of the 1994 Paris Protocol. The Protocol allows the Palestinian Authority to adopt multiple currencies. In the West Bank, the Israeli new sheqel and Jordanian dinar are widely accepted; while in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli new sheqel and Egyptian pound are widely accepted.</ref>
Doremon764 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Add current event template because of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

I don't have 500 edits (yet), so I can't edit this page - but it's clear that the current events are effecting this article, and the Wikipedia:Current event templates are therefore appropriate. BobEret (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Current Events template is used to tag articles or sections about an event that is in progress, as it is expected that that article/section may become outdated very quickly. It does not apply to articles which do not require constant updates, even if they are connected to the event. CMD (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

Remove the space between "lifted" and the citations in the 3rd paragraph of the lead section: "The UN has also urged that the blockade be lifted [21][22][23]" Hyuhanon (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021 (2)

You need to modify the definition of hamas at the spot the page explain that gaza is currently govern by hamas- you have to add the fact that hamas is a terror organization!!! Otherwise it's irresponsible!! 2A01:73C0:502:902E:0:0:4B96:ADC7 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

The population is expected to increase to 2.1 million in 2020. in the lede should be changed, 2020 is gone :) --Dr.Bookman (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian Border Openings

"After the August 2013 Rabaa Massacre in Egypt, the border crossing was closed 'indefinitely.'"

Apparently it was re-opened in May 2018: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/04/733487137/i-want-to-get-the-hell-out-of-here-thousands-of-palestinians-are-leaving-gaza

https://www.reuters.com/article/palestinians-politics-egypt-int/egypt-opens-rafah-crossing-with-gaza-until-further-notice-sources-idUSKBN2A91J7

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-opens-rafah-crossing-early-palestinian-travellers-sources-2021-05-16/

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

Drsruli (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Overcrowding

A sentence in the lead says the Strip is often referred to as overcrowded. Elsewhere, we cite a UN report that mentions said overcrowding; can’t we attribute it to that? Also in the same sentence, the text “13th highest” is linked to List of countries by population growth rate; wouldn’t it make more sense to link the bit that says “population growth rate”? And the CIA World Factbook cite should probably be moved up from the end of the sentence for text-source integrity, as there’s no mention of overcrowding. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Please remove the {{By whom?}} on the “indirect occupation” quote in the lead. If the cited journal is considered a reliable source, it should be sufficient that the source states, The continued Israeli de facto or, as it was sometimes called, “indirect occupation” of Gaza …. Also, please add the word “sometimes”, as per the source. 96.8.24.95 (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, remove the International Security source and tag it as needing citation. The source is there to verify the claim that it’s described as an indirect occupation. If it doesn’t do that, dump it. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The {{By whom?}} is required to make the sentence more clear rather than the use of weasel words. As to add the word sometimes, that is again a weasel word. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 10:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Then should we avoid using that source here? The flagged sentence is simply reporting what the source says, so if that’s insufficient, it sounds like the source is equally insufficient for this use. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

clarification

"Due to the Israeli and Egyptian border closures and the Israeli sea and air blockade, the population is not free to leave or enter the Gaza Strip" - are there any reliable sources to this statement?

also, when saying "not free to leave or enter", does it mean they can't leave or enter or that they're just limited in doing so?

I believe clarification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.243.85 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Length of lede

Your tag of September 2021 says the lead section may be too long for the length of the article. It actually comes to about 5% of the word-count, and therefore very much a normal proportion, possibly even a little on the light side.

It is the main article that might be considered too long at over 13,000 words, and we should be looking at how to edit-down, possibly by condensing some of the history. Valetude (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the tags from the article. Bill Williams 21:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Section "Legality of Hamas rule"

Is there a particular reason, why three quarters of the section "Legality of Hamas rule" talk about anything but the legality of Hamas rule? By its title, one could be lead to believe, that the section's purpose is to discuss the legal implications of the 2007 takeover and the election-less time ever since, the legitimacy and tendencies of Hamas-imposed legal or para-legal enforcements, but then, surprisingly, the text is mostly preoccupied with Israel and IDF, a topic that seems abundantly covered in the rest of the article... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Stating that Gaza is self governed is a total falsehood. It is a Hamas dictatorship ruled by violence and the threat of violence like all dictatorships. The first election was the last election like all dictatorships. There is no self government in Gaza. Statethefacts99 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there an original link to the Quartet demands on the 2006 Hamas government ? The link provided doesn't seem to be an original source. The 2006 Palestinian election wikipedia page gives a link "Quartet Statement London, 30 January 2006. The Office of the Quartet." but my computer refuses to download that citing a security issue (is that just my overzealous anti malware programs ?) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WINEP survey

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy is certifiably identifiable with one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and using it as the sole source for opinions of the other side is silly. Especially given the conflicting surveys, for example from Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research here which is much better placed to provide insight in to the views of Palestinians. Or this one that finds the exact opposite, that a higher percentage of WB Palestinians support the two-state solution over Gazans (45 WB vs 38 Gaza). nableezy - 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What the hyper-pro-Israeli think tank is saying is that people in a concentration camp of Israel's making, many on bare survival levels for 2 decades, drinking often filtered sewage water, where to get treatment for cancer in Israel you are grilled until you give information to Shin Bet on your neighbours, and where close to 70% of the population is food-insecure and 86% of children under 5 had a minimally adequate diet thanks to Israeli restrictions, would prefer to live in Israel, where once their fathers or relatives earned a basic wage that provided them with some prospects in life than what is allowed to them in the shell-shocked world, malnourished world of the Gaza strip. The obtusity of earlier generations of anthropologists in framing question-begging questions to an indigenous people, getting partisan results, here finds yet one further reminder of how stupid such reports, generated by 'think tankers' in their comfortable airconditioned armchairs, can be. Obscene. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Abdel Hamid El Bilbeisi, Ayoub Al-Jawaldeh, Ali Albelbeisi, Samer Abuzerr, Ibrahim Elmadfa, Lara Nasreddine, 'Households' Food Insecurity and Their Association With Dietary Intakes, Nutrition-Related Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Among Under-five Children in Gaza Strip, Palestine,' in Front Public Health, 22 February 2022 should be used to replace the 2002 data in the section on health in our article if anyone can get a download of the full text.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, many thanks. I've just checked PCPSR, fascinating, it appears to have some interesting insights. Thank you for celebrating neutrality again, Nishidani. Tombah (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality doesnt mean pretending "both sides" have the same standing in any dispute. nableezy - 14:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Isn't PCPSR partisan too? Per WP:NPOV we should include both if they contradict each other. Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no it is not. We dont include one unreliable source as balance to a reliable one. From my reading it is one of the few widely respected public research groups in the Palestinian territories, and it in fact does a number of joint polls with Israeli academic institutions. nableezy - 21:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it your personal opinion that one is reliable and the other is not? Alaexis_¿question? 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a question of degree. WINEP is a US pro-Israel think tank and quite biased so it depends on what it is being cited for. For the purpose of interpreting polling of Palestinians by PSPCR, I think they are not reliable although I might be persuaded that Pollock is qualified as expert in his own name (not for WINEP) for the interpretation of certain PSPCR polls supervised personally by him for some years now (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/510?disposition=attachment might be OK again depending on what exactly is cited from it).

It's not difficult to source less partisan interpretation of PSPCR polls (also a think tank but not noticeably partisan), https://www.arabnews.com/node/2113551/middle-east makes many of the same points as the disputed WINEP article, why not use use that? Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

There are fifteen references to "the Strip" and three to "the strip", all of which are shortened forms of "the Gaza Strip", rather than phrases like "the strip of land". Please change all of them to use the same capitalisation; I don't care which one you pick. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023 (2)

This is a very long sentence:

Both the Israeli Navy and Egypt enforce the blockade, which continues currently and has limited many aspects of life in Gaza, especially, according to Human Rights Watch, the movement of people and commerce, with exports being most affected.

Please change it to:

Both the Israeli Navy and Egypt enforce the blockade, which limits many aspects of life in Gaza.  According to Human Rights Watch, it particularly limits the movement of people and commerce, with exports being most affected.

"which continues currently" is made redundant by the use of present tense. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Typo correction request

I can’t edit the page, but there’s a typo. In the 3rd paragraph it says “ The majority of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are descendants of refugees who fled or were expelledfrom what is know Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. “ this should rather be “ The majority of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are descendants of refugees who fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. “ It’s a small change, but the “know” should be “now” 2600:1017:B8C7:7777:1096:9CDC:DD93:11B3 (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

typo correction

"what is know Israel" should be "what is now Israel" 206.45.140.128 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity = Palestinian???

How can ethnicity be listed as Palestinian? There needs to be clarity on the lineage of such a people. My understanding is that they are Arabs from the neighbouring countries, displaced in 1948 and not accepted by the surrounding Arab countries. They aren’t an historic ethnicity but rather a group of refugees. 81.102.206.144 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The Christians among them are possibly not Arabs. Maronites and (I think) Melkites claim to be pre-Arab, possibly Phonecian.142.163.195.205 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Being ethnolinguistically categorised as Arab does not mean the Palestinians are from neighbouring countries, and that's definitely not the history. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

misrepresented source

The Oslo Accord permits Israel to control the airspaceand sea space, though the Accords also stipulated the Palestinians could have their own airport inside the Strip, which Israel has since then prevented from happening.

in the main article it cites a source which then provides no information on Israel preventing the construction on the airport.

reference to Isreal preventing construction should be correctly cited or removed ManicD101 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

An edit needs to be made to the population according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics the current population of the Gaza Strip is 2,226,544 inhabitants. QuinnZ23 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: I don't see where in the source the exact figure is. The only figure for total population I see is "2.23 million". Andumé (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Phrase

The article says "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, alongside the West Bank." It is _not_ alongside the West Bank. They are in completely different areas. It should say "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, along with the West Bank." That would mean that both are included in the list of territories. RandyKaempen (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

Change “Rami Hamdallah became the coalition's Prime Minister and has planned for elections in Gaza and the West Bank” to “Rami Hamdallah became the coalition's Prime Minister and had planned for elections in Gaza and the West Bank.” Abbyjedele (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

The blockade of Gaza as the reason for the poverty and low standard of living of the Gaza residents. The oppression and poverty of the Palestinians living is Gaza is due to Hamas, not Israel. The purpose of the blockade is to prevent weapons and materials used for weapons from reaching the terrorist group Hamas, which has administered Gaza since 2007. Hamas has co-opted millions of dollars in aid and materials for infrastructure to convert to buying and making weapons to use against Israel. Food, fuel and medical supplies are freely provided by Israel, however, Hamas restricts the importation of the majority of these items. Water and electricity are supplied by Israel for free. Thousands of Gaza residents are given work permits to travel to and from Israel on a daily basis. Zypzzz (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Great March of Return

The Great March of Return was a pivotal moment in the history of the Gaza strip and has been dealt with adequately in the body, I fail to see why it was removed from the lede (which is a summary of the body), to which no reason was given @Vice regent:. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok I didn't realize that. But please add it with the why it was significant and what it represented, all in one sentence. VR _talk 12:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Two “culture” sections

There is both a “religion and culture” section and “culture and sports” section. I recommend removing “and culture” from the religion section because that section mostly focuses on religion rather than culture. Or perhaps change it to “Religion and Islamic law” or something similar. 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:4CF5:E505:DE8B:B7FD (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorted, along with some other common sense structural changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Strip" vs "Gaza Strip"

I think to be consistent, instances of "Strip" should be changed to "Gaza Strip" e.g. "The Strip is 41 km...". 99.35.20.39 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@99.35.20.39 There is a significant difference between Gaza and the Gaza Strip.Gaza is one side, and surrounding Gaza/Gaza Strip, it is under Israeli control. Shalom67 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That may be true in some contexts.

But unfortunately the word "Gaza" is in fact often used to mean the "Gaza Strip".

For this reason, it would be better to avoid relying on the official "correct" usage and just always specify unambiguously what area is being referred to. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:C00E:3FA7:BE10:BF0D (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation

@Wh15tL3D09N: You have refused to engage in the talk page and violated WP:1RR three times already, revert yourself before this is reported as edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

Two small edit requests:

1) In the following sentence from paragraph 5 in the first section, please replace the initial indefinite article ("An") with the definite article ("The"), because this buffer has just been mentioned / described; the indefinite article is therefore confusing.

So, "An extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's Palestinians"

should instead be rendered

"The extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's Palestinians"

2) In the same sentence, please replace "Palestinians" with ""Inhabitants," because in this case that is the more accurate, inclusive, neutral, and unambiguous term.

Thank you for the hard work! timbo (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

In the lead, please change "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, alongside the West Bank" to "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, together with the West Bank." It is not alongside the West Bank, they are on opposite sides of Israel. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:6993:6432:A50:ADD (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not alongside as in “along the side of”, alongside as in a synonym of “together with” 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:4CF5:E505:DE8B:B7FD (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but other readers may not be. Since "alongside" and "together with" are synonyms, the ambiguous one should be replaced with the unambiguous one. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:40C4:C55F:22B9:FDCF (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Restoring old version

Opening pargraph must not contain too much detail, as the recent edit has added:

"Due to the dense population on a narrow strip of land, high poverty and unemployment rates, and blockade, living conditions in Gaza have led human rights organizations to continue to label it "an open-air prison". Gaza has eight universities, several colleges, a small manufacturing industry, entrepreneurs, and farmers. From 2014-2020, U.N. agencies have spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020."

All of this should be replaced with "Living conditions in the Gaza Strip have led human rights organizations to label Gaza as "an open-air prison"." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's already written there as well, so what's the problem as it stands? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."

The amount of aid Gaza recieves does not belong there, nor do the reasons why Gaza has been labelled as an open-air prison; which have been changed from having the blockade causing the high unemployment, to the high unemployment being a factor alongside the blockade; this is discussed in appropriate detail in the following lede paragraphs. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You would remove the expanded reasons on that part. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably fair enough. It's a bit of tangential list. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say an oppressive one party state is very controversial (is Gaza a state?) and should not be in lede, because it also isn't even mentioned in the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that was added. I didn't realise it was to the lead. Yes, it's undue there. Technically Hamas won the last election, and it is Fatah that refused to concede and decided to run the West Bank as a one-party system and never hold another election. It's pretty complex. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The word state comes from one of the sources, to be precise Guy Burton calls it a 'de facto state'. As to the characterisation as 'one-party' and 'oppressive,' does anyone dispute that? If it's not in the article body it should be added there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

gaza population

needs to be updated since 500 of them were killed 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:7115:2460:37CD:5E1F (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Gaza the third most densely populated region in the world?

The article asserts: "With a population of 2 million, on some 365 square kilometers, Gaza, if considered a top-level political unit, ranks as the third most densely populated in the world." Dividing the population estimated as of 2022 (2.375mln as stated in the article) by the area, the density is 6507/km2. One of the citations provided is Copeland (2011), "Drawing a Line in the Sea: Gaza Flotilla Incident & Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It says: "In fact, the Gaza Strip is the 6th most densely populated polity on Earth, just behind Gibraltar. If Gaza City’s approximately half million residents are considered separately, they live in a density equivalent to Hong Kong or Singapore." The Wikipedia assertion says third most densely populated polity, whereas Copeland says it is ranked 6th. Either the citation should be removed, or the article needs to be amended to be consistent with the citation. If Gaza is treated as a country, it is ranked the 3rd most dense country in the world, just below Monaco and Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density. (Macau and Hong Kong have higher density, but they are not countries. Hong Kong's urban density when we exclude the mountainous terrain unsuited for building on, is substantially higher than the total area suggests.)

A more serious problem with the article is that it is misleading to assess Gaza's population density by treating it as a standalone polity. In terms of area and population size, Gaza is more appropriately viewed as an urban area, or city. Many cities around the world, when treated as a standalone polity (or "top-level" political unit as phrased in the article), have urban density exceeding Gaza's. Tel Aviv in Israel for example, has a urban density of about 8,000/km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv). According to the Wikipedia pages on the corresponding cities, numerous other urban densities around the world are higher than Gaza's: Jerusalem (7,800/km2), Seoul (16,000/km2), Osaka (12,214/km2), Manila (22,000/km2), metropolitan Cairo (8,113/km2), Athens (7,400/km2). In fact, according to the 19th annual edition of Demographia World Urban Areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf), Gaza ranks way down at 236th in the world, compared to urban areas with a population of over half a million.

It appears the regularly cited misleading claim about Gaza's density is politically motivated. Doraemon1066 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree this is a subject that is open to debate, you are mixing apples and oranges in your attempt. The Demographia table you provided does not refer to the whole strip (only 88 square miles), while your comparison against cities doesn't account for the fact that the Gaza Strip contains multiple cities. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First, you have not addressed my point about inconsistency between the Wikipedia article and the citation from Copeland (2011), the first asserts that Gaza is the 3rd most densely populated while the latter the 6th. Inconsistency between article and source must be corrected.

Secondly, the Demographia table considers only the "built up urban areas" as shown at top of the tables, excluding the farmlands and less populated areas around and between those areas. If Demographia included all the land in their calculation, the population density would go down, hence Gaza Strip would rank even lower compared to other urban areas in the world.

Thirdly, what counts as a city, as opposed to a district within a city, is a function of political administration and governance. It does not necessarily reflect how closely bunched are the residents, which surely is the main point of the assertion that Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated area in the world. The article hypotheses Gaza Strip as a single "top-level political unit". The question then is should this unit should be viewed as a country or as a city. According to the Palestinians themselves and many UN Resolutions, Gaza Strip is an integral part of a single Palestine entity. So it should not be viewed as a standalone country. The only way someone can substantiate the claim that Gaza Strip is the 3rd most densely populated polity in the world, is when it is viewed as a country and compared to other countries. This is mixing apples and oranges.

Fourthly, if we compare what are commonly referred as cities within Gaza Strip, against other global cities, it remains true that Gazan cities are less densely populated than many around the world. Gaza City's density 13,000/km2 according to Wikipedia, placing it below Manila (43,064/km2), Bnei Brak in Israel (30,854/km2), Levallois-Perret in France, Damascus, Macau, Mumbai, Seoul, Barcelona, Cairo, to name just a handful of cities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density. Indeed, Gaza City would rank about 80th in this table.

In short, the claim that Gaza Strip is one of the most densely population polity is misleading and politically motivated. Doraemon1066 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza is listed 63rd most densely populated location according to USA today. New York City has 1.7 times more density than the Gaza Strip. This is based on numbers from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population this page lists 5 cities with in the United States with a higher population density than GAZA.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-population-density-of-the-gaza-strip#:~:text=Gaza%20City%20is%20the%2063rd,at%2042%2C059%20per%20square%20mile.

the 2601:CA:203:B80:1470:18C0:D831:7D1D (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Seth, M.J. (2021). Not on the Map: The Peculiar Histories of De Facto States. Lexington Books. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-7936-3253-1. In some ways the Gaza Strip became a de facto sovereign state on its own. Its internal affairs were not controlled by any-one. If it is regarded as a state it would be the third most densely populated one after Monaco and Singapore. Close to 2 million people are packed into its tiny area 41 kilometers (25 miles) long and 6-12 kilometers (3.7-7.5 miles) wide. And even part of this is an uninhabitable buffer zone. But it neither claims to be sovereign nor is it recognized as such. Instead it is regarded as under "indirect occupation" by Israel.

• Kao, R.W.Y. (2007). Stewardship-based Economics. World Scientific Publishing Company. p. 25. ISBN 978-981-4476-16-4. The Gaza strip is hardly a paradise for the Palestinians. They face extremely difficult economic conditions, not just because of the Israeli occupation of these regions as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War. Almost 1.4 million of them are crowded onto 360 square kilometers of land, which is ranked the sixth most densely populated region in the world. All those ranked above it (Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco and Gibraltar) are significantly more wealthy, with the first four being among some of the wealthiest places in the world. By contrast in Gaza, some families have lived in crowded refugee camps ever since they fled or were expelled from Israel in 1948 during Israel's war of independence. Unemployment is inordinately high, particularly since many Palestinians have been unable to get to their jobs in Israel after Israel closed its borders to Palestinians for security reasons.

See above - there are sources for 3rd and sources for 6th. Depends on what counts as a state. The real point, as stated in the quote above, is that all other highly populated polities are wealthy, whereas the Gaza Strip is in dire poverty. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's really more about the urban quality of life, living space, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Before someone can make arguments about the socioeconomic condition of Gaza Strip, one must first get basic premises right. The claim that the Gaza Strip is the 3rd most densely populated polity in the world is misleading for the multiple reasons I have identified. It is also politically motivated, to score political points about the alleged "occupation" (this claim is itself highly contentious). You still haven't addressed my first objection: the inconsistency between the article's assertion and the Copeland citation must be resolved, either by amending the assertion or by removing the citation. The fact that Gaza Strip is poor is irrelevant to the determination of its population density relative to comparable regions around the world. First settle facts about its relative population density, then one can build further arguments about its socioeconomic condition.

Seth (2021) writes: "If it [Gaza Strip] is regarded as a state it would be the third most densely populated one after Monaco and Singapore." This would be a true conditional statement: if X then Y. The Wikipedia article can repeat this. But it leaves open the question, is the precedent X true: should we regard the Gaza Strip as a state? Neither the Palestinians nor UN regard it as such, and they do not aspire it to become a sovereign state in the future. The excerpt from Seth (2021) acknowledges this. As a matter of logic, when the antecedent in a conditional statement is false, any consequent Y is true. Here the conditional statement is vacuously true and uninformative. If we regard other cities around the world (e.g. large cities with urban slums - Manila, Mumbai, Lagos, Jakarta) as sovereign states, they too would be densely populated, more so than Gaza Strip: "If Manila/ Mumbai/ Lagos/ Jakarta / Cairo is regarded as a state, it would be among the most densely populated states in the world." Whatever reasonable definition of a "state" is adopted, Gaza Strip definitely is not a state. So it is illegitimate to compare Gaza Strip to genuine states for purpose of assessing its population density. More appropriate comparisons are densities of urbanised areas as shown by Demographia whereby urbanised regions of Gaza is ranked 236th, or ranking of Gaza City relative to other cities in the world where it is positioned 80th. That Gaza is poor is not in dispute. But in terms of available living space, numerous other urban centres around the world - some rich others poor - have to contend with much more crowded environments. For comparison, Kowloon City District in Hong Kong has a population of around 400k and population density of 42,000/km2, which is multiple times higher than Gaza City's 13,000/km2.

Seth (2021) uses Singapore as a comparison. The populated areas of Singapore is actually more densely populated than implied by the ratio between the population size and the country's total area. The country has large regions reserved as rainforests and nature reserves, limiting the amount of space available for housing.

The Kao (2007) citation mixes apples, oranges and pears. It compares Gaza Strip with Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco and Gibraltar. Some of them are countries, others are "special administrative regions", one is an overseas territory of a sovereign state. Gaza Strip is none of these. It appears Kao's source exclude cities. Residents of mumerous cities around the world live in way more crowded conditions. Kao's commentary on Gaza (not the main subject of the book, which is on "stewardship-based economics" according to the title) is outdated. He writes: "Although Gaza is strategically important to Israel, Israel was willing to give it up...To both the native Palestinians and the Israeli settlers, however, the Gaza strip represents their home". All Jewish settlements in Gaza were dismantled, many forcibly, by the Israeli army in 2005.

I propose the following resolutions:

1] Remove the Copeland citation, and replace with Seth. Reword the article along the lines "If the Gaza Strip is regarded as a state, it would be the third most densely populated one in the world." Wikipedia readers can decide for themselves whether Gaza Strip should be regarded as a state.

2] Add some statement and reference to the Demographia article, which is very informative by showing a comprehensive list of urban centres with 500k+ populations. Doraemon1066 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You're thinking way too much about this, and drawing in pointlessly tangential material. Just find more sources that speak directly to Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have pointed multiple times to the sources that speak directly to Gaza's density:

1] The 19th annual edition of Demographia World Urban Areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf), ranks Gaza at 236th in the world.

2] Gaza City would rank about 80th among cities globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density.

The assertion that Gaza is the 3rd densest polity, without qualification, is misleading at best, and is disinformation at worst. Doraemon1066 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"3rd" might not be accurate, but please stop taking your pointers from primary sources and Wikipedia pages - you should just reference a secondary source like this CNN piece or this NBC one. But, to be honest, its density alone isn't really the point: it's its density combined with the fact that it is always getting bombed, when it is clearly an insane and basically criminal place to use heavy ordinance. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence in question is purely about the density. Rather than give a ranked comparison, which is something inherently dubious for population density anywhere given all the assumptions any calculations is going to have lumped into it, perhaps the ranking part of the sentence should be replaced with a bit more geographical information, such as the shape (41 km long and 6 to 12 km wide as the body says).

While on the topic of density, for all the sources posted here and the impacts the density has on the people and area, there is nothing about density in the entire body (outside of the most general possible mention in "Economy"). Proper coverage in the body would provide a much better framework for discussing how it might be covered in the lead. CMD (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The CNN piece is acceptable though imperfect as a citation, as it asserts Gaza is densely populated without making the misleading "3rd densest" claim. The piece acknowledges "the Demographia report found Gaza City isn’t as packed as the world’s most dense cities" and "Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are both crowded cities – Jerusalem’s population is the densest across the region". It was through the CNN article that I located the Demographia report, which is highly informative on urban densities around the world. This primary report should also be cited.

In response to your insistence on secondary source, I propose citing USAToday article concerning Gaza City's density: "With 42,059 people per square mile, Gaza City is the 63rd-most densely inhabited urban region in the world."

Your concluding sentence proves my point: the oft-cited claims about Gaza's density is never about accuracy, but is politically motivated to be used as a soundbite.

Gazans in North Gaza will be out of harm's way from the bombing if only Hamas would allow them to evacuate to the south and stopping using civilians as human shields. Doraemon1066 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and delete your last paragraph. Such nonsense is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Something about density needs to be in the lede – it is one of the most commonly stated points made about the strip in all forms of media. Some of the political claims made by Doraemon1066 above are wholly inappropriate and insensitive when thousands of people are being killed in this area right now, and precisely because of its density. It is not clear to me which “political side” allegedly benefits from this density fact, as it can be used both ways, but I suspect if you asked the million people told recently to “evacuate” they would tell you it certainly feels like one of the densest places in the world. Unless the rhetoric can be toned down, I suggest we pause this conversation until after the current round of killings have stopped. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This statistic seems cherry-picked to imply that the population density is the primary cause of poverty in the territory, whereas one might otherwise argue that it’s mostly due to poor governance and warfare. Heptor (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Citation number 166 corresponds to a BBC article which mentions around 250 kills, however, in the text you wrote 1300 deaths. 2A02:2149:8A60:6A00:C94A:A406:CCC:7B65 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 04:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Stance of Israel

Israel doesn't recognise the independence of Gaza, or does it? --95.24.70.129 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"exclave"?

it's not really an exclave is it? That would imply that the West Bank is the 'real' country, and the GS outside of it. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Gaza Strip + West Bank = Palestine.

Also we have Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic + Azerbaijan Proper = Republic of Azerbaijan.

Well, Nakhchivan is called an exclave of the whole Republic. Why couldn't we say Gaza Strip is an exclave of Palestine? Aminabzz (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Gauze

Since Gauze is made in Gaza and is named after it we can add the information in the history section. Aminabzz (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered in Gaza City, a more appropriate location than this relatively new entity. CMD (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth's revert

Dovidroth you made a messy edit[6] in which you removed lots of sourced content. It seems like you blanket reverted several editor's edits in an attempt to restore material? Can you please self-revert and then carefully only add/remove the material that you're intending to add? VR _talk 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree about only adding/removing intended material. Edit warring between two versions will never produce happy results. There's a lot of work to do on the article and edit warring will prevent that. Please discuss challenged material. 𝔇𝔞𝔱𝔢 𝔞 𝔑𝔢𝔯𝔡 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

They have additionally restored several factual errors and blatant POV-pushes in their latest revert, along with violating their arbitration enforcement sanction. Lets see if we get a response this time. nableezy - 09:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 23:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

lead rewrite

Having gone back to the pre-sock lead, there was quite a lot of bloat in it. I tried to trim as much as I could to keep a factual concise lead, but it does need a bit more history, though that was lacking previously too. But I cut out a bunch of the meandering and things that belong in the body. If asked will self-revert. nableezy - 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No need, it seems like a decent lead to me. I reverted a mass restoration, pending discussion of such additions, preferably one at a time. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current version as of writing seems pretty concise and smooth to read. Needs improvements of course but nothing the likes of what has been added in past few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course one is allowed to do edit and change. But you wrote in your edit summary that the big edit you did was to return the webpage to the pre-sock lead. That's false! I myself have edited the page, I'm certain dozens of editors have edited the page. The particular sentence in the beginning of the lead that refers to Gaza being ruled by Hamas as a one party state was very well sourced and completely befitting.

Why make huge changes without discussion in the Talk page. I therefore call to revert the page to what it was before the big editing spree and from there make the changes.

Why this version and not the other? Two weeks of hard work gone. Many agreed on that evolution. Why this version? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You introduced a number of factual errors in to the lead of the article, and you did it without a single bit of discussion on this talk page. For example, you inserted that the occupation ended in 2005, it did not according to most reliable human rights organizations and the UN and a majority of academic sources. You introduced into the lead of the article that Hamas "brutally cracking down and executing opponents", despite the fact that this is one source discussing one event 8 years ago. Yes, your two weeks of work in which a number of changes were made to this article that are either POV-driven or factually incorrect were reverted. They never had consensus for them. Im fine going back to the pre-October 7 lead, but the propaganda piece that emerged due to edits by a sock of a banned user and number of other editors who never discussed them here are not going to stand without an explicit consensus for them. And Alaexis should know better than to try to edit-war in contested changes. You dont get to radically rewrite an articles lead without discussion and then edit-war it into place. Full stop. You write Why make huge changes without discussion in the Talk page seemingly ignoring that this is exactly what you did. I in fact opened a discussion about my changes, and I offered to self-revert them. That offer still stands, but not to the propaganda version put together by you and some other editors without a hint of discussion on this page. nableezy - 15:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

These disprove your claims and invalidates them:

• "killing their rivals by throwing them off 15-storey buildings and mutilating their bodies"
• (Hamas) 'issued 180 death sentences and followed through on 33 of them "without the ratification of the Palestinian President in violation of Palestinian law'
• (Hamas) "executed a Palestinian father and son convicted of spying for Israel in defiance of President Mahmoud Abbas, who by law has final say in implementing such rulings."

TaBaZzz (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly does that disprove? And what does it invalidate? We cover the Battle of Gaza (2007), you want coverage on executing collaborators? In the lead of the top level article on Gaza Strip? You think that gets that level of coverage? nableezy - 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You based your claims for RV on

'(introducing) into the lead of the article that Hamas "brutally cracking down and executing opponents", despite the fact that this is one source discussing one event 8 years ago. "

— nableezy

This is all untrue as proven here by multiple sources. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No I did not base the revert on that, and no, the material in the lead in the diff I showed was based one on instance 8 years ago. One of your sources is about the Battle of Gaza, and the other two are about executing collaborators. That doesnt make anything I wrote untrue. And doesnt have anything to do with the revert. nableezy - 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

They all shows continuous occurrences of events, that you are trying to minimize and hide. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they show coverage of the Battle of Gaza, which we cover, and discuss executing collaborators. I dont think coverage of execution of collaborators reaches the necessary amount for inclusion in the lead of this article. Finally please do not attribute motives to me you have no knowledge of. Thank you. nableezy - 20:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong. Battle of Gaza was in 2007. The cites span 15 years after that. TaBaZzz (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, one of the citations you brought was about the Battle of Gaza. The other two are about executing collaborators. What overview of Gaza discusses executions of collaborators? nableezy - 21:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is in reference to the nature of Hamas' rule over the Gaza Strip. Is the term One party state problematic in your opinion? China's lead refers to China as a unitary one-party socialist republic . Eritrea is referred to as unitary one-party presidential republic. The use of the term One-party is used in Wikipedia leads to describe such regimes.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the use of Authoritarian Regime, (for example in Egypt's lead). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/hamass-authoritarian-regime-gaza

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas#chapter-title-0-5

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2021/04/23/halting-palestine-s-democratic-decline-pub-84383https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/10/12/in-the-realm-of-mass-terrorism-hamas-has-unleashed-a-singular-barbarity-against-a-civilian-population_6166551_23.html

https://counterterrorismethics.tudelft.nl/hamas/

Is this enough sources to prove that Hamas is ruling Gaza as an authoritarian de facto one party state? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that is problematic in your opinion is the sentence that states that Gaza is ruled by Hamas in as a defacto One party state?

This is widely known, well sourced and widely recognized. I don't understand why this shouldn't be included. Indeed it in fact essential and vital that the lead on the strip includes information regarding the nature of governance of that strip. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither the article body nor Governance of the Gaza Strip use that sort of language, nor do I see it as necessary (definitely not "essential and vital"). Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No that’s just one of the sentences. I’m pretty sure I laid out several issues including you inserting unsourced highly pov material like the occupation ended with the disengagement and Israel gives water food and electricity out of its own supplies in times peace. nableezy - 11:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

I've given the rationale for my edit in the edit summary. The information I restored is important and it deserves to be in the article

• Hamas has since brutally cracked down and executed opponents - is this contested? I can provide additional sources if needed.
• Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food, and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace. - is this contested? Not mentioning it while mentioning the blockade would violate WP:NPOV
• U.N. agencies have spent almost $4.5 billion in Gaza between 2014 and 2020, including $600 million in 2020 and In recent years, Israel has permitted thousands of Gaza Palestinians to work within its borders. Neither is controversial. Now that I'm looking at it, this should be added to the Economy section and then a summary added to the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

1. What source discusses such a thing in an overview of the Gaza Strip?

2. See Half-truth. Israel is, as occupying power, obligated to provide Gaza with water, food, and electricity. See for example Human Rights Watch: International humanitarian law requires Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, to ensure that the basic needs of the civilian population are provided for. Israel also must facilitate, not block, the delivery of humanitarian aid. Cutting water and electricity to the population amounts to unlawful collective punishment. Under international human rights law, governments must respect the right to water, which includes refraining from limiting access to, or destroying, water services and infrastructure as a punitive measure during armed conflicts. That sentence is a basic ploy to pretend that Israel is benevolent and the siege they are imposing, which reliable sources have flat out called a war crime and potentially a crime against humanity, is within their rights to withhold when it is not times of peace.

3. Again, half-truth. UN agencies have spent this much because of the airstrikes that have flattened neighborhoods repeatedly over the years. And because 90% of the population are UNRWA refugees. Israel has allowed a token number of Gazans to receive work permits in Israel, but again, what overview of Gaza includes that. But you cannot pretend like telling half of the truth in a way to obscure the reality is what that is not doing. And, regardless, edit-warring in a contested change is not acceptable. We can go back to the pre-sock lead if you want. Im not going to edit war this rewrite in either. But you cant force in these changes without consensus. nableezy - 11:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will look for sources re 1.

Re 2, even if we assume that Israel is the occupying power (not everyone agrees with that), then the extent to which it fulfills these "obligations" is notable. Only mentioning the blockade would also be a half-truth.

Re 3, I'll see what the sources say about the economy and will start with the economy section. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

2. no, that is not true, because nobody made note of it until Israel began withholding electricity and water, and then they called it a war crime. Would you like to include that they have since withheld these supplies and are being accused of blatant war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity?

3. I can recommend a book I just received, Roy, Sara (2007). Failing Peace: Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. London: Pluto Press (UK). ISBN 0-7453-2234-4.; and a few others by Roy like Roy, Sara (2015-11-01). The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies USA, Inc. ISBN 0-88728-321-7.. nableezy - 20:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel provides" seems inaccurate and at the very least it should "Israel sells", whether in the lead or body. VR _talk 02:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt belong period, it was added here with no source whatsoever, and in fact sources do indeed say "purchased" from Israel for water. nableezy - 04:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Should it not be in the body with appropriate context? "International law requires Israel as the occupying power to...In peace time, Israel allows Gaza to purchase water,..." VR _talk 06:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, something along these lines. Possibly also adding "According to Human Rights Watch," depending on how many others hold this opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 06:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion is irrelevant. The lede is a summary of the body and none of the mentioned points are adequately covered in the body, or even properly sourced or remotely neutral. "Israel provides Gaza with water during times of peace", so benevolent of the occupying power to control the water supply. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed text below is for the body. After we add it there we'll discuss how this content should be summarised in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

“ Most of water comes from groundwater wells (90% in 2021). Its quality is low and most of it is unfit for human consumption. The remainder is produced by water desalination plants or bought from Israel's Mekorot (6% of all water in 2021). International law requires Israel as the occupying power to ... ”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Im fine including that in the body, I dont see why any of it would go in the lead. Do territories or states usually specify where they get their water in the lead? Is it a topic that is usually discussed in an overview of Gaza? nableezy - 16:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But also I think this should be split off into a different section. The purpose of this one, at least my purpose when I made it, was to see if people wanted me to self-revert the rewrite back to the pre-Oct 7 lead. The lead that was modified then without discussion however is a non-starter in my view, and if people edit-war it back in then that may need outside intervention to deal with. But, as I wrote above, Ill self-revert my rewrite if anybody asks, or we can start building from here. nableezy - 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Amend section heading "2014 Gaza War to present"?

I wonder whether the words "to present" should be removed from this section heading as the section seems to cover only the events of 2014. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I just renamed it. Arp242 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli military occupation

The sentence "Following the 1967 Six-Day War the territory came under Israeli military occupation until 2005." is factually incorrect as Gaza is still considered occupied territory by the international community.

In fact, in the "Israeli-occupied territories" article Wikipedia itself admits that "the UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory; Israel rejects this characterization" 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B544:4CFA:3D7B:F3E8 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed we should use the consensus of the UN/Human rights organizations as the reliable sources for whether it is considered occupied Ashvio (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been a lot of changes since October pushing this article in a very particular way. See this diff. Many of them added by a sock of a banned user. Im going through the changes now to work out the improvements from the propaganda. nableezy - 15:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored the prior lead, the changes here were absurd and wholly undiscussed. Changing the status of the occupation to state the minority view as fact, removing that it is Palestinian and just defining it as a narrow strip of land, removing that the overwhelming majority are refugees, adding propaganda like "Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food, and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace" when they are obligated to do so as occupying power, adding that most of the territory was "handed over" under Oslo when it was still boots on the ground occupied. nableezy - 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia right now but it seems to be receiving less attention than some of the others. Ashvio (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat you have repeatedly put in a minority view as fact that Gaza ceased to be occupied with the disengagement. That is directly refuted by sources, and the sources you cite dont even support the contention. You cite the home page of OCHA oPt, which, surprise surprise, includes Gaza as occupied. You cite CNBC which repeatedly includes Gaza in the occupied territories (Gaza was under the control of Egypt from 1948 until 1967. Israel subsequently gained control of and occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank following its victory in the 1967 Six-Day War against Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The United Nations classifies Israel as an occupier state over the Palestinian territories. ... Between 2008 and 2023 before the current conflict, Israeli airstrikes had killed 6,407 Palestinians in the occupied territories, 5,360 of whom were in Gaza, according to the U.N. Over the same period, 308 Israelis were killed. ...) NDTV, poor choice that it is, never says Gaza ceased to be occupied. Reuters never says anything about an end to the occupation. Neither does Jerusalem Post. It is disputed that Gaza remains occupied, but the UN, the ICRC, most human rights organizations and most academic sources maintain that it remains occupied. Making your repeated attempt at claiming it is over pushing a minority POV as fact. nableezy - 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Oppressive one-party state"

The word 'oppressive' is biased and NPOV. Many think the US is also 'oppressive'.

You can use something like 'totalitarian' or 'authoritarian' which are more objective descriptors. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B544:4CFA:3D7B:F3E8 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The word "oppressive" is sourced to the Economist article, but is a very subjective term. I've boldly deleted it. Happy to discuss. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Strip is not a state. Neither has Hamas proclaimed independence, nor has any country recognized Gaza Strip as a state. VR _talk 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And that's how you build an encyclopedia. Using sources, at least a modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE, and not just taking things as writ just because they appear in a single WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright so I'll add that the Gaza Strip is ruled as a de facto authoritarian state by the Sunni Islamist organisation, Hamas.

Thanks for the help guys! Homerethegreat (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a very disingenuous conclusion to assume that there is support for your version considering another version was rejected. This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, nor does it belong in the lede given the absence of any sections about it in the body. Furthermore, I wouldn't give this label too much importance. There are several articles dedicated solely for talking about how Gaza is an "open-air prison", but none on how it is "de facto ruled as a one party state". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Presumably if it's like a prison, Hamas is more like the strongest prison gang than anything else - certainly far from anything state-like given that this level of autonomy has always been out of reach. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You can read the sources I attached. How many articles do you require to prove that Gaza is ruled by Hamas in an authoritarian manner? Please note included different sources. Including The Guardian, The Economist..

.

It's enough to support the sentence presented. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

.

Please note the attached sources. It doesn't matter much what one personally thinks. The facts are the facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, it is. So oppose this in the lead as undue (as well as irrelevant), something in the body is OK. And why is this being discussed again, anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopaedia which has a guideline stating that the lede is a summary of the body; not that the lede is a collection of random phrases. How the lede summarizes the body is subject to proportionality and due; there is not a mention in the body of this sourced piece of information, nor is there a dedicated section to give proportionality. Most importantly, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. The nature of governance does not belong in the lead? I thought it was acceptable to refer to the system of government in the lead? I mean, on China's Wikipedia, North Korea's etc. It refers to the type of regime in the Lead. Why should this be any different? In what paragraph of the Lead is it most fitting? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to keep repeating the arguments if you are not going to tackle them. Lede is a summary of body; there is not enough weight in the body for this to appear in the lede, and most importantly not the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Main articles do exist about the terrorist organization that control the area, and about its governmenf. They are also linked from this article. They provide the weight. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning by not enough weight. Its the appropriate Wikipedia norm to refer to summarize the nature of governance in the Lead. The territory is de facto ruled by Hamas. Nature of governance: authoritarian Sunni Islamism. There, a summary. In the body one can build upon and explain. But I don't understand why should the page not include this. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

West Bank governance is "authoritarian" too, Israel and PA. Can I go write in the Israel article that it is governed by the most right wing and extremist government in Israeli history? (sourced) in addition to "The country has a parliamentary system elected by means of proportional representation."? Doubt I would get very far with that. Remember too that Hamas participated in and won an election. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We're referring to this specific article and following examples of other Wikipedia articles. We refer to the nature of governance, however also take note that articles regarding countries that are authoritarian do have that information in the lead.

Israel's government is not relevant here, I understand this is a contentious topic. Please try and concentrate on the Encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. If you wish to raise issues regarding Israel and PA do so in the talk page of Israel and PA. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop referring to what WP does in other pages and I will. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, please try and use more polite terminology. It would be appreciated, I can understand this may be something close to your heart and therefore I do not judge. We must all try and make Wikipedia the most encyclopedic place. Thank you. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing impolite in what I said. Are you bored? Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As you said Lede is a summary of body. The nature of governance of Gaza absolutely belongs there and is essential for understanding the situation. Dovidroth (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So what in the body do you want to reflect in the lead and why is it due? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead ought to include that de facto Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, and that the nature of governance is authoritarian and Sunni Islamist. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in the body and undue anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Same as putting the word "occupied" before every piece of negotiable land. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Lets take a look at how sources describe Hamas as the government of Gaza, without trying to juice the google results by looking for favored words and phrasings:

• Council on Foreign Relations: Hamas has been the de facto authority in Gaza since shortly after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005. The following year, Hamas won a majority of seats in the PA’s legislature and formed a government. It earned votes for the social services it provided and as a rejection of the incumbent Fatah, which many voters perceived as having grown corrupt at the helm of the PLO and delivering little to Palestinians through its negotiations with Israel. The outcome was unacceptable to Fatah and its Western backers, and the party ousted Hamas from power in the West Bank. In Gaza, Hamas routed Fatah’s militias in a week of fighting, resulting in a political schism between the two Palestinian territories. Palestinians have not voted for a legislature since 2006, nor a president since 2008.

  As Hamas took over the remnants of PA institutions in the strip, it established a judiciary and put in place authoritarian institutions. In theory, Hamas governs in accordance with the sharia-based Palestinian Basic Law, as does the PA; but it has generally been more restrictive than the law requires, including by controlling how women dress and enforcing gender segregation in public during the early years of its rule. The watchdog group Freedom House found in 2020 that the “Hamas-controlled government has no effective or independent mechanisms for ensuring transparency in its funding, procurements, or operations.” Hamas also represses the Gazan media, civilian activism on social media, the political opposition, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), leaving it without mechanisms for accountability.

• Axios: The Gaza Strip is currently run by Hamas — a political party whose militant wing carried out the Oct. 7 attack. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and several other governments.

  Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007 when it ousted the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover after winning the Palestinian elections the previous year.

  Background: Gaza was controlled by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, when Israel captured the Strip in the Six-Day War.

  The Palestinian Authority was given some governing power in 1994, though Israel kept a military presence in the Strip for security reasons and to administer Jewish settlements that had been built in the Strip.

  Israel in 2005 withdrew its forces and evacuated Israeli settlers in a process called disengagement.

• Freedom House: Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has functioned as a de facto one-party state under Hamas rule, although smaller parties—including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and a faction of Fatah that opposes President Abbas—are tolerated to varying degrees. Some of these groups have their own armed wings and media outlets, and hold rallies and gatherings. However, those affiliated with Abbas and his supporters in Fatah are subject to persecution.

What youre trying to do here is take a line in a news article and say this is the defining characteristic of this article. What we should include are things like Freedom House saying the territory has low rankings for political and civil rights. Ill add some of that now. nableezy - 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a bit. nableezy - 14:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist organization oppressing the people of Gaza. Yes, it’s the main situation there for years. TaBaZzz (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM nableezy - 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Israel? / WP:NOTFORUM (both good answers) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The additions seem to do the job. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Freedom House source doesn't even properly support the claim, which is continued by "although" it tolerates other political groups. The line stating that Hamas has authoritarian policies for the lede is sufficient, descriptive and not controversial. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So we have all agreed that the following phrase is acceptable?

Gaza is ruled de facto by Hamas, an authoritarian Sunni Islamist militant organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. "governed" is just fine, and "authoritarian" is unnecessary, Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in that sentence, no. Another sentence as in the current version. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Trim

I have trimmed large portions of text that are largely irrelevant to be in the Gaza Strip article, and are already covered in the forked articles linked. Still a lot of work to be done; for example on the religion section, which discusses everything but religion in the strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Ok, those are some pretty big cuts - are you sure the material is covered elsewhere? For example, the economic history material - if you're going to make such cuts, surely splitting might be better? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would retract describing it as economic history. Instead of describing a coherent narrative, is a nonsensical collection of news articles that jump from IDF references to EU statements to other things remotely related to economy sometimes. I can’t think of any article scope that could host this, sorry to say, badly written content, which seems to have been inserted around 2012. Overall, the content that is not covered by the main articles is usually similar to this, just news pieces without conveying an important idea. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing this thread, I tried to understand these cuts and rearrangements, and it is impossible to understand them all. It would be much better to restore the prior version and make detailed edit summaries or talk page explanations for each of these many changes. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, some of the citations appear to have lenthy quotations embedded, possibly WP:COPYVIO but certainly appearing to give UNDUE weight to those particular views in a way not commensurate with NPOV for the article as a whole. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Citations have quotes because people challenge that they don’t directly support the material they are cited for. None of them come close to a copyright violation and it also has nothing to do with WEIGHT. nableezy - 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There does not appear to have been any such challenge as to the Verification of aritlce text, yet we now have several extended quotations presenting one view on controversial content. The effect is that the views published on this page are not presented with DUE WEIGHT according to their incidence in mainstream RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we have quotes from reliable sources backing up the material they cite, and we have here an editor making unsubstantiated claims about what they think is their incidence in mainstream RS without realizing those quotes are from mainstream RS. nableezy - 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

occupied and disengagement

The disengagement did not end the Israeli occupation according to Israel, according to Israel Gaza was never Israeli-occupied. The final sentence in the opening paragraph is just wrong. Now it did have an impact on what the Israeli Supreme Court said, their view is that Gaza was occupied prior to 2005 and that it ended with the disengagement. But when you say "Israel disputes" you are referring to the government of Israel, and the government of Israel has never accepted that any of the occupied Palestinian territories are "occupied" (maybe Sinai and Golan pre-Golan law? but that also isnt relevant here). As far as majority and minority views, see However, the majority of international opinion considers that Israel has retained effective control over the Gaza Strip by virtue of the control exercised over, inter alia, its airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry. nableezy - 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What alternative are you suggesting? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove since its 2005 disengagement from the opening paragraph. Basically change the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967 (though Israel disputes this following its 2005 disengagement from Gaza) to the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967, though Israel disputes that is occupies Gaza. nableezy - 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The text proposed by Nableezy is clearer than the wording you placed in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas missles

Hamas in the gaza strip have sent missiles killing some Israeli soldiers in Israel declaring war. Israel have called on reservist soldiers to join the soon to be expected retaliation. Briseventy9 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To be factually correct, Hamas has targeted civilians and Israeli towns, not soldiers or military targets. Israeli properties were damaged and civilians injured and killed. Meftech123 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

"the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967 (though Israel disputes this following its 2005 disengagement from Gaza).[6]"

This needs to be changed to: The Israeli military withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Gaza Strip has been under Hamas control since 2007.

Sources: https://www.npr.org/2005/09/12/4841877/last-israeli-troops-exit-gaza-strip ("The last Israeli soldiers leave Gaza early Monday, ending 38 years of Israeli occupation. Thousands of Palestinians rushed into the area that used to be the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and burned at least four synagogues.")

https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/14/gaza.pullout/

https://international.ucla.edu/israel/event/11390

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4 80.187.126.246 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

See above section, and no not done as requesting a minority POV be presented as fact. nableezy - 19:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely not an issue of POV. Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005 and Hamas has been the de-facto heads of the strip since. The way the article is worded now is objectively misleading 2A01:E34:EC42:1940:B85D:BE8B:B1F2:C6A5 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Un the section 2023: Israel-Hamas War, change:

As a result, is undergoing a severe humanitarian crisis.

to

As a result, the region is undergoing a severe humanitarian crisis. Rick in SoCal (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Footnote

@Homerethegreat: Isn't the failure of UNGA to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization not prominent information? Your reversal without taking this controversial edit to the talk page is not looking good. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The US military is designated as terrorist group by Iran, should we include that as an endnote everywhere the US army is mentioned? We have links for a reason. nableezy - 15:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

44 countries have thus designated it. " Isn't the failure of UNGA to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization not prominent information?" seems to be a POV question asking if I agree with you that it is a failure. I don't think we should delve into this matter. It is prominent information that an organization is considered terrorist by numerous prominent countries. WP:NOTCENSCORED. Furthermore this information was on the page for quite some time.

- is as follows: Efn|Designated as a terrorist group by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, and the United States|name=Hamas

Important information that should not be censored. Important context and information. Notable scholarship that also supports this. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This isnt the article Hamas. nableezy - 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want to censor the fact that it is not considered as such by UNGA minus the countries mentioned above? Isn't that important context and information? The fact that Turkey for example has labelled it as a resistance movement? Or do western countries hold a veto over narratives? First revert yourself then gain consensus here for this controversial edit. Footnotes are exlusively used to elaborate on information, not add new ones. If the sentence had been "some countries have labelled it as a terrorist group" then this would be in place, but this is not the case. This is just an attempt at adding information that was rejected to be in the prose. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

UNGA is a red herring. SPECIFICO talk 09:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning that Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, etc... do not consider Hamas a terrorist organization is "red herring"? No it's just adding context to what is an extremely biased footnote, which doesn't even relate to the context around it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blockade justifications

Blockade justifications does not belong in lede; just as Hamas war justifications doesn't belong in Israel's lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case if RS generally mention these justifications when describing how it came about. Also, it's an example of false balance, it's quite possible that one side's justifications are based on reality and the other side's ones aren't. In short, we should follow RS. Alaexis_¿question? 21:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)