Talk:Rafah offensive

45 civilians

Nowhere in the sources attached is the claim made that the 45 reported dead (23 women, children and elderly e.i. 22 adult men) were all civilians, yet the article reads: "The attack killed at least 45 civilians and drew international criticism" --192.114.91.243 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What an absolutely ghoulish thing to say. As if Palestinian males can just be automatically assumed to be combatants simply because they are "of military age." 64.124.75.150 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Super Bowl massacre into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge what is now 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes into Rafah offensive; WP:TOOBIG for the merge and the events of 12 February 2024 are independently notable.Klbrain (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Article covers the same topic as this article, although in different detail. ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support merging that into this article. Historyday01 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also support merging ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Very notable incident with lots of deaths and deserves its own article. The Rafah offensive is an ongoing battle that is still not over and it will get expanded over time Abo Yemen✉ 12:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Notable in its own right. The incident was planned in concurrence with the Super Bowl to fly under the radar in the news cycle. It cannot be so quickly dismissed. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose — For an additional reason: From a technical standpoint, this article would become too big. Yue🌙 04:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Requested move 13 February 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Rafah offensive → Proposed Rafah offensive – The offensive on Rafah has not occurred yet- the article title speaks as if it has. Alternatively could be Planned Rafah offensive, idk, but I think Proposed works for now. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 19:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed: The suggested title sounds like it is describing a proposal. Who is proposing it? Who is it being proposed to? I'm also not sure the article title should depend on whether such an offensive has begun or not. I think there are other articles on Wikipedia about various planned, feared, expected, anticipated and hypothesized events that have not yet occurred that don't say that explicitly in their titles. Also, considering the incursion of 11 February and the airstrikes of 3–12 February, it does not seem clear that such an offensive has not yet begun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Saying it is "proposed" is incorrect and promotes misinformation. This request should be withdrawn.Historyday01 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Rafah offensive is CONCISE and clear topic name. There have been bombings in Rafah already. Article body itself can address the finer nuances of whether a major offensive happened or didn't etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy close The offensive is planned, not proposed. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy close per Hades. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Timeline

What's with this long timeline for an offensive that hasn't taken place? Some of the subsections are just one sentence long. They should be merged into a more cohesive prose, removing unnecessary or repeated details. Super Ψ Dro 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this not marked as ongoing?

Israel has conducted operations in Rafah for over a month now, why is this not marked as an ongoing event? Bill3602 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Military operations != military offensive; the latter is an escalation of the former. Yue🌙 04:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Deadline for the offensive"

Under February 19, it says:

Israel sets a deadline for the offensive, saying it will begin if the hostages aren't freed by Ramadan.

However, the actual date of the offensive is not pegged to the beginning of Ramadan; it merely says an invasion will take place at some point if their demands are not met by Ramadan. 675930s (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Evacuation plans?

Would it be relevant to put Israeli announcements of evacuation plans on the timeline? I've two sources right now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-15/israel-prepares-rafah-evacuation-after-netanyahu-approves-plan https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/13/israels-war-on-gaza-live-netanyahu-vows-to-finish-the-job-in-rafah 675930s (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit

The statement "Netanyahu stated [...] "Whoever tells us not to operate in Rafah, is telling us to lose the war" is repeated both in 17 and 18 February.31.221.171.151 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no, sorry, the second is "an ear".31.221.171.151 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

RAFAH - published plan

https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/2024_q2/Article-95775f0a0b31f81027.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802

Exposing N12: step by step - this is what the Israeli plan for the Rafah operation looks like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:B6D:E300:B873:AFBF:5311:4BA4 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition casualty

The child that was saved from its mother's womb has died.

21 April "One woman who died in the strike was pregnant, but doctors were able to save the baby through C-section"

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68903591 Patrikooke (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Israeli strike in Rafah, on the 3rd of May

Could we get a source regarding this that isn't derived from a news source that has bias? Both of the references for this particular incident are from far-left sources or news media sources based in Arab countries. Saegenschnitter (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely wild how you think you can get away with the subtle implication that Arabs are liars. 64.124.75.150 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

1RR violation

@Galamore: The last two edits you made are in violation of 1RR [1], waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli forces have begun the offensive

Please change the status and the article as a whole Koploboblo (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2024

change title to Israeli invasion of Rafah 98.110.81.233 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Liu1126 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

civilian casualties in third box

it puts civilian casualties on Hamas’ side, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to put civilian casualties in the box under both side’s military casualties? 142.197.246.54 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Background is too long

What's the purpose of including such a detailed timeline of so many actions in Rafah? It should only include the causes of the offensive, and actions that made major headlines for a while. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That lot should mostly (not all) go to Timeline of the Rafah offensive or some such. I might do it later if no-one else does. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I just copied it over to a new timeline article, needs tidying up and some material may need to be returned to fill out the background section. Selfstudier (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli 401st brigade

The israeli 401st brigade entered the rafah crossing according to Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/7/israel-takes-control-of-rafah-crossing-gazas-lifeline-whats-going-on

therefeore we should add it to the Units Salafips1 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Done Durranistan (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It should be the "104th" Brigade, not 104st SirDoor (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, the article mentions the 401st Brigade, not the 104th, my bad SirDoor (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

my bad bro i meant to write 401st brigade Salafips1 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

dude can you change the 104st to 401st brigade Salafips1 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be 2024 Israeli attack on Rafah or something like that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

yes or 2024 Israeli invasion of Rafah 173.72.3.91 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Problem with characterization of offensive

We have here an article with an unqualified section titled "offensive". Yet reliable sources don't agree that there is an offensive. In fact The New York Times categorically stated 10 hours prior to the time I'm writing this that there is not what most readers might imagine when reading the Wikipedia article: a major ground offensive It did not appear to be the long-promised full ground invasion of Rafah, which Israel's allies have been working to avert... [2]. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I mentioned the title above, I think I might just move it if no-one objects. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: What do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it’s not the full offensive, but media refers to this as the ‘Rafah offensive’, before and after it started(?). This is the first time Israel went into Rafah to hold ground, not just for a raid. To me, this signals the start of the offensive. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What about 2024 Israeli operations in Rafah? Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe invasion, or just operation singular. We could open up a move request and see Personisinsterest (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We have Haaretz Exclusive | Israel Commits to Limit Rafah Operation, Grant Control of Crossing With Egypt to Private U.S. Firm, usually reliable, saying that it is a limited op and control of crossing to be handed over to some private company.

If we can agree on a title, I think people will maybe not object to the move, avoid the bureaucracy if possible. If people should disagree then they can revert and open RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that the title should be 2024 Israeli operation/s in Rafah or something along the lines of that for now. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would sign on for the title 2024 Israeli (or IDF) operations in Rafah, and would not object to replacing "operation/s" with "incursion". Invasion I think is a bridge too far for a technical reason: according to the UN, Israel already occupies Gaza, so either invading is redundant, or we need to have another discussion about what occupation entails, and I don't think that would be fruitful. New title would come with a corresponding change in nomenclature in the article section header(s) of course. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel maybe operations would be better, considering the seizure, fighting on the outskirts, airstrikes, and evacuations. Incursion sounds temporary and hasn't been used much by media. I feel it's between offensive and operations, and operations might be winning out for now because of the noted small-ish scale of this though. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The White House has confirmed that Israel told it that it's a limited operation [3]. So we should use the word operation, not offensive. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead para looks odd and "The Rafah offensive is an ongoing offensive in the city of Rafah" is kinda pointless, it is a descriptive title which doesn't need bolding, this kind of unnecessary duplication should be avoided.

I don't mind leaving it at offensive for the time being on the grounds that Israel keeps threatening to carry one out but so far we are just seeing smaller operations/attacks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the people in Rafah might demur on the topic of whether what's going on is "smaller". Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just pointing out that source #34 (ToI, 8 May) states No soldiers have been wounded in the operation so far. Which is consistent with an unopposed operation, not an "offensive" if that term is to mean anything. I don't think we even are seeing a battle, referring to Military operation to find an example of the scale of things that are included in "operation". (Reuters says there may be some action near "the airport" which must be this ruin which is amid farmland outside the area of settlement.) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that because the military operation solely consists almost entirely of murdering civilian families in tents and that no soldiers have died means that it can't be considered a serious operation. Admittedly most military operations don't consist largely of this, but Israel isn't any old state, it's an ethnonationalist perpetrator of state terror, so it's all par for the course here. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The operation is not one of murdering civilians in Israeli-purchased tents [4]. They are telling civilians to evacuate [5][6] the tents. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel has struck Rafah every day since this began. Reliable sources are measuring seriousness by amount of ground taken. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously guys, @Iskandar323:, @Wafflefrites:, can we please avoid arguing over what Israel is doing wrong or right. That isn't related to the topic we have at hand - whether this should be called an operation or offensive. Please focus on the topic and whether the scale of the Rafah attack qualifies it is an operation or offensive, do not argue about who's right or wrong here please. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not about scale; it's about effect. They've invaded eastern Rafah, up to and including the crossing (and cut off aid). It doesn't matter whether or not this is a completed offensive for the military planners at this stage or not. An offensive can start and even be aborted. Here, an offensive was announced and an offensive is underway. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear from your earlier comment, that your reasoning is based solely on opposition to Israel's assault. Please don't push your POV here. Linkin Prankster (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet it is irrelevant when the language is both used in RS and descriptively accurate. If people want to rename the page, they may start an RM, but there is no informal consensus to do so, and I see no policy grounds for it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources measure everything that happens in Gaza as high in humanitarian effect (because it is), but also they have to measure this in ground taken. Sure, there's fighting on the outskirts, but they haven't entered the heart of the city where mostly everyone is. That's the red line for America, that's the big thing the media is waiting for. That's where the significance is.

It could also be argued that warnings over a full offensive sound worse than about this. Sources have warned that thousands could die in a full offensive, which makes the 60 people killed here more insignificant. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Relatively" insignificant would be better, no? Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to get at that with 'more insignificant' but that's a better way to put it. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources are still using “Rafah offensive”, “Rafah incursion”, and “Rafah operation.” I can see any of these being used, but right now we don’t know what the scale or number of casualties will be. The IDF may be planning a “precise” “limited” operation based on intelligence, but that is what they planned for in their 2024 2:30 am Al Shifa operation when their soldiers were “briefed in advance regarding the importance of preventing harm to civilians, patients, medical teams, and medical equipment” [7] and Al Shifa is now non functional with hundreds of casualties after two weeks of fighting inside and around the hospital.

Israel is planning an operation for at least 6 weeks [8] which includes evacuating civilians in this urban warfare environment, so right now may be too early to determine the operational scale. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, it seems that an offensive is proceeding despite calls to stop. South Africa has asked the ICJ to order Israel to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Strength of invading force and number of brigades

The infobox wrongly suggests that "5 other brigades" are participating and the total strength of the IDF invading force is 3,000-5,000.

The source used (Al Jazeera) [9] says that IDF is "redeploying a force of about six brigades (3,000-5,000 soldiers) to a base near Rafah."

The article clearly says these are brigades deployed to a IDF base near Rafah (likely a border base). This doesn't mean they're participating in the assault, but defending Israeli border. And it doesn't include the 401st Brigade, nor it is mentioned as one of them.

Since the language is a bit clear, users seems to have also misunderstood this as implying a total strength of 3,000-5,000. However 3,000-5,000 is the strength of each brigade deployed to the IDF base near Rafah. Another article by Al Jazeera [10] clearly says so. And if you look at the typical IDF brigade size, it is between 3,000-7,000 soldiers [11].

Clearly users have misunderstood what Al Jazeera is saying. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"Since the language is a bit unclear..." is what I meant. Sorry. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I read that wrong. Thanks for bringing that up. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Content

Not sure why the article is filled with quotes and news snippets instead of a coherent overarching narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The current event tag just came off, although it is imo still very much a current event, needs a bit of time to settle down. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation of sources

Hi, please, the first source of Argentina has a bad translation of the word "aberrante — abhorrent" 190.246.97.81 (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

11 more israeli soldiers wounded by hornets

Please edit the casualties Koploboblo (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A continuously updated information page

Hello.

Here is a very informative page with continuous updates, which may be useful for your work here.

https://reliefweb.int/updates?view=reports&advanced-search=%28PC180%29

David A (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but most of it is about the aid into Gaza. Linkin Prankster (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Map in lede/infobox

Shouldn't there be a map of the offensive in the lede? I thought that was standard practice for ongoing battles/conflicts, especially if a map is available. Zinderboff(talk) 23:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Actual us option

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/us-encouraged-by-israeli-changes-to-plans-for-rafah-operation?srnd=homepage-middle-east 2.55.20.41 (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024 [Belligerents section]

add Hezbollah to Belligerents 98.110.81.233 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mr. Komori (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024

make article name Israeli rafah offensive 98.110.81.233 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

ICJ order

What are we saying for the ICJ order?

The vast majority of reliable sources say the court ordered Israel to stop the offensive. The ruling itself says Israel has to halt the offensive. But with six judges, Israel, and some sources saying it only orders it to prevent genocide, we have to consider what we say. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The very source used here says: "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate" which could bring about "the physical destruction" of the Palestinians - alluding to what constitutes a genocide under international law."

This is also noted by other sources that the court said so. Notably five judges wrote opinions on the decision, and only one states it meant a full halt. All of the judges involved in the ruling didn't give an opinion.

Look at the ICJ website itself, it also says "Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" page 5 of the order

We shouldn't go by what majority of sources say, but what the ICJ actually said. My edits aren't meant to favor any one interpretation however. Which is why I've included opinions of the judges and kept it clear that ruling orders Israel to halt operations that harm civilians, I haven't inserted whether the offensive was ordered to be halted completely or not. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Both of these sources say the court said Israel must halt the offensive. It didn't condition the offensive on genocide-prevention; it said it must stop the offensive, AND any other genocidal acts. About the judges, they simply could've made a statement saying their interpretation, they aren't limited by their opinions. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Both those sources while stating that cite the part about operations that harm the civilians. No source quotes any direct statement from ICJ ordering a full halt.

Also the opinions of the judges are there in the order document itself actually. Please check "Annex to Summary 2024/6" after the 6th page of the ruling in the order of ICJ I linked.

It seems the media has added its own interpretation rather than what the court has said. We are WP:NOTNEWS. And I think it's more important to follow what the court meant while avoiding any personal interpretations rather than news sources. But let's see what the consensus says. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also discussion at South Africa's genocide case against Israel talk page about this. Agree about keeping it as factual as possible. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess that’s the most logical thing to do at this point. But we should keep the footnote because it is still disputed Personisinsterest (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the decision strongly suggests that the court is ordering the halt of the military offensive, as an immediate and unconditional requirement (in order to prevent any potential escalation or harm that could lead to such conditions) and beyond halting the offensive, Israel must refrain from any other actions in the Rafah Governorate that could create conditions threatening the physical destruction of the Palestinian group in Gaza, addressing not only direct military actions but also indirect measures that could lead to severe humanitarian consequences. Lucasdmca (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I guess with the majority of judges writing an opinion interpreting it in a different way, it might be best to just write it the other way but clarify it's disputed. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually not the majority of judges, among the 15 judges, only 4 expressed the alternative interpretation, it's relatively a small number, it's worth noting that 2 of these promoting the alternative view were the 2 dissenters of the decision, I think the article should mention that:

"The order had been widely interpreted by the media and government officials worldwide, including those of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as requiring Israel to cease the military offensive in Rafah altogether. However, four of the 15 judges, including the two dissenters, presented a separate opinion suggesting that the court order did not mandate an absolute halt of operations in Rafah. In contrast, the South African judge on the bench argued that it explicitly requires Israel to cease all military operations in Rafah." Lucasdmca (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lucasdmca: Personisinsterest meant majority of the judges who wrote opinion on the judgment. Like I said five judges wrote opinions on the judgment. Four of them said it meant a halt only to those actions that might harm the civilians, one said yhe judgment required a complete halt to the offensive. He didn't mean all 15 wrote an opinion. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The judgement is the judgement (ratio decidendi, binding), opinions are opinions (obiter dicta, not essential to the decision and not binding). Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That maybe so. But the opinions are of the people who passed that judgment. And I'd rather go with them over what the media thinks. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

They are due for inclusion if they are covered in reliable sources, of course. However, RS is essentially treating the matter as I just described. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

So the judges themselves are not reliable? Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I said. If the judges comments are reported in reliable sources, then we can attribute them with due weight for their views, views that are not a part of the judgement. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

They are reported though. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

add Israel moving in to central Gaza to status 98.110.81.233 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Why are the two officials listed as commanders

Per israel the two hamas members killed on may 26 were the commanders of hamas in the west bank, why are they listed as the commanders of hamas in rafah? Nowhere in the sources does it mention anything like that. Koploboblo (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Killed

The Israeli government's spokesman for foreign media, David Manser, told Reuters that approximately 300 terrorists have been eliminated since the start of the IDF's ground operation in the Rafah area. Also, in the meantime, the IDF said that the fatal explosion in which three soldiers in the Nahal Brigade were killed on Tuesday occurred as a result of the explosion of a trapped tunnel shaft that was in a civilian clinic in Rafah.

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/hy2mvx8na 2.55.3.37 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request - change "209+" to "3+" Palestinian civilians killed in the infobox

Please change in the infobox from "209+ Palestinian civilians killed" to "3+ Palestinian civilians killed". This is because none of the source used says that 209+ civilians were killed. Except source 37, none of the sources says anything about how many civilians were killed, but rather specifying that people were killed in Rafah (the highest number mentioned is "more than 56" in source 29). Source 37 mentions that at least 3 civilians were killed.

I'm not saying that only 3 civilians were killed, but rather that the sources that we reference say that. If anyone will add a source stating that "X civilian were killed in Rafah" I will support changing the death toll to X and adding the source as a reference. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree 209+ civilians seems wrong, but 3+ civilians doesn't seem like a meaningful replacement metric. If reliable sources don't have much data on civilian deaths in particular, isn't it more meaningful to give a broader metric, like 209+ Palestinians killed?

I'm a little lost in the mess of references. Is there a reference which would directly back up a statement of 209+ Palestinians killed, or was that number arrived at by aggregating several sources?

If it's an aggregation, it seems like WP:OR; there's an exception for routine arithmetic (WP:CALC) but this may be too messy to fall under that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your first question: No, there isn't any source stating that 209+ civilian (or 209+ Palestinians in general) were killed. I'm not sure how this number was calculated, or if it's an aggregation of the different sources. If you want, I can try to come up with some range of killed according to the sources, but as there are many sources (which probably covers the same events), it will be difficult.

Anyway, besides source 37 which states that 3+ civilians were killed, the other sources don't mention "civilians", but rather report something like "On <date>, X people were killed" sometime adding "including Y women and Z children". Even if we will try to come up with some range of killed Palestinians in Rafah, I don't think we can put that number under "killed civilians".

As I see it we can either say "3+ civilian killed", or say that "X" (or some range of) Palestinians killed, without using the term "civilians". I favor the first option. As this is very hot topic, I'm sure that quickly someone will find a reliable source with higher killed civilian number and update the info box accordingly. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed "civilians" since that clearly doesn't seem to match the sources, as you said.

I'm not sure what to do about the seemingly synthesized total. 3+ civilian killed may seem misleading since it's probably an extreme undercount.

It might be better to just delete the number with no replacement. I'm a bit hesitant to do that without more input, so I just added Template:Syn for now.

Yeah, hopefully someone will find a reliable source with a total number (whether civilians or Palestinians broadly) which would resolve these issues. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

In the Middle East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_offensive#Middle_East) section under Egypt, change "A previously unkown" to "A previously unknown". Maxic💬 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Wiiformii (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

Antony Blinken not Anthony Blinken. Tkaras1 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Thank you, Tkaras1! Favonian (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

yes that is correct his name is spelled Antony without an h 173.72.3.91 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

Paragraph 4, second sentence, says "Over q million..." I was just going to change the "q" to "a". Chivalry (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done I changed this to Over 1 million, thanks for pointing it out. Jamedeus (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to have difficulty tracking commanders of modern battles, especially insurgent forces, because that information is not reported on much by media sources. None of the commanders listed are likely all that high up in Hamas hierarchy and has a strong bias towards whatever mid-level commanders were killed. The ISW Order of Battle from November indicates that the commander of Rafah Brigade is Mohammaed Shabana (which is reported on by Israeli news sources as well) and that Muhammed Sinwar is likely the commander of the Southern Division. 9876andoP (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

add Benjamin Netanyahu to Commanders and leaders section as he is the prime minister of Israel 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu is the Prime Minister of Israel

173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

In the lead, change | caption = Israeli ''Merkava'' tanks at the Rafah crossing to | caption = Israeli [[Merkava]] tanks at the [[Rafah Border Crossing|Rafah crossing]]. This would make the caption more similar to that of other articles. For example, in the article for the Iraq War's infobox, there is a wikilink for the Type 69 tank destroyed. AEagleLionThing (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Independent casualty estimates

@NadVolum any ideas where we can find independent casualty estimates for this? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

the IDF figures are probably rubbish given the total number killed there and the evident number of civilians reported killed in incidents. But there's caveats. Perhaps they're all in a tunnel somewhere! It would be hard to give an anywhere near watetight argument and it would be original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. I thinkyou'll just have to wait for an independent expert. By the way did you see Netanyahu in July claiing there was only one incident which involved civilians! [12]. NadVolum (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I just looked into it and it that multiple RS contradict Netanyahu's claims on Rafah casualties on the Palestinian side[13][14] Hence I'll move that claim from the lede to the body.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent and NadVolum: The IDF has never claimed that no civilians were killed. That was only Netanyahu. IDF has admitted civilian deaths in its attacks in past. Their estimates and that of Netanyahu are not the same. It's Netanyahu whom your sources contradict, not IDF. You would need sources that contradict IDF's Rafah count. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice 'I think you'll just have to wait for an independent expert' and specifically mention Netanyahu about that claim? Or what are we supposed to do to make things clear? NadVolum (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster in this edit you removed several RS that contradicted the Israeli statements: CNN, AJ, Misbar. Misbar specifically also contradicted the Israel's Rafah military death toll in addition to the civilian death toll.

Secondly, Netanyahu's speech makes it clear that his death tolls are coming from the IDF. Well, last week I went into Rafah. I visited our troops as they finished fighting Hamas’ remaining terrorist battalions. I asked the commander there, “How many terrorists did you take out in Rafah?” He gave me an exact number: 1,203. I asked him, “How many civilians were killed?” He said, “Prime Minister, practically none.

When Netanyahu says "our troops" and "the commander there", is he not referring to the IDF? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many more sources at Casualties of the Israel-Hamas war#Israeli military estimates which take issue with IDF's stated death counts for Palestinian militants, including one published on Oct 6.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is not using Netanyahu's claim. And like I said IDF hasn't claimed that no civilians were killed. Also all ACLED says is that Hamas has been able to regroup, doesn't mention whether IDF count is inaccurate.

However, it is clearly mentioned that 2,300+ death toll is from Israel. No one claimed it's accurate or a reliable figure, it's stated to be a claim by IDF. I don't see any problem. Your edit doesn't really improve the article. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a threaded discussion since you don't seem to be responding to all my points.

1. Can you explain what Netanyahu meant by our troops" and "the commander there"? Was he talking about the IDF or a different military force?

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 2. Linkin, did you read the criticism of IDF's stated Rafah casualty claims in Misbar that you removed? Can you please comment on that?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• 3. Linkin, did you see the ACLED analysis of IDF casualties claims and found them to be significantly exaggerated? Please comment o n this point.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  My bad, I was too busy to give a detailed reply.

  1. The claim by Netanyahu is quite clearly his own given IDF has acknowledged multiple times it killed civilians. There's been no claim by IDF that it only killed civlians in lne instance.

  2. Misbar is dissecting Netanyahu's claimed casualty figures, not IDF's.

  3. ACLED isn't disputing IDF data in case of Rafah but stating that it cannot verify its overall death toll of Hamas in the whole war. It could identify 8,500 only but stated that Hamas might still be at half of its pre-war numbers. The IDF said that ~17,000 were killed and given Hamas was at 30k-40k pre-war, that means Hamas is at half strength like ACLED concludes.

  4. The article already points out it's a claim "(per Israel)". I don't know why this argument is being had in the first place as no one claimed that IDF's figures are a fact. Linkin Prankster (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  1. Can you acknowledge that Netanyahu made two claims. One was regarding civilians and the other was that the IDF's figures indicated it had killed 1,203 "terrorists" before July 25, 2024. Both were attributed to the IDF? Frankly, if Prime Minister of Israel is not a reliable source on the IDF's views then who is?

  2. Misbar is dissecting claimed casualty figures by IDF too. (some experts are concerned that the Israeli army might be counting “some non-combatants as fighters merely because they are part of the Hamas-run territory's administration.”).

  3. ACLED is disputing all of the IDF's data. Hamas retaining only half its pre-war strength doesn't mean the other half are dead; there may be thousands injured, deserted etc.

  4. We should not give WP:undue weight to widely dismissed claims. They should be mentioned in the body, not in the lead. IDF claims about Hamas casualties are indeed widely disputed: Casualties of the Israel-Hamas war#Israeli military estimates.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• A Haaretz article says "a host of reserve and standing army commanders who have talked to Haaretz cast doubt" on Israeli claims on number of "terrorists" killed. Adding "They imply that the definition of terrorist is open to a wide range of interpretation. It's quite possible that Palestinians who never held a gun in their lives were elevated to the rank of "terrorist" posthumously, at least by the IDF." And "a number of reservists and other soldiers who were in Gaza in recent months point to the ease with which a Palestinian is included in a specific category after his death. It seems that the question is not what he did but where he was killed."VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was 7 months ago and is about the overall war. Not Rafah. And it's a doubt, not whether they are certain. Also adding claims by specific parties is not prohibited in battle sections. If you have an independent casualty estimate from reliable sources for Rafah, then you can give them. Otherwise this is pointless. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think adding claims in the civilian casualties section is also allowed, they don't have to be for specific numbers. The article should cover the topic overall, a timeline is a subsection. It is not just a collection of episodes. NadVolum (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ones that don't deal with Rafah specifically would need very goood reasons for inclusion. However the one about Netanyahu does specifically reference Rafah and he is in the Prime Minister of Israel so I think that really does need to be included. If there are reliable sources saying the IDF disagree with him then of course that can be included too. NadVolum (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with including what Netanyahu said and reliable sources contradicted it, or how many civilian casualties. The only problem I have is removing IDF's claimed casualties, which isn't the same as Netanyahu's, from infobox even though it clearly says "per Israel", ie it's a claim by Israel. No one claimed it's necessarily true. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't have an entire discussion in the infobox. So by including Israeli claims in the Infobox but by moving critical claims down below we are effectively giving Israeli claims much higher weight. I think all the claims should be discussed in a "casualties section". Do you understand the WP:weight issue? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum, would you not agree that the ACLED data, published after the Rafah casualties were announced by IDF and covering the entirety of the IDF data, also effectively disputes the IDF's Rafah data? The IDF is constantly announcing casualty counts every week for Al parts of Gaza, and it is unreasonable to expect RS to constantly rebut all of IDF claims as soon as they are released.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You can have a discussion without removing the IDF casualty figure. Just add a (See #casualties) next to the number. The ACLED data is about the war as a whole, not Rafah. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can use the ACLED figures in the article because you'd have to do original research to extract entries which might have to do with with Rafah. You can use it in a talk page discussion to dispute that the figures are actually near to the real ones but that isn't really being contested - they're put in as per Israel and you can put a link to the casualties section. I think that's the best that can be done unless a reliable source about casualties gives some other estimate. The figures are disputed but there's no reason I can see yet for saying they're extraordinary to the extent they should be actually removed from the infobox and you could get that past an RfC. NadVolum (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The ACLED data doesn't even mention anything about Rafah, other than Hamas resuming activities east of Rafah, after IDF declaring the Rafah Brihade decimated. We can easily add a note next to the Israeli figures in the infobox about Israeli casualties being disputed, and add a redirect to the Casualties section, if mentioning the disputation of Netanyahu's statements is that important. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added a dispute note next to the Israeli death toll claim for Hamas, and restored disputations of Netanyahu's claims. Hopefully this satisfies everyone. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. NadVolum (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made further edits[15], so let me know if there are any issues with it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I still disagree with adding IDF claims on Hamas casualties to the lead/infobox without criticism, and perhaps we should consider not adding them to the lead/infobox at all. My reason for disagreeing is that WP:WEIGHT requires we "represent all significant viewpoints...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Adding the IDF claims to the lead while criticism of them is down below is to me a violation of WP:DUE. And when a claim is as widely criticized as the IDF casualties claim, then should it be in the lead/infobox at all? For example, do you claims by Hamas that it captured Israeli soldiers in the Battle of Jabaliya[16] should be in the lead/infobox? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  The IDF casualtiy figures have been covered amply by reliable sources, they are due, and are the only ones available to us. If we had a number from Hamas and independent figures, then that too should be added. Unfortunately we don't. It's not like they change the death toll for Hamas every week, and I haven't seen any independent sources disputing them except for Netanyahu's claim.

  As for adding Hamas' claim of capturing Israeli soldiers in indoboxes? For sure, why not? Casualties claimed by both parties have been represented in infoboxes for long on Wikipedia. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Casualties claimed by both parties have been represented in infoboxes for long on Wikipedia" I wasn't aware of this and if this is indeed true, then I agree with you. I saw this RfC on a different issue regarding the infobox. Has there been any discussion on whose casualty claims to include in the infobox? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not aware. I don't spend much time in discussions. See the Sino-Vietnamese War for example. We have estimates from both the Vietnamese and Chinese forces. The Chinese estimates though are likely bullishit propaganda. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Linkin Prankster@NadVolum, can you take a look at this discussion? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we show this battle as finished

Major operations in Rafah have ceased. Most of the attacks in the past two weeks have been on civilians. There have been no major clashes. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

In Casualties -> Combatant casualties subsection:

−

In September 2024, the IDF stated in September 2024 that at least 2,308 Hamas fighters had been killed.

+

In September 2024, the IDF stated that at least 2,308 Hamas fighters had been killed.

• Why it should be changed:

Grammar.

• References supporting the possible change:

None. Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hamas confirms Mohammed Hamdan

Both idf and Hamas confirmed he is dead today. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-825165 https://www.saba.ye/en/news3385303.htm 108.29.64.228 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)