Talk:Gaza Strip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Population size in infobox

The current population size estimate doesn't make sense.
It says 2,375,259 for year 2022, and the reference is an Arabic article in a Chinese news site quoting Hamas.

There are a few more reliable sources, one of which should be used instead:

galenIgh 22:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Using cia source. GrayStorm(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.) 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nice touch on updating the density too.
By the way, that relates to another uncertain piece of data that might need updating: the area. But on a cursory search I don't see a conclusion.
The article currently says 365 km² but the two references don't support it:
  • Ref 1, the PDF article, doesn't seem to say it at all (searched, haven't read the whole thing).
  • Ref 2, cia.gov, actually contradicts it and says 360 km².
  • Britannica says 140 mile² / 363 km².
galenIgh 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICJ ruling

ICJ ruling has declared the Gaza Strip to be occupied regardless of the 2005 "disengagement", elaborating that occupation is not about the existence of military forces but the presence of an alternative authority in the territory in question. This should be reflected in this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protests

In 2019, hundreds of Gazans took to the streets to demand a better life in what became known as the "we want to live" protests. Hamas security forces brutally suppressed the marches, beat the demonstrators and arrested over a thousand of them. . To disperse the crowds of demonstrators they opened fire at the crowd and beat them with clubs.

Protests against Hamas once again took to the streets of Gaza in the summer of 2023 demanding an improvement in the difficult living conditions under the same slogan, "We want to live". They were also brutally suppressed https://www.zman.co.il/508008/ 2.55.51.33 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Blockade Text

This text in the article is misleading to the point of being factually incorrect:

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces from Gaza, dismantled its settlements, and implemented a temporary blockade of Gaza. The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover.

At a minimum, the portion “and implemented a temporary blockade of Gaza” should be removed. The blockade in place today was implemented in June 2007 after the unilateral withdrawal of Israel from Gaza. While there was some minor restriction of movement 2005-07, blockade is probably not the correct term. The restrictions were more akin to border controls than a blockade and were nothing like the blockade that began in 2007, with extensive restrictions on the movement of good and people. Also the source cited is an opinion piece, not a legitimate source for historical information. Please consider these two sources to replace source 19, which contain only facts and all the information contained, so can strictly replace source 19:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Israels-disengagement-from-Gaza

https://www.unicef.org/mena/documents/gaza-strip-humanitarian-impact-15-years-blockade-june-2022

Happy to provide more information as necessary to explain why this edit is necessary or answer any questions. AndyBrown1 (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording. Alaexis¿question? 09:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] this is factually false: "In 2006.... escalated its blockade, imposed the year before". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

@Alexysun: When your insertions are reverted, you take it to the talk page to seek consensus, not by restoring without discusson. Does the Israel first lede paragraph mention that it is ruled by Likud and Kach's successor Otzma Yehudit? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a valid comparison. Gaza Strip is not a country. It's part of Palestine. It's an important distinction to make that the two Palestinian territories are administrated by two different groups. Alexysun (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph must be kept general and neutral per MOS:OPEN, and the point that Hamas rules the strip is already mentioned in the lede. I also happen to disagree with your edits here [2], as this is not an article about the Gaza blockade but about the strip as a whole and this does not deserve two more minor details in two sentences. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me why it's not neutral? Also it's not clear in the lead that Hamas administers the strip. Secondly, the blockade is a major event in relation to the strip. Not sure why you think it's negligible.Alexysun (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it's not neutral; it is not general. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas is already mentioned in the second paragraph, so no need to mention it in the first. I do feel the genocide should be mentioned in the lede.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blockade intensified in 2007 after the takeover by Hamas. In fact before 2007 some sources call it "movement restrictions" rather than a blockade [3]. Therefore in the lede we should either mention just the start of the real "full" blockade or clarify that the previous blockade got much tighter. Alaexis¿question? 11:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Gaza death count

The article currently reads:


"As of 21 December 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, at least 20,000 Palestinians, including over 8,000 children, have been killed. More than 85% of Palestinians in Gaza, or around 1.9 million people, were internally displaced."


These figures are significantly out of date. E.g., the first cited source currently reads:

"The latest death toll stands at 41,546 Palestinians and 1,139 people killed in Israel since October 7.

86.173.121.122 (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation section

@Reenem: regarding your last revert, I agree with half of your points. First, the highlighted sentence from the ICJ ruling defines what constitutes an occupied territory but does not mention Gaza. The rest of the quote clarifies that the ruling considers Gaza (as part of the Palestinian territories) to be illegally occupied. Leaving out this conclusion means omitting a crucial aspect of the court's findings, which ultimately regard the occupation not only as existing but also as unlawful. By excluding these details, the previous explanation risks presenting an incomplete narrative that fails to fully capture the court's stance on the legality of Israel's presence in the region. This interpretation is supported by the dozen reliable sources I added. The last line regarding reparations is expanding on that conclusion, but I agree that it could be removed.

Regarding the judges opinions, they are relevant. But in my opinion, that content should go into its own paragraph and it should also be rewritten; it is honestly very hard to follow. You're also mentioning three people at the beginning with no in-line qualifications (only one has a link and seems like a university professor?) so it would be better to fix that. Are they experts on the field? The opinion from Judge Cleveland seems to also include an excerpt from the ruling mixed with her own opinion; but the text is confusing, since it's one giant quote. So this is my attempt to fix that:

Judge Yuji Iwasawa pointed out that while the court stated Israel is bound by some obligations related to occupation law, it didn't determine whether Gaza remained "occupied" within the meaning of the law of occupation after 2005. Judge Sarah Cleveland noted that the Court observed that after Israel's withdrawal in 2005, it continued to exercise key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip. This included "control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone." As a result, the Court concluded that certain aspects of the law of occupation still applied to Gaza, based on Israel's level of effective control. However, it did not specify which obligations still bound Israel after 2005, nor did it find any violations of those obligations.

How does that sound? - Ïvana (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems fine. Basically just emphasize that the ICJ noted that Israel has some remaining obligations under the law of occupation but declined to determine whether it counts as occupied under international law. By the way, I noticed you removed several legal opinions that contest that Gaza is occupied. This in my opinion was inappropriate, as it should be emphasized that while there does seem to be a large consensus agreeing that Gaza is occupied, it is not universal, and includes some scholars of note such as Yuval Shany as well as a current Israeli Supreme Court judge. I think it would be appropriate to restore that.--RM (Be my friend) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You restored a big chunk that has nothing to do with Gaza. Israel's claim that the exercise of effective control or authority determines occupation in international law is based on previous court rulings. Who said that? There's no source. So that means the assertion comes from us. That is clearly WP:OR. If you want to reference the Nuremberg trials, the Hague, or the European Court of Human Rights, please ensure you cite a secondary source that supports those comparisons.
I still don't know anything about the people you're mentioning. They have no in-line qualifications, some don't even have articles. And the weight given to some of these opinions is undue. You have for example multiple human rights organizations, government entities and legal commentators limited to one line, and Hanne Cuyckens (whoever that is) has more than half of a paragraph. That is disproportionate. Again, who are these people? Are their opinions relevant? We need to mention their credentials. - Ïvana (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yuval Shany, Alex Stein, and Avi Bell all have articles. This seems to be the Hanne Cuyckens mentioned. We can cut down the amount given to them but some mention should be made. RM (Be my friend) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is why I said "some". I don't have a problem with keeping the wikilinked ones. But their credentials should be mentioned. - Ïvana (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some commentators cited in that section in saying Gaza was occupied aren't wikilinked: Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi, Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy, John Reynolds. I assume this is the Kenneth Mann the editor meant but there only Wikipedia article available is in Hebrew. I assume it would be acceptable in the case of legal scholars arguing Gaza isn't occupied as well. We should decide what's best in both cases. In any event I've modified it to make it as acceptable as possible, I might come back to it later. Let me know what you think. RM (Be my friend) 19:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the section to avoid the over reliance on direct quotes and some redundancy. Content is still the same.
There are two points you haven't addressed: the WP:OR paragraph and the removal of content related to the conclusion of the ruling, which is clearly relevant. You're including the opinion of judges related to the occupation status but not the conclusion itself which designates Israel as an occupying power. I don't see the logic in that. - Ïvana (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the paragraph that references the Nuremberg trials and ECHR, I think it is informative but I can see how it would count as OR. Regarding the opinions of the judges, the whole point was that the ICJ did not seem to outright designate Israel as the occupying power of Gaza, at least in the same way that they did regarding the WB. It's important to note they seemed to draw some sort of distinction and hinted that perhaps the law of occupation did not apply in its entirety. If there's a section you'd like to add then fine, but I don't think any info in that paragraph should be deleted. If necessary we can condense the paragraph to include as much info as possible within a reasonable size. RM (Be my friend) 21:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem about keeping the opinion of the judges, I agree they are important. My point is that this section should be restored: and concluded that "The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel's presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful". We are including opinions arguing how the territory is not occupied but are excluding the part of the ruling that specifically designates it as such. There's no balance there. We should include both that part of the ruling (currently missing) and the experts opinion arguing the contrary (already covered). - Ïvana (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section doesn't mention Gaza at all. At most you can say it applies to Gaza in the sense that the OPT are seen as a single territorial unit but the court seemed to focus little on Gaza and from what it did say it seems it was hesitant to label Gaza as fully occupied. RM (Be my friend) 09:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "fully occupied"? Before the idea of functional occupation was developed (even if not called that), occupation tended to be a yes/no thing. However, even before the ICJ ruling, there was already a consensus that Gaza is occupied, even if only "functionallY", and the ICJ has affirmed that position, see the ref 12 I added to the lead to see what the court said in paras 91 to 4.
Apart from that, the court also decided that an occupation may not continue indefinitely and declared the occupation illegal for the entire OPT, including Gaza. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, we can include more on the court's decision, but it is still noteworthy that the court does seem to draw a distinction between Gaza and the West Bank and decline to fully determine whether or not Gaza is occupied. However, said sentence suggested doesn't mention Gaza at all, maybe we should also find something it said regarding Gaza? RM (Be my friend) 12:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OPT includes Gaza? And its occupation (on any basis) is illegal. This is not difficult. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section we're talking about is primarily concerned whether or not Gaza is occupied under international law. RM (Be my friend) 13:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the section I want to restore specifically refers to the Court determining that Gaza (as part of the OPT) is occupied, and that the occupation is illegal. That is clearly related to the subject of whether or not Gaza is occupied under international law. - Ïvana (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, even if some judges disagreed with some parts, the AO considered the legal consequences as applying for the OPT, including Gaza.
The two refs I mentioned above deal with both aspects, the fact of the occupation (even if functional, it is still an occupation) and secondly that said occupation is illegal across the OPT. There is no separation of the West Bank and Gaza in the latter sense, only in the sense of the occupation being of a distinct form in Gaza. If the source says OPT (defined as including Gaza), then it does not need to mention Gaza separately as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could fit, although I still think the legality of the occupation is of less relevance in that particular section. RM (Be my friend) 14:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation of Gaza

@Reenem: [4] Your changes to the lede does not reflect the sources. The ICJ has explicitly ruled that the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute one single political unit that had been collectively under occupation since 1967 despite the 2005 disengagement from Gaza:

This is also supported by secondary sources: "He said Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel's occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it." [5]

One or two dissenting opinions from judges does not change the fact that the court as a whole has found that Israel remained to be an occupying power. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were dissenting opinions, they were describing the court's reasoning. The court determined that the law of occupation applied at least in part but seemed hesitant to determine whether it applied in full. They seemed to be in an awkward bind because they viewed the OPT as one political unit but clearly the conditions in Gaza were different. In any case, even dissenting opinions should be published. The whole point of that section is to show the opinions of different experts on the status of the Gaza Strip. RM (Be my friend) 11:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary opinions from judges do not serve as footnotes for the court's ruling, they are simply their personal views. They obviously have enough weight to be included here but the court's position remains the same, in this case that the OPT as a whole, including Gaza, is still occupied. - Ïvana (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reenem: I am talking about changes that were made to the lede, not to the body or section. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's appropriate. As I said it seems to me that they weren't dissenting opinions but rather explaining the court's reasoning. The court seemed to rule that certain aspects of the law of occupation applied but did not outright state that it was fully occupied. In any case the previous wording said "still considered to be occupied under international law", and I think saying that it's considered to be occupied by "numerous legal experts, governments, and international organizations" is a better choice of wording, because while a lot of legal authorities do treat it as occupied, it is not an absolute consensus. It is not a total consensus, so I think that even if we do link to the court's ruling, we should not state unambiguously in Wikipedia's voice that it's considered as such. RM (Be my friend) 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it seems to me that they weren't dissenting opinions but rather explaining the court's reasoning OR, judges separate opinions are just that, their opinions. If what they said was what the court intended, then the court would have said that in its findings.
but did not outright state that it was fully occupied is just unsourced OR. What is "fully occupied" supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that Gaza is only partially occupied? Says who?
The lead currently says "The territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967."[1] and the source explains that, it does not say it is fully occupied and does not need to, it is the consensus position. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were describing the court's reasoning. One of the judges outright stated that the court didn't decide whether Gaza was fully occupied or not. It wasn't an opinion, it was an assertion of fact. I also have issues with the lead, given that while there seems to be a consensus, it is not a universal one and there are notable legal experts who disagree. I actually think that the lead should be taken down, and Aeyal Gross's article should go in the status section. It includes analysis there on a functional approach to occupation that could be included (which is what the court seems to have leaned towards). This source is in fact talking about a more nuanced position, whereas to label it as "occupied" using this source without explaining it further would be misleading, as most people still tend to think of occupation in a very specific way. RM (Be my friend) 10:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I added to the lead says:
"Based on the information before it, the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005" (para. 93).
That is exactly the position that was held before the courts findings, the court has endorsed the previous consensus. What has changed is that the court has effectively overruled arguments to the contrary.
Having said that, I do agree that there is too much about "occupation" in the lead, we should reduce the whole thing to a single sentence.
Suggest one. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this: "despite the disengagement, numerous legal experts, governments, and international organizations consider the Gaza Strip to still be occupied by Israel, although the Israeli government contends it does not occupy the territory and some legal experts support the Israeli position." Basically just something noting the widespread consensus that Gaza is considered occupied and also noting that some experts object to that definition. But we should not state authoritatively in Wikipedia's voice that the territory is occupied, so we should move the Gross article down to the status section and give a brief overview, mentioning the concept of the "functional approach" to occupation. RM (Be my friend) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we go back to the lead of a year ago 30 September 2023, the first para still said "Together, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank make up the State of Palestine, while being under Israeli military occupation since 1967" so this part is not new, in other words, it had consensus back then (it may have been removed and restored one or more times since then, idk).
There are some different parts to the puzzle, the first is "since 1967" (until now?). We have 67 to disengagement, the latter to October last year and from then to now. Are we to have a separate description for all all three parts? Another is the oPt, considered to include Gaza, and designated currently as an illegal occupation. Then there is the degree of consensus, which is pretty wide, versus the opinion of Israel, which is a bit like the Israeli settlements thing..."Israel disputes this" (along with some friendlies who aren't mentioned).
We should also collect up any post ICJ sources on the question. Let me have a think and if anyone else wants to weigh in, feel free. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gross, A. (2024). The ICJ just demolished one of Israel's key defenses of the occupation. Haaretz. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-19/ty-article/.premium/the-icj-just-demolished-one-of-israels-key-defenses-of-the-occupation/00000190-cc54-dcff-afd4-cfdc29ee0000 DMH223344 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should record the history in the history section and briefly in the lead. We should not make authoritative pronouncements in the lead. Especially since it isn't just "Israel and some friendlies" as you describe but quite a few serious legal scholars who take the Israeli position. We can mention that there is a wide consensus that Gaza is under occupation but that it isn't a total one. We absolutely should not state in Wikipedia's voice that the blockade and other ways Israel was involved in Gaza pre-war constituted an occupation. Now of course certain parts of Gaza are indisputably under military occupation, but not all of it, and the consensus on whether the whole system as a whole after the disengagement and blockade was occupation is not total. RM (Be my friend) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you have said several times. However what you have failed to say is that the ICJ opinion is a definitive statement of the law and that member states are obliged to follow it. It is also possible that legal scholars that previously sided with Israel (actually not that many, just the usual suspects, mostly the same ones that say settlements are legal when they are illegal, etcetera) may have to change their view after the ruling. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except legal scholars literally mentioned have disputed that the ICJ considers Gaza to be fully occupied. It's literally in the status section. Numerous legal scholars and two judges have made statements alluding to the idea that the ICJ doesn't believe that the law of occupation applies in full. And do you actually have proof that any of those scholars say that settlements are legal or is this something you just assumed? We should definitely mention it but ICJ's opinion still doesn't justify stating unambiguously in Wikipedia's voice that Gaza is occupied. RM (Be my friend) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More repetition, I understand what you are saying, repeating it, what is it, five times or more, doesn't help. So please stop doing that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. My point, which I keep trying to emphasize, is that there is no final word on the matter. The ICJ issued an opinion and it's important but that does not automatically mean Wikipedia must authoritatively repeat said opinion in its voice without taking any other legal opinions into account. And on top of that you just made assumptions on credibility of opposing legal scholars by implying they were unduly biased. RM (Be my friend) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's six times. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more sources:
The Occupation of Gaza in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion
The ICJ’s Treatment of Questions of Occupation in Gaza (by a recent graduate but good for background regardless) Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources saying that Israel's occupation of the oPt including Gaza is illegal and to me, that is a more important point than whether Gaza is "only" functionally occupied, this aspect definitely needs to be part of anything going into the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside all the nice legal discussions about whether Gaza is occupied, we can instead go to the usual RS reporting

Reuters Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem - areas of historic Palestine which the Palestinians want for a state - in the 1967 Middle East war and has since built settlements in the West Bank and steadily expanded them. Israeli leaders argue the territories are not occupied in legal terms because they are on disputed lands, but the United Nations and most of the international community regard them as occupied territory.

BBC Delivering the court's findings, ICJ President Nawaf Salam said it had found that "Israel's... continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal." "The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said. He said Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel's occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it. He said Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel's occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it.

AP Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and called on it to end, and for settlement construction to stop immediately, issuing an unprecedented, sweeping condemnation of Israel’s rule over the lands it captured 57 years ago. Israel considers the West Bank to be disputed territory, the future of which should be decided in negotiations, while it has moved populations there in settlements to solidify its hold. It has annexed east Jerusalem in a move that isn’t internationally recognized, while it withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but maintained a blockade of the territory after Hamas took power in 2007. The international community generally considers all three areas to be occupied territory.

These seem pretty clear to me, I think all we need is a sentence in the first paragraph summarizing these and that's all we need. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reenem: RS do not agree with the claim that individual judge opinions are relevant to the court's collective ruling. This recently-added sentence lacks consensus and should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Makeandtoss and Selfstudier. @Reenem's edit is a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE, specifically avoid stating opinions as facts and indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, and WP:DUE.
The ICJ clearly states that "In this regard, the Court notes that Israel’s occupation has lasted for more than 57 years.". The next few pages just goes into the specifics further cementing the conclusion.
At this point, I'd even say that denial of Israeli occupation of Palestine has started to border on WP:FRINGE. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's denying the occupation, the West Bank is very obviously occupied. The fact that the consensus on whether Gaza is occupied or not is not total however. RM (Be my friend) 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been total (because Israel and supporters of Israel disagree, a minority) and that fact has always been reflected in the article body, not in the lead, tho. The RS are clear about it, just as they were before the ICJ opinion, the only difference now is that the majority view carries an ICJ endorsement. The occupation itself (full or partial or functional or whatever) is also illegal, again arguably a consensus before the ICJ, but now confirmed, that's new and needs to be added in as well. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logical process is simple:
1- The question whether Israel occupies Gaza is a question of international law.
2- The authority for international law is the ICJ.
3- The ICJ has recently collectively ruled that Israel still occupies Gaza despite 2005 "disengagement".
4- ICJ's individual judge opinions do not change the overall court decision.
This is supported by RS; considering the lack of consensus evident in this talk page discussion, I have removed it from lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gross, Aeyal (12 October 2024). "The Functional Approach as Lex Lata". Verfassungsblog. doi:10.59704/133f2ff82e19d7f9 – via verfassungsblog.de.

Molotov cocktails

The NYT don't attribute it to the IDF But as some began hurling stones, tossing Molotov cocktails and rolling burning tires at the fence, the Israelis responded with tear gas and gunfire. [6] It's enough for us even if some other source does attribute it. Alaexis¿question? 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit. It was reverted. You reverted the revert, made a claim "therefore we don't need to do it as well" that appears to be a personal opinion rather than policy based, then told the other party to do something that you did not do, use the talk page rather than revert. My question is whether you support mandatory BRD compliance in the topic area to prevent this kind of situation? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You saw a sentence you didn't like, checked the first source where that claim is not attributed, and updated it to reflect that. I then restored the attribution, pointing out that the NYT is not the only source cited and that another RS supports the inclusion, even quoting the exact line. Then you reverted me saying that it doesn't count. Are we supposed to rely solely on the NYT? Is that how we are supposed to operate? - Ïvana (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you talking about? Vox and Haaretz also don't attribute this claim, see the links and quotes below. Alaexis¿question? 23:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I don't know why I thought this was from Vox, there are 5 sources so I got them mixed up. The quote I mentioned comes from the source no. 4. - Ïvana (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious bad edit by Alaexis. I'll note that the NYT doesn't even support the text. The text says "launching Molotov cocktails and rocks at troops on the opposite side of the border", but the NYT says "tossing Molotov cocktails and rolling burning tires at the fence". The IDF was not at the fence; they were back from the fence. I don't believe that the IDF was even within Molotov cocktail range of the protesters. A way to correct it without OR would be to change "at troops" to "towards troops". Zerotalk 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but two more sources from the article say that they were thrown at soldiers.
Voxsmaller groups of predominantly young men have rolled burning tires and thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at nearby Israeli troops.
Haaretz a number of protesters threw stones and firebombs toward soldiers stationed along the fence. Alaexis¿question? 23:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Haaretz uses the wording you've suggested ("toward"). I'm okay with using it. Alaexis¿question? 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change in the article, hope it's okay. "In the vicinity" is less precise and it's not the wording that the sources use. Alaexis¿question? 22:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in the vicinity? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

The October 7 massacre is mentioned only in one sentence, followed by a long paragraph about how the Israeli minister of defence or an Israeli popular singer reacted. This does not seem right Roy54x (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_Strip&oldid=1254524957"