Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gaza Strip: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:37, 9 August 2006 edit69.196.164.190 (talk) →Position of government of Israel← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:48, 13 January 2025 edit undoSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,206 edits →ICJ ruling: WP:ARBECR, not an edit requestTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPCD}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Western Asia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=low}}
}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jul 13 2014 (7th)|Jul 20 2014 (4th)|Jul 27 2014 (5th)|Aug 3 2014 (20th)|May 9 2021 (7th)|May 16 2021 (12th)|Oct 8 2023 (1st)|Oct 15 2023 (6th)|Oct 22 2023 (15th)}}
{{Press
|author = Hava Mendelle
|title = Misplaced Pages at war
|date = November 2, 2023
|org = ]
|url = https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/
|lang =
|quote = Reading the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all.
|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the or[[iginal URL becomes unavailable. -->
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate = November 2, 2023
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Population size in infobox ==
==Overcrowding==
: This small piece of land is perhaps the most crowded piece of real estate on the planet and is home to about a million Palestinians. Most of these people lived in other parts of Palestine prior to the Naqba (the establishment of the state of Israel), when they had to flee. These Palestinians have not been allowed to return to their home villages, in violation of international law, in particular the fourth Geneva convention.


{{edit extended-protected|Gaza Strip|answered=yes}}
: While it is popular to describe the Gaza Strip as crowded, it has about the same population as Manhattan Island on a piece of land that is more than 7 times as large. And Manhattan is filled up with offices, highways, and parks. The daytime population of Manhattan is much larger, of course, as workers come in for the day. Gaza is also about twice the size of Washington DC, which has a population more than twice as large as the Gaza Strip. The above paragraph contains the common myth about Gaza.
The current population size estimate doesn't make sense.
<br>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:
: Recently, Israel has established settlements (or colonies as Palestinans call them) inside the Gaza strip. Although home to only a few thousand people, large parts of the Gaza strip have been reserved for them. This has worsened the situation of the Palestinians yet further.


* ], in , says 2.257M at the end of 2023, which is -100K, a year later.<br>( from the same source says 2.23M for mid-2023.)
The questions of refugees and settlements have been discussed at length in other articles, it is redundant to state them here (as opposed to linking) and have to argue about them again. --]
-----
Uriyan -- I have moved some of the points of the above text back in, but have tried to stick to objective facts about the history and demographics of Gaza, and avoided politico-legal issues like the Geneva Conventions. I partly agree with you -- this page is not the place for detailed discussion about the general issue of Palestinan refugees or Israeli settlements. However, it still should mention basic demographic facts, such as how many Palestinians and settlers are there, how much land there is, how much land per capita each uses, how did so many Palestinians end up in such a small area (refugees from 1948 war -- arguments about exactly why they left can be left for elsewhere.) -- ]


* 's estimate is 2.14M for 2024, so seemingly more recent.<br>The same source is used in ].
Shouldn't we move the country table to the entry on the ]? Otherwise, we would end up with two different tables for the Palestinian entity (which probably will become an independent nation witin 5 years). I have no objection to the content; I just don't want readers who visit Misplaced Pages to imagine that Gaza and the West Bank are two different nations. Rather, they are semi-autonomously controlled regions under Israeli administration that soon likely will fuse into one independent nation. ]


* It seems the UN estimate is somewhere in between, based on ], which shows a total of 5.37M for Gaza + West Bank in mid-2023, compared to PCBS's 5.548M at end-of-2023.
: Robert, your optimism inspires me! Five years - I would have estimated more like fifty. May it come to pass as you predict! :)
] 22:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> Using cia source. ]<sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::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, , doesn't seem to say it at all (searched, haven't read the whole thing).
::* Ref 2, , actually contradicts it and says 360 km².
::* says 140 mile² / 363 km².
::] 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


== ICJ ruling ==
: I'm in two minds about your suggestion. I don't have a problem with there being duplicated info in ] - after all, only some info would be duplicated - the West Bank has a different area and population density, for example. I think ] is a good example of a broadly similar situation... ]


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. ] (]) 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
: I removed the president and PM, because while in some sense Arafat is the president of the strip, in another sense Sharon is, and in a third sense, nobody is. So it seems misleading to just say President=Sharon. I think the rest of the info can stay... ]
---


:An ICG ruling is just one source, it's not the truth. ]<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Palestinian Refugees==
::https://lieber.westpoint.edu/authoritatively-stating-international-law-icj-israeli-withdrawal-opt/ "an advisory opinion entails an authoritative statement of international law on the questions with which it deals" and "judicial determinations made in advisory opinions carry no less weight and authority than those in judgments because they are made with the same rigour and scrutiny by the 'principal judicial organ' of the United Nations with competence in matters of international law" and other such refs easy to locate, it's called the World Court for a reason. ] (]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Protests ==
Before you proceed to delete my entry again, perhaps you could specify what part of it in your opinion constitutes a POV, and prove that it has no factual basis. What part do you object to? That the majority are refugees, or that they fled voluntarily?
Just because certain facts speak in Israel's favour in no way impairs their status as facts which can safely be included in a NPOV article. ] 18:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


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.
: The "voluntarily" is a nonsense (but I don't have to prove it's a nonsense, only to note that it is regarded as such by a body of learned opinion). It is also POV to give the war the name used by only one of the sides. --] 20:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


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
:: Since you refuse to provide any references to factual evidence that would justify deleting my entry, I have chosen to take the initiative and provide some of my own sources.
https://www.zman.co.il/508008/ ] (]) 20:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== Incorrect Blockade Text ==
According to you, adding the word voluntarily is a nonsense as decided by a "body of learned opinion." I am curious who exactly these venerable scholars of yours are, but have no way of knowing since you obviously do not feel compelled to list your sources.


This text in the article is misleading to the point of being factually incorrect:
As for mine, a plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies.


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.
The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."


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:
Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."


https://www.britannica.com/event/Israels-disengagement-from-Gaza
Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).


https://www.unicef.org/mena/documents/gaza-strip-humanitarian-impact-15-years-blockade-june-2022
And perhaps most conclusive:
In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:


Happy to provide more information as necessary to explain why this edit is necessary or answer any questions. ] (]) 02:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”


:I've changed the wording. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I am prepared to compromise and rename the War of Israeli Independence to the more neutral 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
:: this is factually false: "In 2006.... escalated its blockade, imposed the year before". ] (]) 10:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)


== Lede ==
What you seem to overlook is that Misplaced Pages is an eliteless, collaborative endeavour and I will not tolerate you deleting my entries simply because the facts don't suit you. The only thing that makes any user's argument more valid than another's is providing facts to support it, at which point the argument is essentially over unless of course, the other party chooses to ignore the facts. So stop ignoring the facts, and bring evidence to support yourself if you seriously believe my entries are factually unsound. ] 22:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


{{ping|Alexysun}} When your insertions are reverted, you take it to the talk page to seek consensus, not by restoring without discusson. Does the ] first lede paragraph mention that it is ruled by Likud and ]'s successor ]? ] (]) 11:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
: Oh not again. Have you actually read any of these sources? The poor quality of your reply indicates that you know very little about this subject. Did you read Morris' new book? Btw, there is a better version of Azm's text in ] (taken by me directly from the memoirs). Meanwhile, here is a little quotation for you, given you like quotations so much. --] 05:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:''I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand. The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights. Arabs lived in Jaffa. They didn't leave; they were expelled. We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out. Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument. Zionism takes precedence over everything.''<br>-- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, quoted in Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.


: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. ] (]) 18:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Is there some information about the isaelian wall in the gaza strip available in Misplaced Pages, I can not find it.
::The opening paragraph must be kept general and neutral per ], and the point that Hamas rules the strip is already mentioned in the lede. I also happen to disagree with your edits here , 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. ] (]) 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::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.] (]) 04:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I did not say it's not neutral; it is not general. ] (]) 12:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hamas is already mentioned in the second paragraph, so no need to mention it in the first. I do feel the ] should be mentioned in the lede.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The blockade intensified in 2007 after the takeover by Hamas. In fact before 2007 some sources call it "movement restrictions" rather than a blockade . 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)


==History of Gaza== == Outdated Gaza death count ==


The article currently reads:
I think the history of gaza might be appopriate - but when I say history I mean *history*; at least 2000 years worth. It would help to indicate the jewish and arab links to the area and I was frankly surprised not to find such a history on this page. Maybe I'll add one but I'm concerned by the degree of emotion surrounding articles like this one and perhaps any history I could add would never be considered unbiased by all sides and would probably be promptly deleted. So I'm wondering if some sort of consensus can be reached. There are solid sources concerning Napoleon's march across the gaza strip. Similarly, there are legal documents pertaining to the Ottoman administration of the sanyak/vilayet that could be used; as well as archeological evidence. However, since all these sources would seem to indicate a strong historical Jewish presence in gaza they, of necessity, would attract controversy on this site. Apparently the enlightened neo-liberal post-modernist trend in world affairs is to regard jews in gaza as recent alien "settlers" and to strive to drive them out and seal the borders against their return. In fact, perhaps it would be fair to say that the general historical trend in world affairs is to regard jews anywhere and everywhere as alien "settlers" and to drive them out and seal the borders against their return.. or am I being too extreme?
- ] 11:09, 5 July 2005


== One of the most densely populated areas? ==


"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."
From the article - I think this should be removed:


:''as a result it has one of the highest population densities in the world''


These figures are significantly out of date. E.g., the first cited source currently reads:
Highest population densities of what? It sure isn't denser than many cities in the world. The Gaza strip is roughly the size of Dublin city and its environs (pop. roughly 1 million) and that's one of the ''least'' dense cities in the world.


"The latest death toll stands at 41,546 Palestinians and 1,139 people killed in Israel since October 7.
Gaza city itself looks quite dense judging by the map, but I would doubt it even remotely bargains for the position of one of the most dense cities!


] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">&#09827;</font> ] 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) ] (]) 07:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)


== Israeli occupation section ==
:As no one has provided good proof as to the claim (it seems like bogus propaganda based on the pop and area), I am not removing it, but am reducing it to merely "a high population density". ] <font size=+1 style="color:green;">&#09827;</font> ] 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


{{yo|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.
::It looks like your fix has been undone. "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is a gross overstatement for the third sentence of the article. See ] and note that Gaza Strip has a density of 3888 per square km, comparable to Berlin and Toronto (which are both larger than the Gaza Strip: ]). ] 19:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


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:
:::] is a list of cities, whereas the Gaza Strip is not a city, contains several different towns, and is surrounded by what amount to borders. Berlin and Toronto are not territories in the sense that the Gaza Strip is, though you could certainly argue that West Berlin before the Wall (sorry, anti-fascist protection barrier) came down was one. So the comparison is not really relevant. ] | ] 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


{{tq|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.}}
:::: Fair enough. The word ] is the crucial modifier. Perhaps it should be wikified. The reference is the ].] 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


How does that sound? - ] (]) 00:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
One should consider the difference between the territory of Gaza and a city of comparable population density (e.g., Berlin or Toronto as noted above). Berlin, Toronto, (and any other city) depend on resource inflows from their environs. Imagine cutting off Berlin or Toronto from their resource rich environments or exchange networks from abroad... After some time you'd probably create a situation similar to Gaza... a situation where a population density of approx 388 per square km becomes a major problem. There are too few resources (and resource producing capacities) in Gaza to support its growing population and that's why people are alarmed by the territory's population density.
: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 ] as well as a current Israeli Supreme Court judge. I think it would be appropriate to restore that.--] (]) 15:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::You restored a big chunk that has nothing to do with Gaza. {{tq|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 ]. 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. - ] (]) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::], ], and ] all have articles. seems to be the Hanne Cuyckens mentioned. We can cut down the amount given to them but some mention should be made. ] (]) 17:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, this is why I said "some". I don't have a problem with keeping the wikilinked ones. But their credentials should be mentioned. - ] (]) 18:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::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 is the Kenneth Mann the editor meant but there only Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 19:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. - ] (]) 20:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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. ] (]) 21:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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: {{tq|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 ] 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). - ] (]) 21:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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. ] (]) 09:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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 for the entire OPT, including Gaza. ] (]) 10:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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? ] (]) 12:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The OPT includes Gaza? And its occupation (on any basis) is illegal. This is not difficult. ] (]) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The section we're talking about is primarily concerned whether or not Gaza is occupied under international law. ] (]) 13:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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 {{tq|whether or not Gaza is occupied under international law}}. - ] (]) 13:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::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. ] (]) 14:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I guess it could fit, although I still think the legality of the occupation is of less relevance in that particular section. ] (]) 14:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


== Israeli occupation of Gaza ==
:With all due respect, 3888/sq.Km. is about half of the density of Tel Aviv (7,015), a piddling fraction of Bnei Brak (19,127) or Givatayim (14,750) or, to choose an even closer neighbor, Bat Yam (16,087). Calling it "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is simply objectively wrong and misleading. A more accurate statement would say "It is often claimed that the Gaza Strip one of the most densely populated territories on earth. However, at fewer than 4,000 people per sq. km., it is comparable to many similar areas, some of which are more crowded, others less."


{{ping|Reenem}} 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:
:As for the issue of resources per people, the issue is not one of resource availability, it's the management and proper exploitation of resources. In any case, that's not the point here - the point is that the article currently contains a factual error that should be corrected. It is NOT "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" That mis-statement should be permanently removed and the issues of resource utilization, propaganda about density, etc., dealt with in the appropriate places.] 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
{{cquote|The Court notes that, for the purpose of determining whether a territory remains occupied under international law, the decisive criterion is not whether the occupying Power retains its physical military presence in the territory at all times but rather whether its authority has been established and can be exercised.


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. This is even more so since 7 October 2023.}}
::Another note: Per the Municipality of Gaza website , Gaza City (the CITY, not the entire Strip) is 45 sq.km. and has 400,000 people - thus the density of Gaza City is approximately 8,900/sq.km. - slightly more than Tel Aviv & less than half that of Bnei Brak. So not even the principal municipality in Gaza can be called "one of the most densely populated ... on earth" ] 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


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."
== Gaza Photos ==
Archieved to ] - I got a 37Kb warning. On a talk page! It blew up my browser! ] ] 04:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 19:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
== A '''new''' discussion on the pbase Gaza photos ==
Archieved to ] - I got a 37Kb warning. Again! ] ] 02:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 11:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
===Discussion on the pbase Gaza photos continues===
::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. - ] (]) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Reenem}} I am talking about changes that were made to the lede, not to the body or section. ] (]) 10:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::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 Misplaced Pages's voice that it's considered as such. ] (]) 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|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.
::::{{tq| 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 ] since ]."<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://verfassungsblog.de/the-functional-approach-as-lex-lata/|title=The Functional Approach as Lex Lata|first=Aeyal|last=Gross|date=12 October 2024|journal=Verfassungsblog|via=verfassungsblog.de|doi=10.59704/133f2ff82e19d7f9}}</ref> and the source explains that, it does not say it is fully occupied and does not need to, it is the consensus position. ] (]) 10:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 10:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::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. ] (]) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 14:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If we go back to the lead of a year ago , 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. ] (]) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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 ] (]) 16:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ] (]) 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::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 Misplaced Pages's voice that Gaza is occupied. ] (]) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. ] (]) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That's six times. ] (]) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A couple more sources:
::::::::::
:::::::::: (by a recent graduate but good for background regardless) ] (]) 17:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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. ] (]) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


Leaving aside all the nice legal discussions about whether Gaza is occupied, we can instead go to the usual RS reporting
Archieved to ] ] ] 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)


==Typo - missing word==
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.
From the article: "The Israeli settlemnts were built on sand dunes that were not used by the Palestinian residents of Gaza but now use more per capita than the Palestinian population."


Maybe it's just me, but "now use more" what? Water? This seems to be missing a key word.
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.


==Intro==
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.
Heraclius, I see you've reverted the intro again. Would you mind discussing your reasons here? Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:It's illogical to talk about Egypt capturing the Gaza strip in the second sentence of the article. The fact that the Gaza strip makes up part of the Palestinian territories should be stated first.] 20:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


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. ] (]) 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I disagree about the flow. It's a controversial piece of land, and it makes sense to state up front how it's related to Egypt and Israel. The next paragraph deals with how it relates to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It makes the introduction disjointed and arguably POV to select one of those for the first paragraph. What does "the sites of areas" mean in the version you're reverting to (as opposed to "areas", which you reverted)? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


:{{ping|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. ] (]) 09:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:Ramellite, what's your reasoning for needing Palestinian territories in the second sentence? The previous version flowed better, and it's provocative to put what many regard as a POV term in the second sentence. Why do you feel it's important that it be placed there? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Makeandtoss and Selfstudier. @]'s edit is a violation of ], specifically {{tq|avoid stating opinions as facts}} and {{tq|indicate the relative prominence of opposing views}}, and ].
:The ICJ that {{tq|"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 ]. ] (]) 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 09:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 10:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ] (]) 12:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


{{reftalk}}
:: I was adjusting it from the version I was editing, which was "Together with the West Bank, it is mostly run by the Palestinian Authority, and makes up part of the Palestinian territories." I removed "run by the...", I didn't add anything. There were some reversions going on while I was editing, I guess. However, the previous version flowed horribly. With no mention of who lives there, the intro looked like one was writing about Mubarak's toilet seat. Many editors (and Misplaced Pages policy) have enlightened me to the fact that, in disputed circumstances, the most generally neutral English language terminology applies, which is why I didn't write "makes up part of a desired Palestinian State" which would be my own POV. It is referred to as "the Palestinian territories" pretty much according to the article on the ], and is common in most influential western media sources. As far as I'm aware, that's more neutral than a POV, especially as I don't think Israel really wants it either. Do you have a better suggestion? What do you think? ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


== Molotov cocktails ==
::: Actually, the ''commonest'' Western media term is probably the ]; however, since it doesn't take due heed of Israel's (absurd) position that the territories are in some metaphysical sense not occupied, this would be dismissed as POV. "Palestinian territories", by contrast, is unquestionably factual, and is preferred by such uninvolved parties as , the , and . - ] 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


The NYT don't attribute it to the IDF {{tquote|But as some began hurling stones, tossing Molotov cocktails and rolling burning tires at the fence, the Israelis responded with tear gas and gunfire.}} It's enough for us even if some other source does attribute it. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing provocative about it. In a few months all Israeli settlements in the strip will be disbanded and there will be no dispute about who the Gaza strip belongs to.] 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
: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? ] (]) 16:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
: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? - ] (]) 23:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::Which sources are you talking about? Vox and Haaretz also don't attribute this claim, see the links and quotes below. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::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. - ] (]) 00:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
: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". ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::You're right, but two more sources from the article say that they were thrown at soldiers.
::{{tquote|smaller groups of predominantly young men have rolled burning tires and thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at nearby Israeli troops.}}
:: {{tquote|a number of protesters threw stones and firebombs toward soldiers stationed along the fence.}} ]<sub>]</sub> 23:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Basically Haaretz uses the wording you've suggested ("toward"). I'm okay with using it. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::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. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps in the vicinity? ] (]) 21:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== October 7 ==
I honestly do not see what people's objection to the much improved new version is. Wholesale reverting is not going to help anyone's cause. If there are specific objections, discuss them here (as SlimVirgin is currently doing). - ] 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


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 ] (]) 03:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:I suppose my objection was that it's a political point in the second sentence, a political label, and I felt it would be better in the second paragraph for that reason. I'd also say that more readers would recognize the term Occupied Territories. However, I agree that Ramallite has done a really good job with the writing. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks - I thought of it more as a recognition label (as it is a mainstream media definition rather than a political statement) - if I could get by writing "occupied territory" I would, but some things are not worth revert wars over if they clearly state enough information for readers to decide for themselves. Thanks again ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear what this adds, besides POV. And it's certainly illogical to include information about the West Bank in the first paragraph, before you even explain what the Gaza Strip is. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not sure I understand - what would be an opposing POV in this case? See also Mustafaa's "Actually, the ''commonest''" entry above... ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

::I think the objection is that it's a political term, and yet it's in the second sentence. It's not the name of that piece of land. Perhaps it could be moved lower down, but not left out, as a compromise? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

:::Exactly; people keep injecting politics into an opening section which should instead give dry facts; what and where it is, who lives there, etc. Political claims don't always have to come first, as much as people like to give them prominence. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:::: Sometimes what some people call "political claims" are actually "human claims" to others, particularly to those who live there. It's not fun being demoted to complete and utter human disregard by having even the mention of their identity considered a political statement or a POV. Furthermore, as I mentioned below, there is more to an important place like Gaza than introducing it solely by who's fighting over it. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::Humans make politics, and political claims. And it is used precisely for that purpose; it's hard to decry its politicization when it is used in exactly that way. It should be introduced by describing where it is, how big it is, how it came to be, who controlled and controls it, etc.]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

::::::Okay... so are you saying that most descriptions of territories should not start with so-called political statements? Or just Gaza and the West Bank? The Israel article, for example, states that it is a "parliamentary democracy" right there in the first paragraph (and I even helped correct the flow of that paragraph), which as you can tell from the Talk page there is pretty disputed (as is "Palestinian territory" evidently). Should that political statement go as well? I'm trying to follow your logic here, that's all. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, here's a description of the Gaza Strip from the UN. It avoids mention of Palestinian territories or Occupied territories, and sticks to terms that aren't disputed:

<blockquote>The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, lying about 40 miles southeast of the West Bank. It is bordered by Israel on the north and east and Egypt on the south under whose sovereignty it was until the 1967 war. Stretching about 40 miles from north to south and only about 5 miles wide it comprises an area of only 365 KM. With a population numbering 1.25 million it is one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Gaza is highly urbanized with the bulk of the population living in cities, towns and 8 crowded refugee camps, home to approximately 468,071 refugees. From 1967 until 1993 both areas were under complete Israeli occupation. Following the Oslo Peace Accords, some areas of the West Bank were handed over to Palestinian Authority (PA) control, along with 60% of the Gaza Strip. The population of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip is young, with about 47% fourteen years of age or younger and 57% 19 years old or younger. Families are large, averaging between 6 to 7 individuals per household in Gaza and 5-6 persons in the West Bank. The rate of population growth is high, about 4.7% a year in the West Bank and 5.4% in Gaza. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 18:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC) </blockquote>

:I'm not sure how accurate the UN description is, especially since the two territories are barely 25 miles apart as opposed to 40, and few of the other stats look suspect as well. In any case, the problem we are having is that, as I said above, without mention of who lives there, who the Gaza Strip is "home to", the intro is written like it describes an inert object as opposed to a land with a nation and culture. When people write of Normandy as being French territory, or that it is "in France", it is reasonable to assume that the people living there are French. But stating that it is "Palestinian territory" appears to be POV or political, as is stating that it is "occupied territory". And saying it is "Israeli territory" certainly isn't true either, or else Ariel Sharon wouldn't need bodyguards right now. The result, as is clear even in the UN piece above, is that the uninformed reader who hears about the Strip on the news and comes to Misplaced Pages to read about it will not get a clear sense of what the territory actually is, but rather who fights over it, and that's an unfair and unencyclopedic description. As long as there is no dehumanization or condescension of Palestinians to the point of insignificance, I guess I'd be ok with anything else that gets this point across but avoids disapproval by the rest of the editors. So have a go at it if you'd like! ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

::The Gaza Strip is a politically defined entity, not a geographically defined one; political claims are inherently highly relevant. However, if for some reason you want an indisputably geographical intro, I suggest "The Gaza Strip forms the westernmost section of the region of ]. - ] 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Most countries are politically (not geographically) defined as well, as are states, provinces, territories, etc.; I daresay almost all "entities" of this sort are defined this way. This seems an entirely arbitrary differentiation. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

: Of course most countries are politically defined (exceptions include ]); that's exactly my point. - ] 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet, articles start by describing where it is, what its size and shape are etc. See, for example, ]. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would compare ] or ], myself, where the territories in question are part of a larger discontinuous entity - which of course gets top billing. That said, note that these articles also frequently start with a description of political status ("republic" of ], "democratic constitutional federal republic of fifty states" of ]) even before the geography section. - ] 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:None of them seem to describe the populations first. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

] and ] do. - ] 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, none of the other articles seem to give history the sort of billing it currently has here. - ] 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg - I still don't understand what is wrong with describing populations in the intro? If most articles don't do that, so what? If it sets a precedent, what is wrong with that? It seems pretty benign to me, and can only add value... ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

: I agree, actually - I think the opening paragraph standards need to be rethought. Opening paragraphs should certainly include the geographical basics, but I'd be a lot happier with some sort of cultural detail. ] is a good example: unlike most country articles, it starts with cultural and population data, and only then gives the bordering countries. - ] 00:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the intro to reflect, among other things, Jayjg's points about comparable articles. Interested to hear opinions. - ] 00:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
:It looks quite good to me. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::It seems to me a major flaw that the current version doesn't point out that the Strip is part of the ]. This leaves out a crucial element of its political geography - perhaps ''the'' crucial element. I appreciate that some people don't like the term but this is discussed in considerable detail on the page in question. ] 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you read through the whole talk page? That's exactly what the controversy has been about from the start. As I've pointed out to you in other pages, that is a political claim that only introduces confusion and POV, not clarity. This article is about the Gaza Strip, not the "Palestinian territories", there are plenty of other articles which discuss the various things people claim as Palestine or Palestinian. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, I've read it. I felt the point needed to be made. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it is that so many references to the Gaza Strip (including on Misplaced Pages) are coupled with a reference to the West Bank? I'm not talking about making a political claim, but about pointing out that the Gaza Strip is part of a wider territory in dispute. As far as political claims go, as I said above, this issue is covered in the PT article.] 19:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, of course the connection to the West Bank needs to be made somewhere. "Occupied Territories" and "Palestinian Territories" are simple acknowledgements of normal English usage, no more POV than "]" or "]". (Don't even bring up the term "liberated territories", Jayjg.) However, in light of the fact that a large number of people mistakenly imagine these terms to be POV, I think that placing it within ], which consists of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, is sufficient for the introduction's purposes. It's not as if the ''current'' article ] is worth linking to anyway; it's yet another one of those horrible "list of POV" articles, like so many of the articles on this topic, with no substantive description of the territories or their situation but plentiful rehashes of the opinions of people most of whom don't even live there. - ] 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the opening sentence???: "The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land not recognized as a de jure part of any sovereign country." So, any part of Antartica that is not part of any country's territory is a "Gaza Strip". An opening paragraph should also tell the reader WHY it is significant (bone of contention in the regional conflict), and the Mediterranean is northeast not merely north of the territory. Come on, forget who is a Palestinian etc. and just give the what, where and why. There's plenty of neutral fact all can agree on. Imagine someone at their computer hearing news again and again about "Gaza Strip" -- he/she wants to know if it is a contraceptive or a nightclub. They dont want to know it's detailed borders or its de jure status up front. General locale, why an area of interest, history of how defined, up front.

This version is boring and I will revert and fix unless it gives up front useful info. -- Anon


Tweaked -- at least it is now mentioned it is in the Middle East in the first sentence. The first paragraph should give enough info that it educates the uninformed by itself.

Ah i see. I thought youy had just reverted to your previous version but you in fact merged both.] 14:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:And it was a very good merge indeed (aside from containing a minor typo that made a link look funny). ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:::A new anon has added info that says that the PA controls 90% of Gaza and that it is located in southwest Israel. Is he trying to push opposite POV's?] 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is 89% not 90%. Check the maps.

::::Absolutely not, see maps , . According to , area A in the strip is 69%, area B is 19%, and area C is 12%. Since Area B no longer effectively exists anywhere, this leaves around 69% of the Strip with some measure of ''effective'' PA control except when the army moves in and out. Remember that Israel controls all access roads and the areas surrounding the settlements, not just the settlements themselves. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

::: Using the map annexed to the Oslo II accords, I measured 36% in Israeli control including border corridors and Area B. The accuracy would be plus or minus a few percent so I can believe that 31% may be true (i.e. 69% area A). Figures close to 90% are ridiculous. --] 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well. It is true that area B no longer exist. It used to be part of Gaza (for example next to karni crossing) were there were Israeli factories. This area no longer exist for 5 years. The result is that today under PA/Hammas control: 69%+19% = 88% and under israel control 12%. ( this is also shown in the maps , .

:Not true - in this conflict, when area B ceases to exist, it becomes area C, not area A. Israel did not evacuate area B, but rather took over area B and even area A in some cases. Your assertions are not based on fact. Please read documents and news carefully. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite: You seem to know everything. In gaza Israelis no longer enter Area B. This is fact. Soon they will be "expeled" from Area A as well.

:Well, not everything - but enough about this topic to know - there are other people who posted information above to the effect that 69% sounds right and around 90% is ridiculous, including some people who know the region (Gaza) very well. Of course Israel enters Area B. As for those being "expelled" from Gaza, they are leaving area C, not area A. And if or when they do leave, this article can be revised. So relax and let's wait and see what happens. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Propeganda Vs. Truth: Just look at these maps see maps , . According to these maps the area under israel control is about 12%. But all this discussion shows two things: 1. consensus based wikipedia can still be wrong.
2. It 3 weeks the % will be 0. So much for writing an encyclopedia on current events.

BTW, 40% is just a bit under 1/2. Look at the maps : Is this how 1/2 of an area look like ?

: Maybe the discrepancy is of whether the security corridors along the border are included. They are quite large, see . The PA Police are supposed to be in charge of them but I think that in practice the IDF is -- I could be wrong about this. --] 13:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can not understand why people like "slim vrgin" and "jayjg" who are administrators can not read a map but still they want to be able to administer this article.

The security corridors are at the size of the road and in some places about 100-150 meters on each side of it. Even if you add them you will never get above 12% of the area. You know what lets make it 15% just to be on the safe side. I don't plan to argue with people who are so anti israel that even if there is a map in front of their eyes they refuse to trust it. Later these people who claim to be the guardians of "no original research" post as proof web sites like "kafar kasam. com" and other propeganda sites. You should think hard if you want this encyclopedia to be worth anything or just, like many other web sites, be controlled by propaganda and a desire tio re-write history.

So let us start with the maps. 40% is just under a 1/2 of the area: Does any one (other then ramlite, jayjg and slim version) see 40% ? I don't. Here is another map that include the security corridors: http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3491,00.html

Just to be clear there are 3 israel control corridores: Kisufim to Netzer hazani. karni to Netzarim and the philly corridor (the longest) which is 12 K'm over 50-70 meters. The "sufa - Morag" and other area B areas were abandended at 2002, israeli no longer control these areas.

:Ok, first it would be nice if you signed a username so that you will not remain anonymous all the time. Second, the ] that was objected to was the blatant POV entries by another user (I assume it wasn't you), and you reverted this article to the edits of that editor - that is when ] reverted your edit. As for the maps, there is a long border strip (see ) along the border with Israel that is supposed to be under Israeli control. If you have evidence that the border corridor is not under Israeli control, or evidence that "Area B" was abandoned as you say, could you please provide a source? ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. So wikipedia is becomeing a web site by which we need to argue about things that are in front of our eyes. I do not see 40% but I do not plan to argue about it any more. Israel control now about 12% and in the future it will zero (which is good if I can express my POV here)

There is no area B area in Gaza at all: http://www.mideastweb.org/palestineisraeloslo.htm but even if you include the gaza "yellow area" Israel does not control 40%, not eeven 30% but about 11%-12% of Gaza.

:Couldn't you just wait a few months so you wouldn't have to go through this pointless argument? It'll be almost 0%.] 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

== "or were expelled" ==

While some Arabs were certainly expelled, is there evidence that they were expelled to the Gaza Strip in particular? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick, I barely got my bits back from Misplaced Pages when you made your comment, and I had to check whether you hadn't made it first! I'm sure Zero or others would know much more on such topics than me, and would probably have references for wartime expulsions at hand but as I noted in the comments, the post-independence expulsions are irrefutable - and not clouded by the fog of war. References like the following appear in standard histories:. "The Expulsion of the Inhabitants of the Town of al-Majdal to Gaza: In the summer of 1950, the remaining 2,700 inhabitants of the southern Arab town of al-Majdal, which on the eve of the war had 10,000 inhabitants (now called Ashkelon), were transported to the border of the Gaza Strip over a period of a few weeks." --] 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the refugees of Gaza would say they were expelled. Pro-Israelis would say they "fled". It is accurate to include both words.] 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

:The difference isn't between pro-Israelis and anti-Israelis, but between fleeing and being expelled. The majority of Arabs fled the region, for various reasons. Some were expelled as well. Fleeing a war zone (or potential war zone) is not the same thing as being actively expelled. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

::Of note, most of those who fled still consider themselves "expelled" because they fully expected to return once hostilities ended but were not permitted to. Most claim to have fled war and shelling of their neighborhoods (doubt many left because some foreign Arab dictator would ask them to, as some have claimed, because most people are not that short on IQ) with their keys and minimal belongings, planning to go back home after the fighting had died down. When they were refused re-entry to their villages and homes, that's how they considered themselves to have been expelled. Many who argue the "fleeing" aspect of the events don't realize that being "actively expelled" and "being forced to flee for fear of one's life and then denied re-entry" both amount to expulsion in the end - in the eyes of those who lived through losing their homes. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 21:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

::: Well, everybody agrees some were expelled, some fled (and some just happened to be away from home and couldn't come back). There's a gray zone where it is hard to say whether a person is fleeing or being expelled, and people would draw the line in different places. The link I gave doesn't absolutely support the present wording, but would if "due to" replaced "during." Especially in wartime, people are usually expelled from, not to a place. The present wording is fine in my opinion and doesn't strictly state that people were expelled to Gaza during the war, just that expelled refugees, which all agree exist, ended up in Gaza, which is another reason I think the anon's cavils are pretty silly. By the way, Ramallite, your percentages sound more sensible than his and perhaps should be in the article.--] 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Dear 85.65.49.249: Did you note my above comments? e.g.: The link I provided concerning a well-known postwar "expulsion to Gaza"? The observation that the present version does not in fact state that there were wartime "expulsions to Gaza" ? - an odd concept in itself? Do you seriously doubt that there are expelled wartime refugees and their descendants in Gaza? You agree that there were expulsions to the West Bank. Do you think that none of these refugees ever moved to or married anyone in Gaza? Doesn't all this imply that at most wording should be changed, not phrases deleted? Ramallite gave reasons for his percentages, do you disagree with them? I would be very happy to see your response. Regards, --] 11:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

:::: Hard to see what the fuss is about. The article does not say that refugees were forcably pushed across the border of the Gaza Strip. It only says that some of the Palestinians who "fled or were expelled from Israel" ended up in the Gaza Strip. Of course that is true, where do you think all the residents of the Gaza Strip refugee camps came from? You can go to the UNRWA site and the details for each camp will tell you roughly were the residents originated. In addition, there really were some expulsions into Gaza in 1950 - residents of Magdal and some bedouin. There were Security Council resolutions about it. --] 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

== Interlingua ==

A page has been added on the interlingua wiki; please add it.

]

] 04:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

== protected ==

can someone add <nowiki>current</nowiki> please? ] ( ] | ] | ] ) 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this page is protected... It doesn't appear that it was being more heavily vandalized than anything else currently newsworthy. Certainly there are enough benevolent Wikipedians reading this lately that we can unprotect it and rely on them to speedily revert any vandalism. A page so close to such a current event shouldn't be unnecessarily prevented from evolving. ] 03:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:Unprotected. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

== facts or fiction ==

I wonder what is this article is based of ? We can either use facts or we can use Israeli government statements or Palestinian propaganda. I prefer to use facts.
The facts are that currently there is self Palestinian rule over Gaza.
Like Every border, gaza border are supposed to be under control of the two neighboring entities. In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world.
The borders between Gaza and Israel (which include also a part of that border that goes into the sea) are of course guarded by Israel from it's side of the border for known reasons (to prevent attacks on innocent Israeli civilians)
The borders between Gaza and Egypt, (including the maritime part of that border that extend into the sea) were supposed to be guarded by Palestinian police and Egypt border police are AS OF THIS MINUTE wide open and thousand of people cross these open border. An hour ago Hamas people have removed the Egyptian border police soldiers and the Palestinian police from the border and exploded a larger hole in the Border wall. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/624877.html http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/NEWS06/509140479/1012/NEWS06

So now what are you planning to write in your encyclopedia?
That Israel control the borders of Gaza ? This is not true. Israel control the Israeli side of these borders but this is normal.
That the PA only control the internal part of Gaza ? This is also not true as everyone who is there knows there are multiple armed fractions and the PA has no control over these armed groups. According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen. All previous past suggest that will not be able to do it.
To sum up: I suggest that facts will be used in this and other values in this encyclopedia .
See also this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AmSz04dHmunK50b.FF07ESFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
<small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 10:27, 14 September 2005.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:So you want facts, here are some:
* Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians, so it's not "Israeli statements" vs "Palestinian propaganda", propaganda exists on the Israeli side too.
*There is Palestinian "self-rule" over Gaza, but not "sovereignty". This is an important difference, most notably when it comes to foreign relations.
*The open border between Gaza and Egypt is temporary, yesterday the Egyptians shot and killed a Palestinian and, if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinians, and it won't be "open" for much longer. Remember, Israelis do not require a visa to go to Egypt, but Palestinians do. Do not think for one moment that the Egyptians care about "humanitarian" gestures towards Palestinians.
*The "self-rule" is "internal". Why? Israel still controls exit and entry, even with Egypt (except for the current few days). A Palestinian passport must be registered with Israel. A Palestinian must (officially) be checked by an Israeli when coming back from Egypt via the Kerem Shalom checkpoint, after the Rafah border was closed. A Palestinian must have a special Israeli permit to leave the Strip. The Palestinian Authority cannot grant the right of freedom of travel to it's residents, which is why the control is only internal.
*The Palestinian airport is forbidden from operating by Israel, even if the traveler is going from Gaza to Siberia.
:I hope you enjoy these facts, if you want more, I'll be happy to provide you with more ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 17:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Ramalite I'll just quote your "facts". anmyone who think his POV is "facts" is not suposed to write in wikipedia.

Here is your #1 "fact" : "Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians "

Here is your #2 "fact" (a speculation aboutr the future) : "if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinian"

I can not argue with someone who thinks his POV and specualtion about the future (as well as present) are "facts"

So learn what the english word 'fact' means and come back we will continuwe this discussion. <small>&mdash;''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 10:27, 14 September 2005.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:Funny, you think that "In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world" is a fact, and "According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen" is not speculation about the future? Anyway, are you proposing to give me English lessons now? I wasn't trying to argue with you specifically, but to point out that there are many misconceptions that need to be cleared up. It's the attitude that I'm concerned about, not these "facts" you mentioned. You say that the border is open between Egypt and Gaza like it's a bad thing, when these people in Gaza have lived in desperate conditions for most of their lives and would like to smell some fresh air for once (and yes that is my POV, but if citizens from many countries can freely cross between their borders, why is there a problem here?) So try not to be so confrontational, and rest assured my English is pretty sound. Lastly, everybody at Misplaced Pages has their own POV, but we (mostly) try not to incorporate them into articles. That is what discussion pages (like these) are for. Salam ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as we stick to the facts that is all I want. What "remained to be seen" is just that : Remained to be seen.
So far Israel has not stopped a single boat to or from Gaza. The Border between Gaza and Egypt is wide open (so if someone want to smuggle people or merchandise or weapon they can do it freely) Under such conditions Israel would be stupid to try and stop boats while the smuggling will continue on land routes. The Palestinian airport was destroyed in fighting so no one knows now what would Israel do or not do to a Palestinian who want to fly from Gaza to Siberia.

Overall, it seems Palestinians should wake up to the new reality: Israel is out of Gaza. (Personally I am very happy about it - POV).
Now, that Israel is out and the gaza-Egypt border is under Palestinian rule (from the Pal side) and Egypt (from the other side) all the talk about "Israel is responsible" should be reconsidered. For 38 Years Israel WAS responsible but the reality is changing in front of our eyes.

These changes in reality are not limited to Gaza:

1.Israel is changing politically.

2. Israel court is telling the government to re-route the wall in places like Kalkilia who were the poster-case for Palestinian to argue against the wall.

3. The Hamas and other fractions are dividing the new land in gaza between them and the PA.

All these changes are now occurring . An encyclopedia should limit itself to facts that are verified, and that will not change in the next 5 minutes or 5 days.

At the same time let's adjust to the new reality:
Gaza is now the responsibility of the Palestinian people (not of Israel)

This, is a change that will remain for long time.

Salamt Ramallite, Ya'atikum Afia
Signed: Anon [[User:85.65.43.180|85.65.43.180

85.65.43.180 - it would really help if you got a username - (it will cost $5,000,000 in the future, but for now they are free :-) ) - as someone with a similar ip address 85.65.155.150 just extensively vandalized the article, and confusion would be very easy. ] 09:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a vandalizer and have no responsibility on the tens of thousands who use the same ISP as me.

How does one get a handle ?

and no I did not made any of the recent changes that were made by someone from the same ISP as me 85.65.155.150 is not 85.65.43.180

aparntly I am now 85.64.50.146 (use to be 85.65.43.180)

I didn't really think it was you except for the first minute, it is hard to remember long ips. Here is a help page ], or just go here ], it's pretty easy; just remember to have cookies enabled. Welcome to wikipedia!] 10:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

==Population statistics==
An IP editor has substituted Palestinian Ministry of Health statistics for the CIA factbook ones. They differ, sometimes radically. Which should be used? Both? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
:Unless someone can prove either is more correct, I believe we should stick to the official Palestinian. --] 06:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would both be bad? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

:a) The Israel article uses the Israeli CBS data only, adding both here would make it seem like the Palestinian stats are not trustworthy (I know I know, to many around here nothing 'Palestinian' is trustworthy, but we're not here to debate that). b) They don't differ 'radically' in most categories. c) The Palestinian MOH probably got it's numbers from the , which gives a detailed account of how they gather their numbers (they are professional statisticians), whereas I don't know how the CIA gets their numbers ALTHOUGH (and this brings me to) d) I am almost sure that, prior to the most recent Palestinian CBS update, the numbers on the CIA website matched those on the Pal CBS site! If I'm right, this would mean that the PAL CBS is one of the sources of the CIA site, but the CIA is a few updates behind. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

According to text in Demographics subsection "The Palestinian population is growing by around 4% a year.", while the Palestinian Ministry of Health states that population growth rate (probably overall) is 2.8%. As non-Palestinians are less than 1% of the population, both figures cannot be correct. I guess first sentence should be omitted, or both figures should be given side by side with cited sources.

== Map ==

A map showing the evacuated Israeli settlements would be very useful.

We used to argue here about what % of the Gaza strip was under israeli occupation.
Some said 35% (based on various sources) some said 12% (based on israeli sources)

Now, the UN map shows it was 10-11%:

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/ochaSR_Gz_Acs&Infr150905.pdf

== Current legal status ==
There are several opinions on the matter, some of them not very surprising. The official Palestinian position is that the Gaza Strip is still occupied territory:
I assume the official Israeli position is the opposite: that the occupation has ended. As for the international community, including the EU and the US, no statements seem to be found regarding Gazas legal status. Legal scholars and other commentators produce a bit more nuanced picture than official Palestinian/Israeli statements, see for instance these different links for different viewpoints:
I suggest we simply write what the two parties official position are (i.e. occupied vs not occupied), just to keep the ambiguity at a minimum. If some statements from other states, the UN, GA resolutions etc, emerge that might clarify the international position on the issue, we should include it, but untill then, we shouldnt be guessing on it, as I guess its a bit too early to tell. --] 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:This seems an eminently sensible suggestion. ] | ] 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

== Zeq's new additions ==

Better, but still has problems. You really must wish for the Palestinian state to look like Somalia, as you said. The most important three points are:
# Since you are relying only on this BBC article, you have not summarized it properly, and you chose the parts that make the Palestinians look bad. You left out a critical opinion of this BBC article which says "there has been very little serious, sustained violence" or "This society has been radicalised and traumatised by its confrontation with the Israelis, who occupied Gaza decades ago and only evacuated their settlers and troops last summer. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, injured or lost their homes during years of violence. There are numerous armed factions that used to channel their violent energies into attacks on the Israelis - but they now have little on which to focus. In this broken, crowded, poverty-stricken place there is an intense struggle for resources that can lead to lawlessness."
# This section on post separation anarchy does not belong in the intro which is about the geography and population, it belongs in a separate section.
# Your quotation is not from "some Palestinians", it is from ONE Palestinian. Only when a group of people is singing or praying can you quote "some" people!
] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::Zeq always tell people to use the talk page, but doesn't want to take his own advice and use talk. His entry is clearly POV pushing because he took one article from the BBC, picked the parts of it that show that the Palestinians are ruthless bastards, and refused to respond to my comments here.

::The <u>BBC version</u> is (roughly) that: There has been plenty of lawlessness and competition after the Israeli withdrawal, the reasons for which may be related to years of occupation (including killings and house demolition) that has both radicalized and traumatized Gazans, and left the society broken. There have been militants taking over institutions and briefly kidnapping foreign hostages. The editor of a Palestinian daily newspaper has lamented in his editorial that such displays of lawlessness and corruption are worse than occupation, which Palestinians should not blame for this problem as per habit.
::<b>"All this has to be kept in context,"</b> says the BBC. <b>"Much of the upheaval has been confined to the south, and to the town of Rafah in particular - and much of the turmoil has about it an element of show. There have been few casualties, and very little serious, sustained violence. Protesting gunmen who occupy government buildings often leave as soon as they have made their point."</b>

::<u>Zeq's version</u> is that: After the Israeli disengagement, Gaza has descended into "complete chaos" with kidnappings and takeovers of buildings, and "many" Palestinians say that the occupation is better. " Zeq also introduces his POV in his own edit summary where he states "This is what a Palestinian state will look like: Somalia".

::This is very dishonest of Zeq. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Here are more quotes. To ckaim that anatchy in Gaza is <b> my </b> POV is a joke. don't make fun of yourselfs.

<blockquote> "Militias battle police, police battle other police, gangs brawl with other gangs; there are revenge killings, aimless killings, kidnappings, bombings, clubbings, mutilations, some pointless, some unmistakably pointed. Chaos rules in Gaza, utter mayhem. "It appears as if Gaza has degenerated into anarchy," explains CNN. There has been a steady outflow of pro-Palestinian NGO personnel from the Strip, some out of panic, some from a realization that the Palestinian revolution, so called, is animated by bloodlust. According to The Times of London, one British aid worker who was recently held hostage by gunmen for three days told her kidnappers, "I came to work with these people and I feel like I've been stabbed in the back." Is this the future of Palestine?
</blockquote>
::: I can find gazilion quotes like this, to claim that the events are limited to the south is dishonest. just few days ago teachers in gaza city were kidnaped. theree month ago Araffat was shot to death in gaza city. There is a problem in Gaza and everyone know it (unless they relay on wikipedia) ] 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the very pro palestinian pro hammas um-yousof is angry about kidnapping <b> NORTH </b> of gaza city. so much for the "confined to the south".... 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::First, get your section NPOV, then we can move on to the rest your Palestine-bashing. Everybody is angry about Gaza, but you have to clearly represent what it is people are angry about, not make up your own interpretation. In other words, there is clearly a problem in Gaza, but you have to describe the problem fairly, ACCURATELY, and NPOV. As for "confined to the south", as usual you are attacking a source that YOU YOURSELF provided. This is too funny. Also, you used to do this original research about "you and I know better what is going on" in October (it's like you telling me "call your friends in Qalqilya and they will tell you"), and back then you were new here. But now you have been here long enough to know that you must rely on credible verifiable sources, not on your personal interpretation. Do one or two events in north Gaza mean that the "complete chaos" has spread to the north? In any event, it's disappointing that you still have no clue how to follow WP rules after all this time. Your problem is that your primary objective is Palestine-bashing, and your secondary objective is trying to enforce rules that you don't seem capable of understanding. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::: I nebver engage in "palestinian bashing". In gaza there are Palestinians who do do worth things to each other. You don't want this mentioned in Misplaced Pages. That is fine. that is your POV and let's all just go along with it. ] 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::You just reverted yourself in a manner that is weird. I suggest you start a new section entitled "The Gaza Strip after September 2005" or something like that and start working on that. I'll help you if you get started. As for your sentence above, what I "want" is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages policy says that if something is RELEVANT, it has to be mentioned FAIRLY, ACCURATELY, and from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I know you understand these words, so just do it. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::: BTW, as for BBC let me explain it once and forall (it will apply for future as well): BBC is a biased source. it is strongly pro-palestinian. so when BBC publish something that does not look good for Palestinian propeganda officer, this means that the reality is so grave that <b> even BBC could not ignore it </B> . So yes I am "bashing" the source that I use but I trust them on facts (such as quotes) but not on analysis ("confined to south") which I know is false (by reading other sources). ] 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:: But... but.... YOU are the one who introduced this source..... !!!!!!! ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::: And I explained that I indeed trust the facts but not the interpretation they give them. "Confined to the south" is clearly false. If you don't understand me, never mind. I tried to explain but if you don't want to understand that is fine as well. Have a happy Id. ] 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

::So are you going to start a new section? ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== Recent news ==

!!! ] 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

== Position of government of Israel ==

The opening paragraph says "The Israeli government disputes this, especially after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005". It is not clear what Israel is disputing or the reasoning behind it - are they saying that the current situation does not consititute an occupation, because Gazans have attained their liberty, or are they saying that there's no occupation because the Gaza Strip still really belongs to the Jewish people (as they argued before the disengagement). An official statement of the current Israeli position would be helpful. ] 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

==Please look at this information; it has great relavance with the present Conflict==

A lot of evidence is showing up that is saying that the Jewish Holocuast is not what it was made out to be. There were alterior motivations for the Zionists. It all connects together.

This is some information to look over; it does challenge the conventional story. And before anyone starts making accusations of biase or anti-Semiticism...it is not I looked through it all. Zionists and Jews are not the same thing, neither are ISraelis and Jews. Just look at it to expand your horizons on the issue.

These are all documentaries on Zionism, the Holocaust, and how portions of it were fabricated or adultered. The first two is just collected information and also claims that there is a link with Septmeber 11, 2001 and the third was is a full visual documentary with interviews and academic explanations.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary

This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...a Jew who was once a leading ZIonist who later left the movement and said it was behind the death of Jews and both World Wars

http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm

69.196.164.190

Latest revision as of 10:48, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza Strip article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWestern Asia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Hava Mendelle (November 2, 2023). "Misplaced Pages at war". Spectator Australia. Retrieved November 2, 2023. Reading the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all.

Population size in infobox

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 Done Using cia source. GrayStorm 23:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

An ICG ruling is just one source, it's not the truth. Alaexis¿question? 16:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/authoritatively-stating-international-law-icj-israeli-withdrawal-opt/ "an advisory opinion entails an authoritative statement of international law on the questions with which it deals" and "judicial determinations made in advisory opinions carry no less weight and authority than those in judgments because they are made with the same rigour and scrutiny by the 'principal judicial organ' of the United Nations with competence in matters of international law" and other such refs easy to locate, it's called the World Court for a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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 , 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)
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)
I did not say it's not neutral; it is not general. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
The blockade intensified in 2007 after the takeover by Hamas. In fact before 2007 some sources call it "movement restrictions" rather than a blockade . 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The OPT includes Gaza? And its occupation (on any basis) is illegal. This is not difficult. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Israeli occupation of Gaza

@Reenem: 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:

“ The Court notes that, for the purpose of determining whether a territory remains occupied under international law, the decisive criterion is not whether the occupying Power retains its physical military presence in the territory at all times but rather whether its authority has been established and can be exercised.

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. This is even more so since 7 October 2023.

”

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."

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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 Misplaced Pages's voice that it's considered as such. RM (Be my friend) 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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." 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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages's voice that Gaza is occupied. RM (Be my friend) 17:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
That's six times. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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. It's enough for us even if some other source does attribute it. Alaexis¿question? 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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". Zero 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Basically Haaretz uses the wording you've suggested ("toward"). I'm okay with using it. Alaexis¿question? 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
Perhaps in the vicinity? 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Categories: