Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Syria as a Belligerent

Today fighting picked up in the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria, should this conflict be considered a part of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War or just that of the greater Arab-Israeli Conflict. I believe that it is the breach of Israeli airspace was a result of the invasion by Hamas and Syria should be added as a belligerent on the side of Hamas. USA1855 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

USA1855, if you can provide two or three reliable sources that specifically call Syria a belligerent in the war itself, then it should be added. We try not to come up with answers to questions like this ourselves, we let the sources decide. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

The defaultsort is currently "Gaza−Israel conflict, October 2023". That doesn't seem appropriate, given the change in title. Kk.urban (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Is currently DEFAULTSORT:Israel–Hamas war, 2023. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Can someone make a quick article about the Israel-Syria strikes. It's getting much attention in the last few hours. - unsigned editor

 Already done: October 2023 Syrian-Israeli exchanges. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (8)

Add Fauda Palestine (anarchists collective) as one of the active belligerents in West Bank, but be noted that they are not sided neither Hamas/PFLP/Lion's Den coalition nor Israel, but independently and actively guerilla assault and sabotage IDF activity and infrastructure within West Bank. Source: [1] [2] [3] [4] 183.171.96.52 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://x.com/asranarshism/status/1711557963297832999?t=dd3kwC8d6l3Fboj1byI-LA&s=09
  2. ^ https://reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/MDFDLci2dX
  3. ^ https://instagram.com/fauda_palestine?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
  4. ^ https://t.me/fauda_ps
 Not done - please provide some source that demonstrates this is a group with some relevance. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Invasion against"

The current opening line of the article speaks of "a large-scale invasion against Israel". That's not properly worded. Armies do not "invade against" other countries.

It should be either "a large-scale invasion of Israel" or "a large-scale campaign against Israel." 2600:1702:6D0:5160:3951:3C12:9280:B9B4 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Date format

As of October 11, the Washington Post reported that persons from 23 countries had been killed or went missing during the conflict.

Could be please change the date format in this paragraph to 11 October, to be consistent with the rest of the article? K175 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Consensus for this move move unlikely to develop at this time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


2023 Israel–Hamas war → 2023 Gaza War – Consistency with 2014 Gaza War and because Hamas isn't the only Palestinian militant group involved in this war. Charles Essie (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Point of information - It may be useful to consult the recent requested move that just closed, as well as the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCEVENTS policy pages that were key in that discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - this article better named as Third Intifada or Sukkot War because not only Hamas involved this war and unlikely 2014, this war covers Israeli territory so this war is equal like Six Days War or Yom Kippur War KenzoHarits70 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I would love for either of those to be the title but I'm not sure if either of them meet WP:COMMONNAME or at least not yet. Charles Essie (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support, Hamas is not the only group involved on the Palestinian side, rendering the current title significantly misleading. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support 2023 Gaza-Israel War, the war isn’t only confined to gaza 78.171.44.45 (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The war started with Hamas attacking Israel outside of Gaza, making the geographical scope of this war larger than Gaza only. Calling it a Gaza war is misleading. Zenms (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - As its not just confined to Gaza fighting it should be the Third intifada or even 2023 Israel War ZR1748 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support move to 2023 Gaza-Israel War, Hamas isn't the only group that is fighting against Israel, and it's not just confined to Gaza. i think "2023 Gaza-Israel war" is a good name for now. Durranistan (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It really wouldn't make sense to name a war after a specific location, because who knows? The combat may take place outside of Gaza, not to mention that there will be multiple spots where invasions occur, so naming this war the "Gaza War" would not make sense. (Editors note: When I was writing this, I did not have much information, so I really went off my own common sense, and something here may seem off or different.) SkullyWasHere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support as the Jihad and partly Hezbollah (although that would require a different name) are part of this war, which the name Israel-Hamas war does not encompass. Ronsiv8 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose this war isn't about Gaza alone Abo Yemen✉ 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the war involved parts outside Gaza. حمزة الوحش (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • strongly support and strongly oppose the current title. The war is not with hamas alone but all palestinian people with all their resistance factions and groups not just hamas. It is either to be named 2023 Israel-Palestine war or 2023 Gaza war since the war is centered around Gaza.
Stephan rostie (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support This Is much wider than it was 3 days ago, from Hezbollah to Syria, this appears to be a multi-faceted conflict now. Completely Random Guy (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: The current title probably isn't where we'll settle, since, as noted above, Hamas isn't the only belligerent on its side, but the fighting already extends well beyond Gaza. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I mean, Israel isn’t the only belligerent either. Unless you want to call it the Israel/United States vs. Hamas War. 2600:4040:9CDE:2B00:28EE:A5C6:518D:A2F2 (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Support changing the title for the reasons stated above (widening of the conflict, inaccuracy of the current title). The proposal for 2023 Gaza-Israel War (see e.g. the proposal of Iskandar323 above) is supported by RS (e.g., https://www.aljazeera.com/), unambiguous, and geographically accurate without misstating the identity of the multiple parties involved. WillowCity (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose this name is currently in common use; fine as the title until sources settle on a different one. – SJ + 13:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The conflict extends beyond Gaza. Fighting has occured within Israel and involves actors from beyond the Gaza strip. The 2014 war was more isolated to the Strip. And as mentioned, this name is in common use widely.Spilia4 (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose – the war is not just in Gaza, but in many surrounding areas and other countries However, the primary belligerents are Hamas and Israel, with Hamas ruling over Gaza. The current name (2023 Israel–Hamas war) is preferable, as it includes more descriptive and informational language than just saying "Gaza" as the descriptor of where the war is and who is in it. Dark Energy9 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Counterpoint I propose calling it "2023 Hamas Invasion of Israel" as it is similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose for two reasons: (a) the attacks by Hamas had happen outside Gaza, and (b) there are already some related actions in West Bank and other parts of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Wait, since the close of the last RM clashes have flared up with Hezbollah and it's likely that a move to 2023 Israel–Palestine war will be needed. But wait a few days for certainty before doing anything. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
And this Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support 2023 Gaza-Israel War or 2023 Israel-Gaza War: This seems to be a more accurate description of what is happening and is consistent with the New York Times [Israel-Gaza War] and the BBC [Israel Gaza war] labels. JParksT2023 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The NYT seems to have changed to Israel-Hamas War now. The link you included now redirects to here and the event page also has the same title. However I would not be surprised for this to keep changing as events progress. Sphillips97 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on two accounts: that (1) throughout the course of events Hamas is the primary actor in the majority of attacks, with other militant groups playing a supportive role, and (2) Hamas being the only belligerent named as the enemy belligerent in most sources' descriptions of the Israeli declaration of war, e.g. [1] [2]. This would not be the first military conflict on Wikipedia after only the two major parties of several involved (e.g. Russo-Georgian War not including unrecognised states South Ossetia or Abkhazia, or the Iran-Iraq War not including the variety of militant groups of various nationalities), and it would not be unreasonable to follow that convention rather than incorrectly imply that, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad had anywhere near as much authority or influence over the attacks as Hamas. Benjitheijneb (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose 2023 Gaza War or 2023 Israel-Hamas war and Support 2023 Israel-Palestine war: its not localized to gaza-israel conflict anymore.Gaza, The West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran are all involved(credible allegations of a potential link), citing the reason as the occupation of Palestine by Israel. Organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, Lion's Den, and Hezbollah are involved, and they are allies of the Palestinian Liberation Army. These organizations claim to represent Palestine and the Palestinians, and I haven't come across any Palestinians denying this claim. Hamas was even voted into power to do so. It's extremely ignorant to assume that Palestinians, in general, don't support these actions. Furthermore, more are likely to join. This act by Hamas is not condemned but rather supported and cherished by most Palestinians across the world, and unsurprisingly, also by the majority of the Muslim population of the world. Observer1989 (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the name of the article one way or another, but we patently can't use reasoning like "These organizations claim to represent Palestine and the Palestinians, and I haven't come across any Palestinians denying this claim...It's extremely ignorant to assume that Palestinians, in general, don't support these actions. Furthermore, more are likely to join. This act by Hamas is not condemned but rather supported and cherished by most Palestinians across the world, and unsurprisingly, also by the majority of the Muslim population of the world." - You are right to note that it's bad to assume things about the feelings of Palestinians, but then go on to do exactly that two sentences later. I really would also encourage you to refrain from making sweeping statements & assumptions about the entire Muslim population of the world; this topic is already difficult and emotive enough as is. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
considering palestine dose not have an official army,airforce or navy and no condemnation by any palestinian authority for this action by hamas , it is a very credible assumption. and no i have not come accross a single instance of any condemnation by any islamic society either,maybe only uae and bahrain condemned it considering uae is the only country with considerable positive ties with non islamic world.infact there are rallies in support for it in many other non islamic countries and most islamic countries. so my "assumptions" are not unsubstantaited.but i agree it is an emotive topic and will hurt feelings. but the thing is i dont care for the feelings of terrorist sympathisers.there are many here who would and are actively trying to legitimise the actions of hamas.i wont be one of them and will raise my concerns from time to time even tho i understand i might be in minority here. Observer1989 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose 2023 Gaza War or 2023 Israel-Hamas war or 2023 Israel-Palestine war : We should not conflate Palestine with Gaza, there were Jewish, Christian, Druze and Muslim Palestinians under the Ottomans. Israelis were understood as Palestinian in 1948 when it the state was founded and an ontological disagreement that only Muslims can be Palestinians and therefore Gaza is is Palestine excludes the traditional understanding of Palestines which includes modern Israel as a secular state, albeit one that gives the right to citizenship to Jews, and its Christian, Druze etc other citizens as legitimate members. Gaza identifies the initial geography but the war is extending to the North of Israel and involving Hezbollah. So, Hamas does not cover Hezbollah. Gaza does not cover acknowledge the warfare involving Lebanon actors and the war is only in its early days. Israel is apart of Palestine with an meaningful understanding that isn't exclusionary to non-Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxjaxlexie (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
well you are correct that the land for which fighting is goinng on is technicaly palestine.whole state of israel comes under palestine but we cannot just rename this to 2023 jew-muslim war(which technicaly it is).so basically in modern usage when we say israel it means secular jewish state where all religions are welcome and palestine is exclusively arab muslims of that land hellbent on ending israels existence(occupation for them) preferably by eliminating all jews. so a 2023 israel-palestine war should be more apt title.otherwise i dont mind if its changed to 2023 state of israel- muslim ummah war. Observer1989 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Support Gaza War or 2023 Israel-Gaza war would be a lot more neutral. The problem with the title is that it implies that that everyone effected by the war is part of Hamas, when there are so many Palestinian civilan deaths. A term like Gaza War would be more neutral. The current title makes it seem like Israel is only fighting Hamas, which would make it an obviously just cause. These articles should be more neutral. Jingle38 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Let's not forget that Gazans invaded Israel, not the other way around. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - The conflict extends beyond Gaza, so a title implying that this is solely a "Gaza War" could be misleading. Samoht27 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME conclusions laid out in RM that was just closed. Yeoutie (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose and Wait . The name used by most neutral sources for this ongoing event is Israel-Hamas war. We should wait another 30 days to see how things fold out. Marokwitz (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why 30 days? Why not a week, or six months, or 30 years? If we have an inaccurate title should we just wait and hope that it becomes more accurate over time? WillowCity (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
To elaborate: if anything, the fluidity of the situation weighs against a wait-and-see approach.
The logic behind opposition to a name change seems to be something along the following lines:
  1. The name was recently changed as the result of RM discussions; and,
  2. The situation is fluid and evolving; therefore,
  3. The name of the article should not be changed.
I do not think the conclusion follows from those premises.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that the situation is dynamic; this actually weakens the first point: if facts on the ground have changed, then this calls into question the outcome of the prior RM discussion and suggests we should not be bound by it, notwithstanding its recency. This also implicates (and undermines the argument regarding) WP:COMMONNAME: many of the sources cited in support of the prior RM have since changed their language (Al Jazeera, ABC, and Haaretz, to name a few). Just my two cents; sorry for the long post. WillowCity (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Rename to 2023 Palestine-Israel war as the war involves multiple Palestinian factions that are fighting against the Israeli state. The fighting also occurred in many fronts outside Gaza. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Lebanese factions are involved as well, so under that logic the word 'Palestine' is inappropriate. Furthermore the PLO / Palestinian National Authority is not currently involved. Marokwitz (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment. I would advise waiting a while to see what name becomes most widely accepted. It might take a few weeks or even months but this event will be talked about for years to come and a proper name will emerge sooner or later. I'm not sure it's worth the energy of moving it around and discussing moving it around while the events are still developing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The conflict is in its infancy and seems to be just the start of a much larger conflict then previous Hamas and Israel have ever had before. I agree with the motion to change the name but the conflict has evolved already into a larger ordeal as habullah in lebanon gets more involved. Normalman101 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. Aydoh8 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose based on tally of reliable sources.
1. If changed, it should be "2023 Israel-Gaza War" (the title of the 2014 War article just says Gaza because it was just in Gaza, whereas this war started in Israel).
2. Counter to the argument that it's not just Hamas: Hamas is by far the largest player (on the Gaza side). They're the largest, the instigator, the main target, sole governors of Gaza, etc.
3. The majority of reliable news sources (~12/16) currently describe it as 'Israel-Hamas War'. Here's a tally (focused on meta-pages (I.E. "live-coverage" and topic pages) rather than individual articles):
Israel-Hamas War:
  • AP (Header / Navigation Bar: "Israel-Hamas war")
  • NYT (Headline: "Israel-Hamas War")
  • CNBC (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
  • NBC (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
  • Independent (Headline: "Israel Hamas war live updates")
  • Guardian (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live")
  • CNN (Ribbon/banner: "Live Israel-Hamas war")
  • Yahoo News (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live updates")
  • PBS (Headline: "Live updates: What’s happening on Day 5 of the Israel-Hamas war")
  • Foreign Policy (Header: "Israel-Hamas War")
  • Al-Jazeera (Headline: "Israel-Hamas war live")
  • Reuters (Heading: "Israel and Hamas at War")
  • WSJ (Heading: "Israel at War With Hamas")
Israel-Gaza War:
  • BBC (Main Heading: "Israel Gaza war")
  • ABC News (Headline: "Israel-Gaza live updates")
  • Washington Post (Banner & lead: "Israel-Gaza War" (Note: The "section" class (right underneath) says "Israel-Hamas War"))
  • Haaretz (Header says "Israel-Gaza War Live Updates", headline says "Gaza War")
  • Al-Jazeera (Header/banner: "Israel-Gaza war")
Yaakovaryeh (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The sources provided by @Yaakovaryeh are enough to justify Hamas as the primary belligerent. This is primarily Hamas. The only modification I would make to the current title, if I could, would be to put Hamas first so that belligerents are in alphabetical order. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. this name is currently in common use; it’s a good title until sources settle on a different one or the new countries join the conflict.
V.B.Speranza (userpage, talk) 23:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Benjitheijneb’s reasoning. Agree with most oppose votes. Unnecessary change, Hamas and Israel are the main belligerents in this war due to Hamas invading Israel, with fighting occurring outside of Gaza. And Hamas is the main group, not Gaza. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Red-tailed hawk and Yaakovaryeh --Pithon314 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Support it's not just Hamas that's retaliating against Israel, other factions in the Gaza strip are also participating in the conflict. Hence, a rename would be accurate. Rager7 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. this name is currently in common use; it’s a good title until sources settle on a different one or the new countries join the conflict. Comfr (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support changing it to the 2023 Israel-Palestine War. Current name is too narrow, especially since other groups besides Hamas are fighting against Israel,like Hezbollah. BigRed606 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong Support It just sounds better, see Festucalix's response. 209.233.2.15 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Israel declared war on Hamas not on Gaza. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Media currently refers to it as the "Israel-Hamas War" or some variation of that, as per @Yaakovaryeh, not the "Gaza War." To my understanding, Israel and Hamas are the groups facing allegations of targeting civilians and which are seeing the most coverage (as cited in the article). There may be other groups involved that are neither on the "side" of Israel or Hamas, such as some groups who want a single Jewish-Arab state in the region, but they're not the ones being widely reported on as part of a "war." 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Red-tailed hawk Andre🚐 06:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Red-tailed hawk. We can have multiple discussion about multiple new names everyday and it will be nothing but a timesink until the situation is contained or degenerates. This title is accurate at this point, if a clear consensus of WP:RS appears later to change it, then a discussion should take place.  // Timothy :: talk  06:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, "consistency with 2014 war" is not desirable, but a third option may need to be found. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Red-tailed hawk and Yaakovaryeh. Red-tailed hawk pointed out the fighting is not contained within Gaza. Yaakovaryeh provided a list of new coverage showing the term "Israel-Hamas" has been used. Wiki6995 (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Suggest speedy closure Overwhelming opposition, 34 oppose vs 8 support. WP:SNOW. Ecrusized (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article scope

The current article's title refers to the war, but the opening paragraph seems to focus only on the Hamas invasion. The question is, as the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza is currently unfolding, how will this be represented in the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It will probably be edited to represent the soon-to-follow ground invasion into Gaza.
There is already a part that talks about the israeli counter-invasion at the beginning.
But when the counter-invasion of Gaza, there will be more added probably, as we don't have anything else than israeli airstrikes and rocket attacks on Hamas buildings and territory in Gaza. Poles Ragge (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Does it really matter? 115.73.17.147 (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Present and future notice

The American President, the Israeli Prime Minister, and the Israeli army spokesman stated that Hamas had beheaded children and that it had killed children. In addition to mentioning this topic in international media. The Israeli journalist revealed that there is no evidence of this, his tweet can be seen on Twitter Osps7 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

He didn't see any in his tour. This is not to say that it did not occur. SigTif (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Change militants to terrorists

Change all references of "militants" to "terrorists" - these are terrorists attacking a country and murdering innocent civilians, not "militants" engaging in "battle". You would never call 9/11 hijackers "al-Quaeda militants"... SensibleMortgage (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The repetition of the word militants is noticeable and a bit jarring. In Swedish mainstream media the event is uncontroversially described as a terror attack and the attackers as terrorists; see e.g. [3][4][5]. It's baffling, but nonetheless true, that several major English-language newspapers seem to actively avoid the "terror" word. If reliable sources use both terms descriptively the correct thing to do is probably to use them both interchangeably. –St.nerol (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
See [6] BBC news and many media outlets are refusing to call them terrorists as that apparently means taking a side. I would suggest referring to a spade as an earth moving implement might be stylish but doesn't convey an accurate message. WCMemail 15:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
What Hamas did does match the the definiton of terrorism. Many reliable sources do call it terrorism. I think a line like "which many nations, analysts, and media outlets have called terrorists" immediately after Hamas militants are first mentioned would suffice, and then we can continue calling them militants throughout the article. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes—"militant" connotes one engaged in warfare. By no stretch of imagination is killing women and children in their sleep "warfare" in any traditional sense of the word. It's hard to think of a clearer example requiring the use of "terrorist". ElleTheBelle 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
MOS:TERRORIST explains when the label can be used, viz "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The attack is widely compared to 9/11; this article is a WP:GA where "terror", "terrorism" and "terrorists" are used half a dozen times in the lede alone without in-text attribution. –St.nerol (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Because it was in (nearly all?) sources and Al Qaeda is as well designated terrorist by the UN. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2023 (2)

In the Palestinian War Crimes section, remove "it said that." SomeoneOK (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

and why? Abo Yemen✉ 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The sentence puts off some uncertainty to me at least, if you don't believe so, go ahead and deny. Just seems like it's not necessary to have that there. I think it's pretty agreed upon killing and taking non-combatants as hostages is a war crime or perhaps turn it into a direct quote of what was said Article 3. However, I'm not a grammatician, so I could be wrong. SomeoneOK (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"It said that" is just attribution. If you omit attribution then Wikipedia itself is making the statement, which is not what an encyclopedia is (it isn't the news or a human rights organisation; it repeats but does not report). If the verb was "claimed" or "alleged" then that would be problematic. Yue🌙 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Syria clashes page

Should there be a page created for the for the attack from Syria and the subsequent Israeli Airstrikes, much like the page for Lebanon. HuntersHistory (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes there should be one Abo Yemen✉ 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I decided to make one October 2023 Syrian-Israeli exchanges HuntersHistory (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

said/claim

@Borgenland: You recently switched from "said" to "claiming"; per MOS:CLAIM, we should avoid using "claim" as it can call their statement's credibility into question - can you switch back to a more appropriate word? BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I reverted the edit Parham wiki (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I also get confused about that sometimes. Borgenland (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Israeli’s use of white phosphorus

Multiple videos show white phosphorus being dropped into villages and towns. 74.96.7.109 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources are still speculating as to whether or not Israel has used white phosphorus again in Gaza, as may be shown in the videos you are referencing (but not linking). Yue🌙 04:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Please share sources when you try to claim something. Many are just speculating or debating if israel is using white phospor. A widespread video apparentlx showing israeli use of white phosphorus has been debunked as a video from few years ago, showing the celebration after a football event Poles Ragge (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Here are some news sources that report on the use of white phosphorus on Gaza by Israel, although not any major news outlets as of yet.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestine-accuses-israel-of-using-white-phosphorus-bombs-in-gaza/3014705
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-reports-of-concern-the-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-conflict-zones-3267531/
https://new.thecradle.co/articles/operation-al-aqsa-flood-rages-on-as-israeli-jets-pound-gaza
https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/127577/Israel-uses-internationally-prohibited-white-phosphorus-against-Palestinians-Sources
According to Euronews "The Palestinian ministry of foreign affairs has accused Israeli forces of using white phosphorus against the Gaza Strip"
https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/10/israeli-pm-says-siege-just-getting-started-as-gaza-battered-overnight
Additionally, alleged use of white phosphorus at the Lebanese border by Israel as reported by the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/world/middleeast/israel-syria-lebanon-shelling.html ~~~~ Κυπρομέδουσα (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
All of those sources claim that this "may" have happened and reference only one twitter picture, which is not reliable. Even the news sources themselves claim that "Euronews cannot independently verify this claim."
Shovalis (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Until it is confirmed to be Israel dropping white phosphorus in this particular war, we should refrain from adding it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
[7] Fake news, it has been shown to be images taken from the Russian bombardment of Bakhmut in Ukraine. WCMemail 16:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
One video being a hoax does not make the entire thing necessarily "fake news", it just means that isn't evidence of it. Though I agree with others that we should wait for confirmation before adding it to the article, obviously. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Syrias involvement

Syria fired mortar shells into Israel and Israel has responded by launching rockets back into Syria. Add Syria as a Hamas side belligerent Evansnikolai (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The Syrian government did not claim responsibility for the mortar fire and the Israeli government did not accuse the Syrian government of firing them either. The source given only states that Israel fired rockets back at the origin of the mortar rockets. Yue🌙 04:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Additional info indicates that Syria says it's a militia that fired the mortars. Without some pretty affirmative reporting that it was Syria, we can't do this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you possibly add Syrian militants to the info box Evansnikolai (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, once Israel makes a statement on the identity of the attackers. The reason why adding "Syrian militants" may be premature is they could have been non-Syrians fighting in Syria, e.g. Hezbollah or the PLO. Yue🌙 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't have references right now, but our media claims that Hamas has claimed responsibility for the fire at the north border as well.
Shovalis (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of "widespread sexual violence"

The female Israeli citizen's body that was displayed was not undressed, she was wearing shorts and a bra. A look through her social media account shows that she has posts of herself in that very same outfit and other similar loose-fitting, revealing outfits. There is no proof that the Palestinian fighters undressed her or sexually assaulted her. Please revise this segment. 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if you specified the text you wanted changed and provided a reliable source that supports your proposed change. XeCyranium (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
"Widespread sexual violence and massacres of Israeli civilians have been reported." The citations do not mention any reports of "widespread sexual violence." One article mentions the woman discussed above, the other cites statements by American politicians speculating that sexual violence would occur. 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Just noting here that the LA Times has said that reports of sexual violence have "not been substantiated". Unsure how that fits in - we don't necessarily have to buy the LAT's editorial judgement, and even if we do, they're not saying they believe such reports are false or weren't made, just that they couldn't confirm them - but it is notable to some extent. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
As stated by another commentator, both articles are void of any, let alone widespread sexual violence."
Proof that the body was dressed: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU
Proof that the deceased female Israeli wore similar outfits regularly: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSi8DSsnfuZoR_0BsRt0sU7ex66XFy9rJCpxA&usqp=CAU 41.47.21.14 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
she was not a soldier but a german citizen attending a party 2A02:6680:110B:9A00:C4B1:4809:B0E2:1AD2 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Your "Proof that the body was dressed"
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUg10ttmlCkRrSaKwohEx3DV_9ghmpoqQX7g&usqp=CAU center image which is a still from the video of her body in the pickup truck which clearly shows her bra/top pulled up over her breasts. Notice how high up in the shoulder blades the bra/top straps have been pulled --straps that usually meet in the middle back. In that image (and more visibly in the video clip), her bare breast is visible from the side. The image also shows her miniskirt seemingly split up the rear --likely not the original state of even such an immodest dresser as the victim. Cramyourspam (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
A single photo of a person in any sort of dress isn't "proof that [they] wore similar outfits regularly". There is also no confirmation that she is "deceased" as of today. Such assertions are patent violations of WP:BLP and should be removed. ElleTheBelle 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yikes to the comments of that "41.47.21.14" person and quite of a few of the other editors here. This is honestly a beyond vile discussion and the admins should probably step in right now. Randomuser335S (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Hey, The Telegraph source documents a woman of German citizenship being paraded naked, "The naked body of a woman was paraded in the back of a pickup truck." (...) "Some in the crowd which included youngsters spat on the woman's body." This counts as sexual violence specifically sexually humiliation, her names was Shani Louk, although she was not alive when she was being paraded. Many thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Des Vallee: That sounds like one case of sexual violence, but I still don't see support for the claim of numerous cases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Perhaps then a better wording is available, or more citations to be necessary. The one does document substantial sexual violence. Des Vallee (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I would argue it's pretty misleading. Most people would assume that sexual violence would refer to sexual assault or rape against a living victim. This would more accurately be described as desecration of a body rather than wartime sexual violence 2604:3D09:D07D:A830:98D4:DBCA:3D4F:805B (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Sexual violence is not limited to being alive, necrophilia as an example is considered a form of sexual violence, despite the affected individual being dead. Likewise mutilation of a body for sexual purposes is also considered a form of sexual violence, and the given source describes her body as mutilated. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Des Vallee: That may be true, but Sexual violence does not include anything about necrophilia or other post-mortem examples, and generally seems to imply that the victim is alive (or that the killing is part of the violence). This could be a problem with that article, but I agree with the IP user who commented before that the average reader would assume that we are talking about living victims. Renerpho (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It's been reported by German news outlets that the woman in question is still alive, according to the testimony of her mother.
https://www.newsweek.com/shani-louk-still-alive-mother-reveals-1833453?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1696946587 186.102.24.14 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Likewise, it wasn't "sexual violence" when they dragged that male Israeli commander out in his underwear, they were literally just caught with their pants down. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not an appropriate joke to make. Have some decency.
    Also, have you seen the video of the woman being captured by Hamas militants? There's literally a massive pool of blood in her vaginal/anal region. 100% this woman was raped. I'm too sickened and nauseous to search for an article confirming it was rape, so it's not necessarily valid for the article, but here it is. Obviously not for the easily disturbed, you've been warned:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6FVUxvp6Ah0 2601:40:C481:A940:BC5B:2D91:8072:848E (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Why are we arguing what is and isn't sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources call the specific instance being referred to sexual violence? Do a preponderance of reliable sources say there has been widespread sexual violence or say there has been sexual violence? That is what matters not editors arguing over what constitutes sexual violence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: I agree in principle. I think the question has been whether a source that doesn't use the exact term "sexual violence" or "sexual assault" can still be used. To answer that, we must agree what the term actually means. I would lean no in this specific case, because there doesn't seem to be clear consensus that this is synonymous, and thus would be WP:SYNTH. Renerpho (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The answer here is that it is an emphatic no. No reliable sources mention sexual assault. This seems to be a fog of war situation, and also many people "defaultly" believing that a naked body of a woman is somehow definitive evidence of sexual assault (it is not). 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Can someone Mention the various images of violence against Israelis and at Israeli women? The are crimes and brutality. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGF3hJOLXn/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyGRHwMIzVO/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyHSu-ZIAUG/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyI3Ju0rkUL/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyIzHMYLIE2/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== https://www.instagram.com/p/CyIZ1muONBH/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== your tellking me this isnt violence? also these articles: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/missing-israelis-viral-post-shows-pics-of-men-and-women-kidnapped-by-hamas-4461651
https://english.jagran.com/world/israel-gaza-under-attack-hamas-palestine-tel-aviv-military-operation-operation-iron-swords-benjamin-netanyahu-london-celebration-metropolitan-police-10105820 Azz205 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.foxnews.com/world/videos-hamas-brutality-toward-israelis-eerily-reminiscent-isis-tactics Azz205 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Violence doesn't equate sexual violence. That's the issue here. There is no evidence of any sexual violence just because women have been taken prisoner. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/cye1k60kz23o source? Azz205 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Tablet magazine is reporting that women at the music festival massacre site were raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends. That one source may not be enough, but other media outlets are probably investigating. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This source also claims that RFK Jr tells the truth about vaccines which is, shall we say, disputed. Brian Dell (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"Raped next to the dead bodies of their boyfriends" is such an explosive claim that, if true, would be widely covered by international sources.VR talk 01:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
The Times is describes the situation at the festival by Re'im thusly: People were shot at point-blank range, survivors tell of women being raped then killed. That people were raped is a bit less explosive, all things considered, than the fact that 260 civilians were intentionally killed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
It was the difference between Israel and Hamas all the time.
It was always Hamas who started the conflicts. Israel always responded with airstrikes to destroy Hamas buildings and personnel. But unfortunately and inevitably, civilians would be killed in such strikes. The Palestinian civilians who were killed by the guns of Israeli soldiers were armed with knives, guns, and stones themselves. So the soldiers could do nothing other than self-defense.
But on the other hand Hamas showed their true colors in the recent days. They -as you said- deliberately killed so many Israeli civilians with their guns from close range.
Poor civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli. It's the consequence of Hamas actions. Aminabzz (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
How unbiased.
What did Israel respond to when they bombed Gaza the 5 and 6 of October? 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
What evidence is there that Israel bombed Gaza on 5 and 6 of October? 199.172.169.29 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
No, there is evidenve of "widespread sexual violence" from mand news sources. You focusing on the case of Shani Louk doesn't mean anything other than you arguing with other about if she is naked or not. She isn't the only woman in this war Poles Ragge (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be original research. Reliable sources have reported on sexual violence. Analyzing photographs in this manner breaches our policy on original research and shows a lack of respect for the victims. Notice the wording is 'have been reported' and we do not have a mandate to make a decision whether those reports are true or not . Please stop. Marokwitz (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It definitely is, here's PBS with a first hand account of a survivor witnessing rapes: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/survivors-of-hamas-assault-on-music-fest-describe-horrors-and-how-they-made-it-out-alive. Yet the 3 references and reports made from reliable sources were removed again. For reasons I suppose. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is a hamas terrorist saying they kidnapped women to rape them;
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyQxuozIcUI/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Yaroniv (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The "No original research" policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. 41.42.158.128 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a reporting on these allegations here. They find: "But the source of the rape allegation remains murky. While sexual assault is a common feature of violent conflict worldwide, the Israel Defense Forces told the Forward Tuesday night that it does not yet have any evidence of rape having occurred during Saturday’s attack or its aftermath. And most mainstream media outlets have avoided mention of rape, with the Los Angeles Times and NBC News specifically stating they have been unable to verify the claims."--Carwil (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"The first shows an Israeli woman being removed from the back of a Jeep with her hands bound behind her back. She has blood on her arm, dirt stains on her legs and a large, dark stain across the seat of her pants.
A high-ranking Israeli military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that video was the only evidence of rape or sexual assault of which he was aware."
From that source that you cited. The one being used to justify this, pretty clearly POV statement: "Claims that women were raped have been made and widely repeated, but Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape." This statement is saying that Israeli officials have said they have no evidence of rape. This is at best a misrepresentation of the source, and at worse a lie. It leaves out the statements by a LOT of israeli officials, that were PREVIOUSLY cited but removed, saying that rape happened. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Did you really just say the female victim had a history on social media of wearing “revealing” outfits? You should be barred from this website. 2600:4040:9CDE:2B00:28EE:A5C6:518D:A2F2 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
To make a point that she was most likely already dressed that way and wasn't undressed in a sexual assault incident, as some have claimed. Don't take words out of context. 41.42.158.128 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
What difference does that make? What clothes she wears is not indicative of whatever she was sexually assaulted or not, and not all abuse requires "undressing" in the way you're trying to describe.
Even if Louk wasn't abused in that manner, the most generous interpretation from the video shared by Hamas themselves is that they abducted a random woman from a concert, and beat her to the point of near death. There is nothing that paints Hamas in a positive light here, and the proof of it is overwhelming.
Your line of thinking honestly reminds of murder ghouls trying to defend famous serial killers. I.e. "Bundy wasn't a pedophile because he had relationships with many grown women." You are clearly trying to grasp at minuscule distinctions in hopes of painting Hamas and everything else you are trying to protect in a slightly better light.
Please get help. Randomuser335S (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to interrupt your straw man fallacy, irrelevant serial killer analogies and personal attacks, but I'm not trying to paint anyone in a better light. I only said that she was most likely not sexually assaulted and the discussion ended there. 41.42.158.128 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Fixating on victims' clothing in the manner you are doing is very demeaning, and reeks of rape apologia. I assumed you were trying to protect Hamas, because why else are you so insistent on saying "the female Israeli wasn't stripped and raped by Hamas fighters, because of her revealing clothing."? Randomuser335S (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
You insist on making this conversation about something entirely different i.e. justifying rape, which absolutely no one brought up, hence the straw man fallacy. You should know that personally attacking me isn't in your favor, it only reflects your character. I will no longer entertain this. 41.42.158.128 (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The reason why I brought that "justifying rape straw man" (as you put it) is that your arguments sound a lot like "the way she was dressed meant she was asking for it" comments regarding victims of abuse.
Have a good day though. Randomuser335S (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Numbers conflict

If Israel has killed 1500 invading militants and other militants brought back 200+ Israeli hostages, then at least 2,000 Palestinian militants must have entered Israel, not the 1,000 stated in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubberke99 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved this to the bottom of the page instead of the top. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
As should be obvious, both in general and in this particular case, during the fog of sudden all out war, estimates of the number of invading combatants and the number of casualties are in flux, and the numbers change as the combat proceeds. As time goes by, we should see a rough consensus emerge among reliable sources regarding the number of Hamas invaders last Saturday, and the number of them who were killed. Large numbers of dead bodies of Hamas fighters were left behind, after all, and as time goes by, these bodies will be counted fairly accurately. It should be clear that meticulous counting is not high on the list of Israeli priorities at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There is already doubt regarding IDF truthfulness about the 1,500 figure. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Current estimates are that there have been 800-1000 *bodies* of inflitrators found in Israel. It makes lots of sense that about 1500 have managed to invade, and some hundreds took hostages and fled back into Gaza.
Current number of hostages is about 150, by the way
Shovalis (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
From videos we see that many people entered Israel unarmed.
IDF killed everybody without discrimantion, which is logical, and counted them as Hamas fighters.
It is therefore not clear at all to determine how many armed terrorist entered.
If we multiply the number of places that were attacked and the average number of fighters per attack we get something less than 1000 : less than 10 locations attacked by less than 100 fighters each time.
There remain the question to know where the 7500 IDF soldiers affected to Gaza division were and why absolutely nobody looked at Gaza ?!
Sources lack for this topic. RadXman (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Arab citizens among the victims?

Nas Daily, cited by various RS, mentioned 40 Arab citizens of Israel among the victims (Haaretz, Times of Israel). I cannot find RS confirming this. If true and backed by RS, it would be good to add the breakdown of Israeli victims by ethnic and religious groups (e.g., those commonly found in official census data: [Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Other] or [Jews, Arabs, Other]). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz gave yesterday (Oct 10): At least six Arab Israelis missing since Hamas attack, likely kidnapped Six Arab Israelis are missing since Saturday's attack by Hamas, and at least of one them was seen in videos published by Palestinians from within the Gaza Strip. So there could be 40 deaths, 1 kidnapped, 5 missing among Arab Israelis? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Found this: Bedouin Leader in Israel Says Community Lost Lives in Attack, WSJ: The mayor of the predominantly Arab Bedouin city of Rahat, Israel, said that 19 Bedouins had been killed in the assault by Gaza militants and urged the government not to forget that his community were victims of the attack. Ata Abu Mediam said dozens of Bedouins had also been wounded and others kidnapped and taken to Gaza.
Social Equality Minister Amichai Chikli said according to the ToI: the Bedouin population in the Negev, which has suffered casualties and missing people a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
There have been not only dozens of Arab victims, but also Bedouin and Druze, and even one Palestinian man died because of a rocket attack that hit him in the West Bank
Shovalis (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I've edited the article accordingly. If you have RS about Druze casualties please let me know. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Swiss EDU (Departement of foreign affaires) is looking for possible swiss casualties.

SRF (Official state-news agency of switzerland) reports that the EDU (EDU (Departement of foreign affaires) is searching for clues of possible missing swiss nationals or killed nationals.

The swiss EDU is also searching for SWISS-ISRAELI DUAL-NATIONALS and it will count dual-nationals as it's own nationals. Another reason why we should also count dual-nationals as foreign nationals casualties and not israeli, no matter how much they spend time in israel or their country of origin.

If countries are counting dual-nationals as their own, we should too! Poles Ragge (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nature Party Atacks

You should add a paragraph (I belive) under October 10th about the Nature Party/Desert Concert atacks where many women were raped, many kidnapped, and 200+ people were left dead. Willamar86 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is written in there and there is a whole article about it - Re'im music festival massacre Ronsiv8 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Just a question - where is it written in the article? Willamar86 (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Just Ctrl + F "Re'im".
  • Timeline > Militant incursions into Israel
  • Casualties > Israeli
Yue🌙 03:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

ADD UK GOVERNMENTS STANCE AND COMMENTS. ALSO ADD HOW BBC OPPOSED IT.

"The people who support Hamas are fully responsible for this appalling attack. They are not militants. They are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists. My message tonight from Finchley United Synagogue where I joined @chiefrabbi in vigil with local communities," Sunak posted on X, formerly Twitter.[1][2] Anyone in the UK found to be supporting Hamas in the wake of its “barbaric acts of terrorism” on Israel will be held to account, the Prime Minister has vowed.[3]The BBC's refusal to refer to Hamas murderers as terrorists was criticised by UK ministers.[4] Observer1989 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm here to announce you that all your references were gone to the bottom of the page. All other entries after yours are now between your topic and the references. Aminabzz (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
lol.. lets demand a collective resignation of wikipedia technical team then Observer1989 (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Same thing in the US, WH trying to force newsorgs to use the label. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is a well-established legal framework that governs the designation of terrorist organizations, following this framework is crucial. News publications should consider whether the government's request aligns with established legal procedures. left leaning news publications often do not work for or are concerned with national security. they have their own audience and agenda. also It's a fundamental journalistic principle to verify information and scrutinize government actions, regardless of the publication's political leaning but is it practiced fairly? these are democraticaly elected governments we are talking about whom these left leaning publications are opossing disragring the evidence of terrorism .not like the most reliable source al jajeera opossing qatar govmt action(ever heard about it?) Observer1989 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
your welcome.hope you learned something. Observer1989 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
See International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. I believe it's better placed there. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
there should be a brief mention of all the countries calling this "terrorism" in this article. Observer1989 (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ""People Who Support Hamas...": Rishi Sunak's Israel Prayer At UK Synagogue". NDTV.com. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
  2. ^ Online, E. T. (10 October 2023). "'Hamas not freedom fighters, terrorists; UK stands with Israel': PM Rishi Sunak at Jewish event". The Economic Times. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
  3. ^ "UK-based Hamas supporters will be held to account, Sunak vows". The Independent. 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023.
  4. ^ Churchill, David (9 October 2023). "Rishi Sunak blasts the BBC for refusing to call the Hamas terrorists". Mail Online. Retrieved 11 October 2023.

Strength

Why isn't there a "Strength" part between "Units involved" and "Casualties and losses" in the infobox? Aminabzz (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Very good question. Or a least, I have exactly the same. The answer is that we don't have sources for this.
Usually 7500 IDF soldiers are affected to Gaza Division (2 brigades and 1 battalion). Security forces shoud be added. Where were they ? If they had been there Hamas would not have crossed the border. That's impossible. Images also show that Erez check point was empty. That's not possible. Why empty ? RadXman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence warning

Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a split between Israeli sources which are more willing to discuss and criticize the intelligence response and what we're seeing in RS's from other countries. I'm in favor of inclusion if it's clearly discussed in reputable sources from Israel (or any other nation, but they seem to be giving it the most air time so to speak). Paragon Deku (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I've added the first part to the relevant section AntiDionysius (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
As for Iranian surprise, that's very interesting and to me, notable. I am unsure about where in the article it might fit, though AntiDionysius (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Egypt claims it warned Israel that Gaza could ‘explode’ before Hamas assault from the FT. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

We know that Egypt has warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen,” Republican Michael McCaul tells reporters following a closed-door intelligence briefing for lawmakers on the crisis.

Unlike the FT source, the ToL report presents this as factual, something ascertained by US intelligence, independent of both the Egyptian 'claim' and various Israeli official responses. It therefore should replace the claims and counterclaims, with of course, attribution to McCaul. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Based on that, there is no doubt some message was given. But what it was, exactly? “We know that Egypt has warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen” does not provide enough info. Was it just generic ("something can happen" - yes, sure, any time, that does not mean much) or more specific? My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Bibi denied receiving a "specific" warning. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this should be noted. But the story is well sourced and significant enough to be included to this page. Looking at sources, it seems that the warning mentioned a large-scale attack from Gaza, but no specific date. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Our article still reads in a complete violation of NPOV:-

Israeli forces reclaimed Kfar Aza and began collecting the dead, reporting they found the bodies of victims mutilated, with women and babies beheaded in their homes. The bodies of 40 babies and young children were taken out on gurneys, out of what one estimate described as at least 100 civilian victims.[131][132][133][134][135][136][137] According to Mondoweiss, the allegations that the babies were beheaded has no foundation.

It is Nicole Zedek from the pro-Netanyahu i24NEWS who claimed soldiers had told her children had been beheaded. Three other journalists present at Kfar Aza stated that none of the many soldiers they interviewed at Kfar Aza knew anything of what their 124 colleague claimed.
The problem is, the IDF reportedly would neither confirm nor deny. The IDF is there, examined every house, brought out all of the victims, so it must know whether this report is true or false. The most one can say is. All we have is a rumour, which may be true or false, but the IDF will not at the stage confirm or deny it though they have all the information on the victims. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_7&oldid=1197332312"