Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Did Hamas say Iran is involved?

XavierItzm can you please self-revert this edit[1]? Besides the WSJ (not BBC as you erroneously stated), I can't find many sources that say Hamas said Iran is involved. In fact, Hamas has actually denied that Iran was involved (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed").

Therefore the claim that Hamas has linked Iran to the attack is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS required to have this claim in the lead.VR _talk 22:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

?? There is MASSIVE news coverage from all quarters that Iran is involved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are spreading misinformation. Hamas claims Iran backed them.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9 AtypicalPhantom (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

He literally just answered that. Not very AGF of You to accuse him. On a restricted article. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid speclative accusations.

The article you linked to is a reliable source. There is a similar article in the Times of Israel [2]. Unfortunately, neither of these articles appears to directly link to a BBC story. I think a direct link to an interview would meet a threshold for inclusion in the lead, as long as the language closely reflected what was in that report. Can we find that BBC story? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

im not the one accusing anyone. Tell him to AGF. 37.252.92.97 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I replied to AtypicalPhanom's comment, not yours. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: there are no details in the Times of Israel article. What did Hamas say exactly? Also what about the interview in which Hamas explicitly denied receiving any support from Iran? (Senior Hamas official says Iran, Hezbollah had no role in Israel incursion, but will help if needed") VR _talk 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's fair to say that there is a great deal of speculation on Iran's involvement, without a clear picture at the moment. This is reaffirmed by media statements attributed to U.S. intelligence officials. So in that context, probably best to leave it out of the lead and have a fuller description in the body of the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The link is at the end of the sentence on the lead a Hamas spokesman said Iran gave support which is what it’s based on if another Hamas spokesman denies this then they can just be put side by side in the page but the wiki page is changing a lot and I haven’t checked on it I don’t know how it’s worded now Bobisland (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Meant to say lead states a Hamas spokesman* Bobisland (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! The reference is wrong. Meant to repair a ref. to the BBC, but must have pasted in error. Apologies. Will fix in the next 5 minutes. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed it and pasted the correct BBC ref from an earlier version of the article. Again I apologize. What had happened is this: people had moved the BBC ref to the infobox, then deleted the content together with the ref, then modified main text and just prior to my intervention there was a call to a ref name that no longer existed!, so the ref gave error. I searched for a prior version that still had a named ref and pasted it and thought it somewhow was still the BBC ref because it did mention the BBC but alas! it was totally wrong. Again I appreciate being called on this inadvertent error and the proper BBC ref is now presented as intended. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not speculation, it's political propaganda.

Hamas is an extremist sunni organisation, that get support from wahhabi states. Iran is extremist shia.

Hamas doesn't get anything from Iran.

Iran has it's own organization in Gaza, the islamic jihad. 2A02:AA1:102F:523D:FC79:77E1:75A2:C6BF (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that what whoever meant was that Iran was involved, not Hamas said Iran was involved. You clearly are correct and this should be corrected. 71.104.111.79 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that my fixing my error as described above resulted in a new section as to whether the removal of the WSJ citation was fair. I know I read and have access to an independent WSJ source (which was earlier in the article, added by someone else) which fully corroborates the BBC source.
So, I'd like to respond to VR who said: "WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim for which there are not yet the amount of RS". I entirely disagree. I can provide additional sources such as the WSJ which say the same thing as the BBC. So please do not remove the current statement supported by the BBC unless (a) people fail to provide the sources (if you still require them) or (b) you can reach consensus for deletion. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC source says "A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel, saying it was a source of pride. Ghazi Hamad told the World Service's Newshour programme that other countries had also helped Hamas, but he did not name them." The wording here is a bit strange, and it also contradicts another source above. I see you added "Hamas said Iran assisted with its attacks". It might be more accurate to say "One Hamas official said the attacks were backed by Iran and other countries, while another Hamas official denied that Iran was involved.([3]". Are you ok with that XavierItzm?VR _talk 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice regent: yes, of course, but then also please note the following: A key Irani officer (Yahya Rahim Safavi)) said Iran supported the attack, whereas another, less senior Irani officer said Iran doesn't, and yet our article is not as exquisitely clear as you propose being clear regarding Hamas. Please consider being just as exquisitely clear on both counts. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Iran's supreme leader (and there is none more senior than him) has denied Iran's involvement[4]. So the lead can firmly say that "Iran denied involvement", although we can mention the rest of the nuances in the body. Do you agree?

Also I think you misinterpret the source above. Safavi said "We support the proud operation of Al-Aqsa Flood", notice the present tense of "support". The probably interpretation here is that Iran is praising the attack, we can't interpret Safavi as saying that Iran materially supported the attack.VR _talk 14:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that reference is a good find: straight from the horse's mouth! Yes, of course it should be included, also. I don't think we should paper over the conflicting statements. XavierItzm (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that another editor completely nuked the section with this edit, eliminating numerous sources and statements; I'm not sure how all the refs lost are brought back to the article.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've questioned that decision below. It looks like it was collateral damage from trying to edit through an edit conflict, but they've yet to respond to a ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Economist has reported today that both Hamas and the IDF deny direct Iranian involvement in the initial attack, notwithstanding Iran's general support for Hamas. [5]

I think the IDF denial in particular ought to be included in the article alongside the Hamas and Iranian denials. It is relevant that both sides are in agreement. Riposte97 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you, IDF's POV should be taken into account, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

XavierItzm: Where's the so-called interview with BBC? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Twice the BBC has reported that Hamas told it Iran helped it with the attacks. Please observe the BBC remains a WP:RS and therefore there is no need to qualify its reporting. XavierItzm (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@XavierItzm There is something odd about this BBC quote. Firstly, they don't actually give a verbatim quote of what Hamad said and in what context. "Backing" can mean anything, from active involvement to abetting to moral support. I wasn't able to find audio or video either. But what gives me even more pause is that the BBC itself withdrew the claim from its dedicated article on the question of Iranian involvement. Have a look at the earliest and latest versions of this article in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67058244 The earliest version contains the claim; the latest does not. Thoughts? Andreas JN466 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh! Great catch! That right there is proof of the desperate interference being run to disassociate Iran from the situation, most likely by the US government. Amusing: Rule, Britannia! But interesting as your find is, that's not the reference being used. The references are listed above, are currently available on the BBC, and are not being ghost-edited. So use them! XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that BBC article is not the reference currently being used in the article. But it is a more recent and arguably more authoritative BBC article covering that question than our current BBC sources:

• Paul Adams, Did Iran support plan for attack on Israel?, BBC, October 9, 2023 (current version, without Ghazi Hamad reference to Iran's backing).

Here are the archived versions:

• October 9, with Hamad
• October 11, without Hamad

If the BBC still stood by what they published on October 7, October 8 and October 9, why delete it a couple of days later?

Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. The BBC might have withdrawn the statement because they felt it was being misinterpreted. They might have withdrawn it because whoever first paraphrased Hamad did a poor job. (It's really unfortunate that they didn't quote him verbatim, and don't seem to have published the actual audio/video of Hamad). Or Hamad might well have said explicitly that Iran helped with planning etc., and all of this is, like you say, an attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube to avoid further escalation. What do you think, Vice regent?

For what it's worth, I have contacted Paul Adams on Twitter to ask about the deletion. If he replies, I'll report back. Regards, Andreas JN466 19:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Paul Adams is mainly relying on WSJ, right? I think WSJ's allegations should be included, but only in article not in lead, along with plenty of evidence we have against WSJ allegations coming not just from Hamas and Iran, but also from Israel and the US.VR _talk 19:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, here's my take on this:
first, the Paul Adams article may be intended to be more authoritative. However, it has been shadow-edited, which (when other publications do it) is ground for Wikipedia demerits and inclusion on its "Perennial Sources" little black list of unwelcome media, deprecated or otherwise less worthy media. Therefore, I would extend that criterium and say: well, this here Paul Adams article is not very reliable, and so it can't be considered "authoritative" for this page.
Second, this here late Paul Adams article fails to deny that Ghazi Hamad said what he said on two BBC articles which remain published. The fact it fails to deny can only mean one thing: it takes it as good. Analogy: Adams also fails to deny the Earth is round in this article, so whether the article is "authoritative" or not, it simply has no beef with the Earth being round, and with Ghazi Hamad having said what Ghazi Hamad said.
Third, the Wall Street Journal agreed with the two BBC articles and with Ghazi Hamad, reporting: "Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas [...] A European official and an adviser to the Syrian government, however, gave the same account of Iran’s involvement in the lead-up to the attack as the senior Hamas and Hezbollah members".
Look, at the end of the day, we should not do WP:OR. The facts are that you have two BBC articles and one WSJ stating the exact same (plus, the WSJ cites a European official!) and traditionally these are considered silver-plated WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principle that WSJ and BBC are unimpeachable RS, it is possible that the BBC felt obliged to remove the claim taken from the WSJ story after questions were raised about its probity. For example, a former Reuters exec publicly accused the WSJ reporter of fabricating the story:[6]. Of course, X is not a source, and this doesn't mean we can disregard the WSJ. Just context. Riposte97 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Riposte97 Thanks, interesting. Andreas JN466 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It's partly circular. On Oct. 8 the WSJ stated A spokesman for Hamas, Ghazi Hamad, told the BBC that the militant group had received support from its ally Iran for its surprise attacks on Israel. This was based on the Oct. 7 BBC article saying Ghazi Hamad had told the BBC Hamas had backing (whatever that was supposed to mean) from Iran. Adams, largely summarising the WSJ claims, first included and then quietly deleted (or had his editor delete) the BBC statement about Hamas that the WSJ had repeated.

I am just wondering how confidently we should assert in our article that Hamad told the BBC Hamas had direct backing from Iran, given that –

• no BBC article ever marked any of this as a direct quote,
• we don't have audio or video,
• the statement was later quietly deleted from the Adams article.

My feeling is we should follow the approach of CNBC (cited in the article), who put a "reportedly" into their sentence ("reportedly told the BBC"). Regards, Andreas JN466 00:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your precision. But, "reportedly told the BBC" what? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mhhossein The current article wording is:

Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;, and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.

I find that statement too strong, and too keen to leave the reader with the impression it is established that Iran planned this. Moreover, we seem to have lost the statement from US officials and Blinken disagreeing with the Wall Street Journal. Andreas JN466 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Andreas, the word "support" can mean lots of things, including merely verbal support. Without additional details it is impossible to tell. Generally, in-depth and comprehensive coverage is preferable to sources that make drive-by remarks without clarifying what exactly they mean. So far we only have WSJ as the source of these claims (one of the BBC articles is nothing but a regurgitation of the WSJ article).VR _talk 06:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent We are in agreement here. But we have been prominently featuring Ghazi Hamad's statement in the article for days now, and it seems to me we are making a poor source do a lot of work here. Remember, he is the only named source in our article for this entire Iranian conspiracy theory which – for what it's worth – has been roundly contradicted by Blinken and other US officials who have been saying they have seen no evidence of Iranian involvement. Andreas JN466 13:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there may be audio. Apparently, Hamad spoke to Newshour. Checking. Andreas JN466 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Great catch, Andreas. Are you checking the BBC archives for the Newshour audio? I really don't want to have use a VPN and sign up for BBC services. But let me know... XavierItzm (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the interview. Time code 20:15. My transcript:

Hamad: You forget that thousands of Palestinians were killed in Gaza, civilians, women and children. We were fighting for 75 years during occupation, but no one listened to us. PLO had long negotiations with Israel, but Israel continue to do all kinds of crimes. The international community should focus the occupation, which ist the longest occupation in the world …

BBC presenter: And how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?

Hamad: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Other countries they help us, either with money, or with weapons, with political support, with everything, it is alright, to do that.

@Vice regent, Mhhossein, and XavierItzm: Thoughts? Andreas JN466 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That Iran funds Hamas in general is well known. There is nothing specific there about the Oct 7 attack. That would be as misleading as including all countries which sell weapons to Israel as being involved in this war.VR _talk 15:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no circularity. Do not conflate the small articlet ("card", the WSJ calls it) you cited above, where the WSJ merely reports on what the BBC reported, with the full in-depth WSJ article, with 3 authors, which not only cites Hamas sources, but also European and Syrian officials, and which furthermore locates the Iran-Hamas planning meetings in Beirut "since August" and which does not cite the BBC at all. Also,
◉ Since when do we demand audio or video from the BBC as proof of BBC reporting?,
◉ Two BBC articles currently include the Hamas statements.
Vice regent, can you explain your assertion "we only have WSJ as the source" when there are two BBC articles currently available on the BBC site for the statement? XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only named source is Ghazi Hamad. The October 7 BBC article said, A Hamas spokesperson earlier told the BBC that the militant group had backing from its ally, Iran, for its surprise attacks on Israel. That was then reported by others – CNBC e.g. said, Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas spokesman, reportedly told the BBC that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Iranian security officials helped with the planning and approved the attack at a meeting in Beirut last Monday. The long Wall Street Journal article you mention (archived here, for reference) does not mention Ghazi Hamad or the BBC at all. It only cites unnamed "senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah", and a "European official and an adviser to the Syrian government". As far as I can see, everybody else just reported what the WSJ (and BBC) said. Andreas JN466 12:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Because one of the BBC articles simply says Iran "supports" the attacks without specifying whether this support is merely verbal or material. If it meant material it would have provided some details, so it appears to be merely verbal.VR _talk 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Jayen466's transcript of the BBC interview confirms that Hamas didn't say Iran was involved in this attack.VR _talk 15:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The interviewer asks "how much backing have you had from Iran for this operation?" and Ghazi Hamad responds: I am proud that there are many countries who help us. Iran help us. Then the BBC twice further reports this fact. Then The WSJ reports that the planning for the attacks was jointly held in Beirut by Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas, and this is confirmed by Europeans and by Syrians. It's all quite clear. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Like other users here, I don't believe we should take untold explanations from a very general phrase like "Iran help us". Such EXCEPTIONAL claims should be backed by "multiple high-quality sources". There is no evidence raised by the sources saying Iran was involved in this specific operation. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That would be true if you only had the BBC's interview with the Hamas spokesman, but remember: you also have the European officials, the Syrian officials, and Yahya Rahim Safavi: top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel. Let's not pretend the multiple BBC articles are the only source here. XavierItzm (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Politico source begins by: "Government-backed Tasnim News Agency reported that..." (you'd better quote it completely). Also it's talking about "pledge". Nothing more, nothing less. Then I have to repeat again, "“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. None of what have been presented so far can be counted as a suitable evidence for this purpose. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia sez: "Tasnim News Agency is a semi-official news agency in Iran associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps". Are you really proposing that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard lied that military adviser to the Iran Supreme Leader Yahya Rahim Safavi, and I quote here, "Yahya Rahim Safavi, pledged Iranian support to the Hamas operation against Israel"? Wowza. Look, when an official means of communication of a government says something, they mean that's what that government means to say. And then when secondary WP:RS report on it, it becomes unassailable. Plus, you have the BBC, the WSJ, etc., all saying the same. XavierItzm (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article ... The current wording, in the Muslim world subsection, is Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Hamas had direct backing for the attack from Iran;, and European and Syrian officers corroborated Iran's involvement, while senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mirdawi said the group planned the attacks on its own.

Should that be changed and if so how? Andreas JN466 09:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I might append something along the lines of "it was not clear how much of the August thru October Iran-Hamas joint planning sessions in Beirut and subsequent execution on the ground in Israel differed from the regular guidance and weapons supply Iran provides to Hamas." The truth is, we just don't know the extent of the difference, if any. XavierItzm (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that was all that Hamad was referring to. :/ Note October 13/14 New York Times article: Hamas Attack on Israel Brings New Scrutiny of Group’s Ties to Iran – Officials from Iran and Hezbollah helped plan the attack, people familiar with the operation said, but the U.S. and its allies have not found evidence directly linking Tehran. Andreas JN466 14:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Funny article. Thanks. Per it, you have yet another named Hamas guy, Ali Barakeh, saying Iran was involved; four Iranian government dudes telling you they helped plan the thing and arm Hamas, contradicting their boss, the Supreme Leader, who on Oct 3rd all but telegraphed the whole thing, but who now denies all involvement; the US establishment agrees with the Leader and rushes to agree that he had nothing to do with this. Weapons of mass destruction, anyone? The Israelis, who are a US client state, toe the US headline, while subtly undermining it with contrarian facts. Also noteworthy: Hezbollah confirms Iran’s participation. Quotable quotes from the NYT:
• people familiar with the operation said that a tight circle of leaders from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas helped plan the attack starting over a year ago, trained militants and had advanced knowledge of it. That account is based on interviews with three Iranians affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, one Iranian connected to senior leadership and a Syrian affiliated with Hezbollah
• The implementation was all Hamas, but we do not deny Iran’s help and support,” said Ali Barakeh, a senior Hamas official
• Hamas gunmen captured and interrogated by Israel said they had been training for the latest operation for a year, according to Israeli defense officials
• training had been taking place in Lebanon and Syria, and a secret joint command center had been set up in Beirut, according to the Iranians and the Syrian
• audio reviewed by The Times of an April discussion among members of the Revolutionary Guards, including those involved with proxies in the region, a speaker said, “The message that is being communicated from Iran these days to the resistance is that we showcase a military maneuver to make the Zionist regime understand it is surrounded
Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Iran has not been added as of yet in the main infobox (under "Belligerents") as a supporting country Daffd2222 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, XavierItzm. Some of that info could be added, but overall (the Iran angle is mentioned in multiple places) the article seems to be reasonably in line with the RS narrative as it currently stands. Best, Andreas JN466 13:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Use of "militant" for Hamas war crimes but "terrorist" for September 11 attackers

why would no one ever describe the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks as militants, but the page describing Hamas massacres and terror uses the term militants rather than terrorists? This is bias 68.193.48.39 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We just follow reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah. Actually, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. The NYT: settlements near the Gaza Strip that came under attack by Palestinian terrorists. See? The NYT is the holy grail in wikipedia, until it is not. XavierItzm (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT title originally used "terrorists", NYT changed it to "gunmen", and then changed it back. Which is why I've said we should slow things down. Anyhow, I had a "s" at the end of sources, indicating preponderance of RS. See WP:TERRORIST O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources tend to name attacking groups based on their size and level of coordination, not how much terror they instill. Guerilla wars often involve attacks that would be described as terrorism if carried out by individuals or small groups; but they are called irregular militias or guerilla groups. In this case it's the coordinated militias of an entire territory, elsewhere it could be armies of a nation. – SJ + 21:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's because this is a century-long geopolitical issue with heated debate on both sides and using the word "terrorism" would be taking a side. 9/11 was something else, where there is no context or justification for the act. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:3100:E760:77D2:71D3 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's absurd. There is nothing particularly special about 9/11, other than showiness. In fact, the murder of 3,000 civilians in NYC out of a population of 300 million is proportionally a much smaller-scale event than the murder of 1,000 civilians out of a population of 9 million. So if terrorist is appropriate in one case, it is appropriate in the other one. XavierItzm (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The 9/11 article should use "suicide attack" instead to make it clear that it is not meant to convey scale. There were many features of 9/11 that were analytically significant, like being a suicide attack. These two events can't be compared in any meaningful way, other than the point about population density, and perhaps the long term and ongoing consequences of the attack. Ben Azura (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

O3000, Ret. is correct. We do not have sufficient weight of sources to justify the use of the term 'terrorist' without attribution. I think we can trust readers to understand murder is bad without recourse to contentious terms. Riposte97 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the NYT is weighty enough in 99.99999% of wikipedia articles, but please realise that the NYT cannot possibly be weighty enough here. Oh no. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

McDonald's boycott

can someone add mcdonald's boycott under the reaction section in muslim world.isreali franchise begin provide free meals to Israeli soldiers following the outbreak of war source so many in muslim majority countries called to boycott mac forcing the franchise in these countries to post a statement that they don't have any relation with isreali franchise egypt boycott and pakistan boycott أحمد توفيق and other franchises in muslim world donate to palestine mac qatar and mac turkey(talk) 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Trivial in comparison to daily events. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@أحمد توفيق: Maybe you can add something to International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be reported under international reactions or under muslim world(whichever is more appropriate). People are boycotting mcdonalds for providing meals to israili forces. mcd has also received a ton of backlash and has been forced to lock its social media accounts on X.A large crowd of citizens reportedly gathered outside of a McDonald's in Lebanon in protest of the move.

Codenamephoenix (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as it is some local franchises obeying their authority. This would be like reporting about some small grocery shop giving free food to local population in times of crisis. Cactus Ronin (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Graphs

Due to concerns raised over the differing y-axis on two graphs, comparing Israeli and Palestinian deaths, I've combined the two. Feel free to modify or use as you see fit. This is my first graph, so if I've made any errors, please let me know. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Add it to the page! Miserlou (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Can you change the labels "Palestine" and "Israel" to "Killed Palestinians" and "Killed Israelis"?

Right now, if someone doesn't read the text in the middle, they could get the impression that the blue (labeled Israel) is how many people Israel killed and the orange (labeled Palestine) is how many people Palestine killed. FunLater (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I'll add it to the page. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much. FunLater (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Can switch the positions of "X Israelis killed" and "X Palestinians killed"? because they are right next to the large column for Palestinians killed so one would associate this large column with the top sentence "X Israelis killed" at first glance 156.213.205.142 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean the two sentences in the graph? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes 156.213.205.142 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas incursion a 'razzia' (surprise attack against non-Muslims)

The Hamas incursion in Israel has been dubbed 'razzia' by renowned French political scientist Gilles Kepel :

https://www.lexpress.fr/monde/proche-moyen-orient/gilles-kepel-la-razzia-du-hamas-marque-une-victoire-pour-lislamisme-frero-chiite-BATUJBY4ERFY3JNGNT4PGHNGOE/

From razzia (military) article:

A razzia (from French razzia "incursion", and from Algerian Arabic ġaziya (غزية), "algara" or "raid") is a term used to refer to a surprise attack against an enemy settlement.

When executed in the context of Islamic jihad, the function of the razzia was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation. Since the typical razia was not sufficiently numerous to achieve military or territorial objectives, it usually involved surprise attacks on poorly defended targets (e.g. villages) with the intention of terrorizing and demoralizing their inhabitants"

Total casualties

In line with stuff I've seen in other places on wikipedia, should we add up the numbers in the casualties of both sides to create a total casualties number? Chessnut265 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hamas War crimes

https://www.zman.co.il/live/429333/ "Dozens of experts in international law from Israel and the world stated that in its action nine days ago, Hamas committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. In the opinion, prepared at the request of the headquarters for the return of the kidnapped hostages, it is written that "under the circumstances of the matter, it is very likely to assume that the actions of Hamas also amount to a war crime of genocide." 2.55.34.46 (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All the editors here are all fervently pro-Palestinian. Who exactly are you trying to address? 2A02:14F:179:724F:0:0:B797:17AB (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yupp, this attack is absolutely rooted in genocidal intentions. Don't say that to Wikipedians, though, they'll dismiss it and delete it. Just like they keep deleting our criticisms here of the article. This a disgrace and completely shameless. 2601:40:C481:A940:8596:B81B:5309:5014 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary. Israel is perpetuating a genocide. Hamas are "freedom fighters", you know? 2A02:14F:179:724F:0:0:B797:17AB (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To be Clear, why cannot comment be made within the article that forcing people from their land and bombing their homes to dust is not 'self-defense' - but a SS style genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we rename the topic?

Isnt better to name it "Israeli-palestinian war" or " Israeli- Gazan war" at least. Hamas are not the only fighters participating in this war. There are other militias. I know many of the western media are calling it "Israeli-hamas war" but It think the whole name is misnomer and ignores the role of the rest of the palestinians. M.hunjul (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

New statement by 100+ international law experts

"Hamas actions are war crimes, could constitute genocide – international law experts", Times of Israel. What I want to know is where this statement released by "over 100 experts on international law" is. Was it released in Hebrew or something? I sure can't find it. I'm not contending that it doesn't exist, but I'd like the original statement to be cited in the article. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Check this link in The Globe and Mail. Maybe it's there. I am not sure though. You need a subscription to read it. 2A02:14F:173:68F8:0:0:B7A3:9C5C (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That article is too old to have a link to it. The statement was apparently released just today. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not; Irwin Cotler and Noah Lew separately accuse Hamas of genocide in that article, but they don't reference the international experts. BilledMammal (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Among the signatories of the expert opinion:

• Prof. Irwin Cotler, McGill University, former Canadian minister of justice

• Prof. Kai Ambos, Universität Göttingen

• Prof. Eyal Benvenisti, Chair the Lauterpacht Institute, Cambridge University

• Prof. Claudio Grossman, American University, Washington, member of the international law commission

• Prof. David Luban, Georgetown University

• Prof. Luis Moreno Ocampo, Sao Paulo University, former ICC prosecutor

• Prof. Sean D. Murphy, George Washington University, member of the international law commission

• Prof. Anne Peters, head of Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Heidelberg

• Prof. Steven Ratner, University of Michigan 2A02:14F:173:68F8:0:0:B7A3:9C5C (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that citing international law experts on this subject is a good idea. UN has lost any credibility because one of the permanent members of UN security council is Russia, a country that committed countless war crimes in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

UN statements are not made by Russia. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Russia was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council. [7] entropyandvodka | talk 19:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But not the UN security council. I think it's a fair thing to point out, and I don't think the UN's statements are consistent with NPOV. The US for example veto's condemnations of Israel that do not also condemn Hamas for what they describe as terrorism and the killing of civilians, which became a policy because the UN would constantly condemn Israel but not the people killing and targeting Israeli civilians (and the organization whose stated purpose is the destruction of the state of Israel). Chuckstablers (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

At the moment all I can find is the Times of Israel report and this piece by Arutz Sheva, both published earlier today.

• Arutz Sheva says, At this stage, this is only an initial list of signatories, in the coming days additional experts are expected to join the long list of signatories.
• The ToI says, Dan Eldad, who served as Israel’s acting state attorney from February to May 2020 and who helped put the letter together, told The Times of Israel that it may have key diplomatic value should Israel seek to persuade other countries or international organizations that remain on the fence to come down on its side, and in confronting those who express support for the Palestinian position.

I think at the moment it is a little premature to try and judge the importance of this statement – we will need to see how it's covered outside Israel. Andreas JN466 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already in the article. nableezy - 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, but I'm looking for the original source that the TOI was reporting on. We have the original UN statement by their own experts, for comparison, but here only the news report about this separate statement. VintageVernacular (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2023 (2)

In the second paragraph these two sentences should be merged:

• The United Nations reported that around 1 million Palestinians, nearly half of the population of Gaza, have been internally displaced. [...] Israel ordered the evacuation of 1.1 million Gazans, while Hamas called on residents to stay put in their homes and set up roadblocks.

Into this sentence:

• Israel warned the population of North Gaza to evacuate to the South, causing around 1 million Palestinians, nearly half of the population of Gaza, to be internally displaced, despite Hamas calling on residents to stay put in their homes and set up roadblocks. [...]

The sources do not say that Israel "ordered the evacuation of 1.1 million Gazans", it was only a warning to evacuate to the south. Chronologically the warning came before the evacuation. Seffardim (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is an inaccurate synthesis. Actually, they were displaced by Israel's airstrike campaign prior to the evacuation order. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

war crime section

BilledMammal if you want to not attribute war crime allegations then do it consistently. You are accepting as fact HRW in one section and portraying it as merely opinion in another. Im fine removing those attributions, but the idea that only crimes by Hamas should be said in the narrative voice is a straightforward NPOV violation. Collective punishment is a war crime, using access to water as a weapon is a war crime, but you are couching those crimes as "potential" and "alleged" and so on. Yes, obviously attacking civilians is a war crime, and I dont have a problem saying that in the narrative, but your re-write makes statements of facts from the very same sources that you are turning in to mere allegations when directed at Israel. nableezy - 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the other section.

However, this: Im fine removing those attributions, but the idea that only crimes by Hamas should be said in the narrative voice is a straightforward NPOV violation

Is only true if that's not what sources do, and it is what sources do; they treat crimes by Hamas as fact, and crimes by Israel as allegations - and that is somewhat expected, as the crimes by Israel are less clear cut than the crimes by Hamas. Exceptions exist, with sources treating them as fact, but not enough to change how we are required to treat them by NPOV.

There are possibly individual crimes by Israel that are full exceptions are we can say happened in Wikivoice, but I'm not confident of these yet. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That you repeat the same false statement does not magically make it true. A number of reliable sources discuss Israeli war crimes as a fact. The Office of the High Council on Human Rights said The Commission is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment. Collective punishment is a war crime. The Special Procedures said Israel had resorted to "indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza" ... violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime. Human Rights Watch has said it verified the use of banned munitions against civilian targets and that this is a war crime. They have also called the seige a clear-cut war crime. Tom Dannenbaum says the siege order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b)) Those are all reliable sources saying as a fact that Israel's actions have included war crimes. nableezy - 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That you repeat the same false statement does not magically make it true. A number of reliable sources discuss Israeli war crimes as a fact. As I said, Exceptions exist, with sources treating them as fact, but not enough to change how we are required to treat them by NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, assertion void of any supporting evidence whatsoever. nableezy - 02:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, this this article from Johns Hopkins; it says that Hamas has committed war crimes, but makes no such statement about Israel despite discussing both parties.

It's unequivocal that Hamas has committed war crimes; that is not true for Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to part of the article that unequivocally states Israel committed a war crime in Wiki voice? entropyandvodka | talk 02:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that they're less clear cut, but how the article discusses it can be. It would be best practice to assert in Wiki voice the reality of the allegations, and include the attributed statements. Including relevant information about well sourced events relevant to the war crimes can and should also be stated in Wiki voice, in order to inform and establish context for the allegations.

For example, it's sourced and statable in Wiki voice that Hamas fired rockets into Israel. It's sourced and statable in Wiki voice that allegations exist calling this the war crime of an indiscriminate attack against a civilian area. We should avoid saying in Wiki voice "Hamas committed a war crime by firing rockets into Israel." I'm sure you would find it problematic to state in Wiki voice, "Israel committed a war crime by indiscriminately bombing civilians." entropyandvodka | talk 20:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, when I said "the reality of the allegations" I mean "the reality of the existence of the allegations" or "the reality that the allegations have been made". entropyandvodka | talk 01:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the rocket attacks, it's not just allegations; sources agree that these are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, and that such attacks are war crimes. To comply with NPOV we can't just discuss these as allegations; these are facts.

The Israeli airstrikes are more complicated; sources don't agree that these are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations. As such we would be in violation of NPOV to present them as fact; instead, to comply with NPOV, we need to present them as allegations that there is no consensus on. BilledMammal (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You are literally just saying that without any type of evidence at all. What source has disagreed the order to withhold water is a war crime? What source has disagreed the usage of white phosphorous in populated areas is a war crime? nableezy - 01:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please state the specific legal authority which prohibits those tactics unconditionally. E.g. white phosphorus used in unpopulated areas as an obscurant of troop movements is unequivocally NOT a war crime. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Area” meaning the area of fragment landing, not the 5 km radius. Similarly, I am aware of no specific legal authority about the duty to supply water in a combat zone, when civilians have been expressly directed to leave that zone. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

“Any time that white phosphorus is used in crowded civilian areas, it poses a high risk of excruciating burns and lifelong suffering,” said Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “White phosphorous is unlawfully indiscriminate when airburst in populated urban areas, where it can burn down houses and cause egregious harm to civilians.” For water, This order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b)). ... Israel being bound by the law of international armed conflict would entail that civilians are protected by the lengthier ICC code of war crimes applicable under that conflict classification, as compared to the list of war crimes applicable in non-international armed conflict. The former includes the war crime of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv). In non-international armed conflict, that crime was incorporated into the ICC Statute by amendment in 2019, but the amendment has not yet been ratified by Palestine. Regardless, Israel is bound by the customary prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which the government itself has recognized, as I explain below. Moreover, the 2019 ICC amendment reflects recognition that it is a customary war crime in both forms of conflict (here pp. 687, 701-710). For "directed to leave that zone", “Forcible population transfers constitute a crime against humanity, and collective punishment is prohibited under international humanitarian law,” nableezy - 03:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The videos show the opposite of the obscurant being used over currently populated zones. They show it being used over open fields etc. If you know of other videos, please share. The passage about starvation is inapposite if measures were specifically taken to evacuate the affected area and provide water in Khan Yunis, as discussed in the article. Lastly, the context for the “forced relocation” language clearly shows that it does not apply to evacuations for the purpose of saving civilian life in a war zone. (Nor would a prohibition on that practice serve any reasonable objective or purpose for the laws of war.) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

More importantly, some of those sources do not, as requested, cite legal authority for the claims originally made. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Im citing expert views on what is a war crime. Thats what we do here. Trying to prove or disprove something myself is a violation of our WP:OR policy. When reliable sources say something is a fact then it is a fact on Wikipedia. nableezy - 03:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reasonable interpretation of the “original research” requirement where citations to treaties and their governing interpretations is either “original” or “research.” It is just a superior form of citation. The “experts” you refer to, or their predecessors, made similarly absolute legal statements in the wake of, e.g., Operation Opera and Operation Cast Lead, and those statements were later called seriously into question by the legal community. That is why my request was for specific law. In either case, you are free to cite directly to the relevant law, if you are able. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, citing directly the law is original research. You are asking us to discount the expert views for your own view, or mine, which is that of a random person on the internet. We dont do that. As far as the laughably silly claim those statements were later called seriously into question by the legal community, uh no they were not. That no Israeli was ever held accountable for those war crimes does not change that they were, repeatedly, found to be war crimes by experts in international law. But, again, what we do here is look for expert views and relay those with the weight accorded to them in reliable sources. If you would like to disprove a reliable source you can start a blog and do that. This is not that blog however, and debating the real world topic is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. If you have sources that are directly related to this topic then bring them, if not then please stop asking others to ignore our policies for your amusement. nableezy - 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not for editors to prove the truth or untruth of the conduct of Israel or Hamas constituting war crimes. You may disagree whether some of the events that have transpired are war crimes, but you don't have room to disagree that allegations of war crimes have been made by major human rights groups and UN experts. The issue then is whether the allegations are noteworthy and due. There is overwhelming consensus that they are. entropyandvodka | talk 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The existence of allegations was not the original issue. 32.221.36.119 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

(And the existence of a legal basis for questioning the allegations against Israel was germane to the original question. Raising that legal basis was NOT an attempt at “proof.”) 32.221.36.119 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is more an issue of finding relevant and due RS, then. entropyandvodka | talk 05:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the article isn't equivocating about the conduct of Hamas in the war crimes section or going into hypothetical legal defenses of their actions. entropyandvodka | talk 05:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The white phosphorus comment has been alleged but not confirmed. There are other oxidising agents used in munition explosives that have a similar heavy smoke patterned with powered aluminium. It would be worth stating it is not verified, only reported.Jaxjaxlexie (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

HRW says they verified it. nableezy - 16:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)