Talk:United States support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war

unjustified reverts

@BilledMammal:[1] Can you explain how killing 1400 people is massacre but killing 8000 people, most of them children and women, is not massacre? Ghazaalch (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not our place to decide whether an event is a massacre or not; we follow reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So I changed the wording in according to the given source. Ghazaalch (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I self-reverted. please change it yourself in accordance with the given source. Here what we have in the source:

Hamas gunmen burst into Israel nearly two weeks ago, killing 1,400 people, mainly civilians,

At least 4,137 Palestinians have been killed, including hundreds of children, ...Ghazaalch (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Billedmammal you should not be using the word "massacred" in wiki voice as it implies a POV. We should state, without any value judgement, both the Israeli and Palestinian casualties. VR _talk 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources use "massacred"; we have to do the same to comply with NPOV, and we do on articles like 2023 Israel–Hamas war. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, some sources do. Others attribute it. And in fact, the source cited for the sentence does not. nableezy - 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: you've been on wikipedia long enough to know that's not true. WP:NPOV says "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject)... Also, WP:BIASED says that sources that are biased (meaning their POV is not neutral) can still be considered RS. Finally, WP:CONTENTIOUS says "Value-laden labels...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." So that also rules out using "massacred" in wikivoice.VR _talk 00:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means that we reflect reliable sources. If reliable sources say that something was a massacre, then we do the same - to not do so, to insert our own POV, would be an NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: why are you repeating one thing over and over without heeding to other's comments? I change the wording in accordance with the given source (Rueters) which is reliable. The source does not say "Massacre" and the source does not say that all those killed were civilians.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Human rights record and legality under international law

This section was erased by User:BilledMammal. Though some changes need to be carried out to the original text, the wholesale removal was not a correct action. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Content like The Israeli military has imposed a 16-year siege on Gaza - during which it carried out six deadly military strikes against a population living in one of the most populous places on earth. However, the White House described the 2023 attack as "unprovoked" does not belong in the article; it is unrelated to the scope of the article and is clearly WP:POV.

The rest of the section isn't much better; I don't believe it should be included, and the author should be trouted for writing it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

So, I also think the quoted text is irrelevant to the purpose of the section. But there are other parts which are enhancing the article content. Do you have any specific objection against "The rest of the section"? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence then says A team of legal experts alerted the Biden administration and the ICC prosecutor that the U.S. government might be legally implicated in Israel's ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. There are several issues with this sentence, but the most obvious is that it states ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people in Wikivoice.

Do I really need to go sentence by sentence when the issues are this obvious? None of that section is appropriate, and it shouldn't be restored. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: As you see, it's an improvement to talk over the disputes. I also agree that "ongoing genocide" is a POV which needs proper attribution. But this could be simply modified by you, instead of the wholesale removal. Looking at the source we can go by sth like "A team of legal experts alerted the Biden administration and the ICC prosecutor that the U.S. government could be hold responsible for the outcome of what the team described as the Israel's ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people." I would like also the team to be presented first. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To put it simply, none of that section is warranted here. It's all either inaccurate, inadequately sourced, or undue; it functions as a POV-fork of more reliable articles. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: This is an established fact that human rights organizations charged Israel with war crimes, and it is a fact that U.S. support these crimes. So it is not POV-fork. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A POV-fork is when an article is created with content that would be rejected at the main article. For example, The Israeli military has imposed a 16-year siege on Gaza - during which it carried out six deadly military strikes against a population living in one of the most populous places on earth. However, the White House described the 2023 attack as "unprovoked", Israel's ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, and, more recently, On November 2, the congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who is of Palestinian descent, was target in a $100,000 TV defamation ad campaign by the Democratic Majority for Israel. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Still you could have modified the section instead of removing the whole section. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 in the United States collage submission

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

Change "More than 9,000 Palestinians, mostly children and women, have been killed in this area since the start of Israeli bombing," to "More than 10,000 Palestinians, mostly children and women, have been killed in this area since the start of Israeli bombing,"

More people have died and this is now inaccurate ItsRuskied (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

---

United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → United States and the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – Shorter title with a slightly broader topic. There have been calls by American officials for humanitarian pauses which Israel has opposed, if I have understood correctly. These are hardly "support for Israel" but it's still an involvement by the American foreign policy apparatus into the war. This format also follows United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We could also for example include pro-Palestinian actions in the United States in the article. An article about the impact of the war in the US is more useful than one about the US's official support to Israel in my opinion. I think this for example [2] could also be included in this article but it does not make much sense under the current title. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sopport per nom Parham wiki (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the title is vaguer and much less natural (one of the titling WP:CRITERIA). If readers want to find an article about the U.S.'s support for another country in a conflict, they'll search for "U.S. support" and the search completion will do the rest, as it does now. The consistency argument is mistaken, since the current title is the consistent one (with United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War and United States support for Saudi Arabian–led operations in Yemen). The scope argument is weak, because protests against, and criticism of the U.S.'s support are fully in scope. I think the current title is also more neutral; the U.S. does support Israel in this war, and the proposed title obscures that; "And" is a last-resort if there are no alternatives, see WP:AND, and isn't a way to achieve concision. DFlhb (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, So far, we do not see that the United States is taking a neutral position.--Dl.thinker (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Shorten to US support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: America has only supported Israel with military aid, and has made it clear that any aid intended for Palestinian civilians is not for Hamas or any other Palestinian military groups. In the Yemeni Civil War, our page is clearly titled "support for Saudi Arabia" as the US have only been giving the Saudis military assistance, even if it sends humanitarian aid to Yemeni civilians on both sides. Therefore, they have only supported one side of the war. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose renaming for reasons mentioned by DFlhb. However, if making the title shorter is the overarching goal, then it would be ideal to adopt the one proposed by Iskandar323. TheDoodbly (talk) 06:04, 15 November 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.

RS described most viral propagater of misinformation inside USA.

• Jackson Hinkle has been the most viral misinformation spreader during the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. As a critic of Israel, Jackson Hinkle has been a leading promoter of denial of Hamas’ war crimes against civilians, in what has been labeled in some media such as The Jerusalem Post as X incentivizing conspiratorial and anti-semitic content, allowing Hinkle’s misinformation to spread.

if the RS states it it is not irrelevant Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Request for Comments related to this article

There is an ongoing Request for Comments related to this article. If you wish to watch participate in the discussion, you can hear: Talk:List of wars involving the United States#Request for comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

Remove the part about the Progressive Democrats of America from the lead. It has undue weight and the organization itself is not mentioned in the sources. The bit about Leahy's Law should be included later in the article. The lead should only mention *progressive democrats* who oppose the funding Personisinsterest (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Change "On 20 Octorber" to "On 20 October" Binbwen (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

inclusion of opposition

Noteworthy controversies about a subject should be included in the lead per WP:LEAD, and it makes 0 sense to claim that an article on United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war does not have as part of its scope criticism of that support. There hasnt been a reason offered for the removal either, just a personal complaint at odds with our policies. nableezy - 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is about US support for Israel in the war, not the reaction to that support. We have a dedicated section for that in the body, but the lead is a summary of the most important info in relation to the article title, which is strictly about US support. Hence it should simply be a summary of what that support entails, not random details of the Gaza death toll.

The information in question also does not have a particularly major presence in the article body, hence it is WP:UNDUE for the lead section. Davefelmer (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that reaction to a topic is not a part of the topic is not in keeping with WP:NPOV which requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints on a subject or with WP:LEAD which calls for leads to include noteworthy controversies about a topic. nableezy - 02:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It completely depends on the context. If you have an article titled "History of France" and have all the major historical events listed and then someone starts adding how many believe France is a racist country founded on colonization and genocide, because of a line or two in the body, would that be appropriate? I'd wager not. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the info doesn't have a substantial presence in the article body, so it is WP:UNDUE for the lead. Davefelmer (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed substantial material in the body on the backlash for the US support. The sections Human rights issues and Reactions both include such criticism. So no, it does have material in the body. And per WP:LEAD noteworthy controversies about a subject belong in the lead. nableezy - 03:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The human rights section is about progressive backlash in America specifically, and the reaction section is itself flagged for being unbalanced and not WP:NPOV. The idea that the US has "come under fire" from "international leaders", especially when most Western leaders have stood by them and supported Israel, or "UN officials" by and large, is not prominently discussed at all. Davefelmer (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will add considerably more material on this topic to the article then. nableezy - 17:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Just make sure it's WP:DUE first. JM (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, now there is a full section on the backlash to US support. And that should be summarized in the lead. nableezy - 17:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you'd like to add from this. You have a source for Palestine's President, a UN resolution that does not fit under any kind of backlash against the US specifically, Turkey wanting to reform the UN veto process, and DWB + Human Rights Watch criticising the veto. None of that qualifies for or is prominent enough in the body to say the US has "come under fire" from "international leaders" (especially when you could bring in countless sources of European leaders backing them), let alone a live ticker of the Gaza death toll (that would have to be constantly updated). I mean that's just absurd, beyond a stretch.

If you want to add a line saying "Human rights and humanitarian organizations have condemned the veto" or "The vetoes have been condemned by human rights and humanitarian organizations", that'd be fair. We can settle on that. Including 'UN officials' would be a stretch though in my eyes since it's their own resolution, of course they'd be unhappy if someone vetoed it, let alone more than once. That goes without saying. Davefelmer (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

European leaders have also criticized the US and this isn’t a European/American project. It is not a UN officials resolution either. nableezy - 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN#United States support for Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war nableezy - 02:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The disputed addition to the article:

The United States has come under fire from international leaders, human rights organisations, and UN officials for vetoing the resolution and for not putting an end to the fighting that has killed over 17,400 Palestinians and roughly 1,200 Israelis since October 7.

Al Jazeera:

World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7.

This WP:close paraphrasing looks like plagiarism and possibly a copyvio. JM (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

um how? And easily resolved either way. nableezy - 02:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

because it has a few extremely superficial changes. I don't know how much more explicit I can make it than just putting them side by side like I did. While it's good that it's easily resolved, that doesn't make it less problematic. JM (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think those are superficial changes but I asked an expert on the topic. And that still doesnt address if criticism should be in the lead. nableezy - 02:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

When the dispute is whether that line is in the article or not, it's pretty relevant whether the line is plagiaristic, which is why I brought it up here.

Explain how these are not superficial:

• The United States has come under fire from international leaders, human rights organisations, and UN officials and

World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States, which is literally just changing active voice to passive voice, changing "world" to "international", "United Nations" to "UN", and "international" to "human".

• for vetoing the resolution and for not putting an end to the fighting and

for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war, which changes "a UN" to "the", removes "calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in gaza", and changes "putting an end to the fighting" to "failing to halt the war".

• that has killed over 17,400 Palestinians and roughly 1,200 Israelis since October 7 and

that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7, which does nothing but change "over" to "more than", "roughly" to "about", and "1200 Israelis" to "1100 in Israel".

JM (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont really think it is productive to continue with this line, I am fine with SamX's proposed rewrite below. nableezy - 03:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(summoned from Diannaa's talk page) I agree that this is close paraphrasing, with only a few cosmetic changes to an otherwise identical sentence structure. An OK rewrite would be The United States has received widespread international criticism for its veto of the ceasefire resolution. No opinion on the underlying content dispute or whether such a sentence belongs in the lead. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets say that your proposed rewrite is what is proposed to be in the article. Should such a sentence be in the lead? nableezy - 03:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

He already said No opinion on the underlying content dispute or whether such a sentence belongs in the lead. JM (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Im not just asking him? nableezy - 03:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seemed to me like you were since you used the pronoun "you" in the same reply implying you were talking to him. Anyway, it's not important. JM (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2024

Reactions>January Reactions>No. 8 Change "Antony blinken" to "Antony Blinken" Tosatur (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. public opinion support for a permanent ceasefire

Hello.

Should the following two, and more recent, surveys related to the topic be cited somewhere within this page? [3] [4] (The reference section below is not what I am referring to.) David A (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A new sub-section under "Backlash to US support" titled "Internal public opinion" or something similar perhaps? David A (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux and Kashmiri: What do you think about this? David A (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. I think it'd serve as a useful section for detailing public sentiment. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding here. Would you be willing to handle it please? You can likely edit with a more professional structure than I can. David A (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: Here are all of the United States opinion polls that I have found regarding the issue, in chronological order: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

As you can see, the United States populace's opinion against what the Israeli government is doing is far more negative currently than at the start of its military action against Gaza. David A (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I tried to handle it: [13] David A (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Updates

Updates needed & within revisions. 2600:8801:298B:9B00:69A4:9480:D680:60E8 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Dead link in first attribution

Hello, the first citation leads to a dead page on the Times website. Here is a link to an archived version of the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20231110173047/https://time.com/6325247/us-military-assistance-israel/ 72.225.45.201 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I handled it. David A (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

My proposal is a grammar edit; "By March 7, 2024, the US had sent Israel over 100 weapons shipments since October 7, 2024." becomes "By March 7, 2024, the US had sent Israel over 100 weapons shipments since October 7, 2023." BuggleJuggle (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done The incorrect year was fixed in this edit. Jamedeus (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Gallup Poll chart

I added a public domain chart (commons:Template:PD-chart) from Gallup Poll:

Gallup Poll showing US change from majority approval (Nov. 2023) to majority disapproval (March 2024) of Israeli military action in Gaza.

Chart may be at a smaller size in the article.

References

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Davefelmer: Please stop edit warring and use the talk page. The lede is a summary of the body, highlighting the most important points, not summarizing the article proportionately. The issue of increasing dissent within the Biden administration has received widespread coverage with dedicated articles on the topic by numerous RS. This part of the US support not only deserves a sentence in the lede of this article, but also deserves its own standalone article since it fulfills WP:GNG. [14], [15], [16], [17]. Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article body, 'most important' is a subjective point of view. And the fact is that a tiny subsection of three lines that is one of many much larger subsections in a much larger overall section in a very long overall article does not warrant lead inclusion. On top of that, the sources in question even in those three lines appear to reference only a few staffers leaving their posts amidst the admin's policies in the conflict. The majority don't appear to have left, nor do they appear to disapprove of the policies, so framing it as some kind of mass exodus moves us closer to not being WP:NPOV. If there's more information on it like you mention, you are more than welcome to create a standalone article. Davefelmer (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body indeed, and the most important points are from objective point of view based on the number of dedicated articles discussing the topic in RS as demonstrated above. The creation of a standalone article adds to the content here and is not a substitute for summarizing the body properly. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There are sources for everything, and the lead being a summary of info in the article body literally means the information presented in the body. A tiny subsection composed of three sentences in an overall section of much, much larger subsections and in a huge article composed of numerous other big sections with their own subsections is simply not lead worthy. To prioritize it for inclusion at the top would be WP:UNDUE. Davefelmer (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent pressure from the Biden administration

Is somebody here willing to add the information that the Biden administration is finally putting some pressure on Netanyahu in the form of that they will put a stop to weapon deliveries to Israel if its military enters Rafah? [18] [19] [20] David A (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Antisemitism Awareness Act

I think that we should mention that a bipartisan effort from the Republicans and Democrats is currently trying to illegalise all criticism of Israel and Zionism by categorising it as antisemitic hate-speech. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] David A (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)