Talk:May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes

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

Article protected[edit]

The article lacks some important events. I ask to add the next sentence under the background section:


On 2 May, a week before the airstrikes began, Khader Adnan, a former senior in the PIJ, has died in the Israeli prison due to a long hunger strike.[1] Following that day, PIJ militants have launched 102 rockets toward the Gaza envelope and south of Israel.[2] Lilijuros (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mutual ceasefire was reached after that? Which Israel broke. So yes, it would appear that relevant info is missing from the article. Selfstudier (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the section on the attack as a reason why the attack was unexpected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding. Why under Bombing section? The death of Adnan is not a part of the bombing, but one of the reasons. Also, why isn't the specific number of rockets launched mentioned? The article contains various numbers. Lilijuros (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2023[edit]

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: Moved. WP:SNOW, widespread consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Ecrusized (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Israeli airstrikes in Gaza → 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes – Both sides are firing on each other now, the article name 2023 Israeli airstrikes in Gaza makes it sound too one sided ... GWA88 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) GWA88 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - fine with it i guess. nableezy - 20:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in line with the similar events in the past 10 years. Pg 6475 TM 20:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the events taking place there are more than just the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. "Clashes" seems more accurate. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – because it's wp:npov. Iraniangal777 (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article title definitely sounds one sided. The Airstrikes are a response to rocket fire from Gaza 2600:8802:2710:8700:C978:C076:C5D1:F69B (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article title definitely sounds one sided. The Airstrikes are a response to rocket fire from Gaza 2600:8802:2710:8700:C978:C076:C5D1:F69B (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gaza attack Israel[edit]

Why there is no reffering to the fact that Gaza attacked Israel civilians in about 400 rockets? רועי ס 10 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number continue growing... and there is one killed and about 8 injuried... רועי ס 10 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the Gaza militants response. nableezy - 16:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

The situation is now indeed clashes instead of just a one sided airstrike. Both sides have now fired at each other Yadinbro (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please apdate[edit]

There is one Israeli killed and at least five wounded. See here. לאן (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar, can you update once again to 866 launches as of 11 May? [3]. Thank you, Lilijuros (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Updated. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

Al-Jazeera is known to be strongly against Israel and tends to make fake plots against it, and exaggerate about no. of deaths and injuries. Please find a more reliable source. MasterFlisater (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AJ is green at WP:RSP. Do you have any evidence that they have made false reports about the subject of the article or is this just your personal opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." says AJ's entry at RSP. Pg 6475 TM 15:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan doesn't mean unreliable, JP, ToI etc are also partisan. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Pg 6475 TM 15:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PIJ attacks upon Israel[edit]

Why isn't there any talk about the rocket attacks on Israel against civilian centers? Two weeks ago the PIJ shoot a hundred rockets on Israel, which is the cause for the operation, made in retaliation for the attack. Yesterday an Israeli citizen was killed in the attacks, by now more than 800 rockets had already been shoot toward Israel. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@אסף טל דורון 317, what is it that you want added to the article? Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge about attacks on Israel from Gaza, targeted at civilians. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an hour ago rockets were shoot toward Jerusalem, after which Israel severed the negotiation talks and increased attacks on PIJ bases in Gaza. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the rocket attack on Jerusalem into the article. In regards to the targeting of civilians, I'm not sure how to word that. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can word it: 'PIJ rocket attacks target Israeli civilian centers'. It's important to know that rockets fired by the PIJ are of very low quality and a third of them fall inside Gaza itself.
Also, for the last 18 years, Israeli towns around Gaza and close to it's border suffer constant attacks, mainly artillery, from terror organisations in the Gaza strip. It's worth mentioning that the PIJ attack two weeks ago is the cause for the current escalation. אסף טל דורון 317 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a pretty obvious Israeli POV, as that attack was in response to Khader Adnan's hunger strike ending in his death. And the "terror organizations in the Gaza strip" are responding to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, what several sources say have turned Gaza in to an open air prison (or more severe language), for just as long. We arent in the business of relaying one sides narrative here as though it were fact. nableezy - 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usuaelly, I'd agree with you, yet, this time Israel hasn't killed Adnan. The PIJ terrorists launched the rockets with no recent provocation of Israel. Lilijuros (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit debatable really. Administrative detention is a palpably illegal process, and a death in custody is a death in custody. Since almost no one survives a hunger strike of more than 70 days, illegally detaining someone longer than that while they are on a hunger strike is an active choice that is performed in the knowledge of that. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually debatable. Administrative detention is an objectionable practice, but it is not illegal, and the hunger strike was his choice, Israel did not force him to do it. Suppose that instead of starving himself to death he'd committed suicide in prison by fashioning a rope out of his prison uniform and hanging himself- would you still think Israel killed him? Red Slapper (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well summed-up. Lilijuros (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better sourced summary. See https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/05/israel-opt-death-of-khader-adnan-highlights-israels-cruel-treatment-of-palestinian-prisoners/
"While not prohibited under international humanitarian law, administrative detention is only lawful if employed for imperative security reasons. Israel’s routine and extensive use of administrative detention renders it arbitrary, therefore violating international human rights and humanitarian law. Also, in contravention of international law, it is used in a deeply discriminatory manner – at the beginning of May 2023, there were 1,010 people in administrative detention in Israel, all but four of whom were Palestinian. This is the highest number of Palestinians in administrative detention in three decades." Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty is not a credible authority on international law, and the statement that 'administrative detention is only lawful if employed for imperative security reasons' is simply false. You can read about multiple non-security related administrative detentions here. Red Slapper (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty is green at WP:RSP and WP is not a source. Neither are you. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being green at WP:RSP does not make a source credible on everything. The A.V. Club is also green, but I wouldn't use it for international law. You can read the article on Administrative detentions and see for yourself that the Amnesty claim is false. Red Slapper (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my previous comment, WP is not a source. I take it you have no source contradicting Amnesty, a reliable source, specifically in the area of human rights, which is what this is about. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-78?activeTab=undefined Red Slapper (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you prefer, a peer-reviewed academic journal focused on international law that explictly contradicts Amnesty's claim: "Applicable IHRL does not prohibit administrative detention on security grounds, but rather requires that where administrative detention is used, certain procedures are respected."[4] Red Slapper (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Written by 2 IDF legal advisers who anyway do not contradict Amnesty as well as not addressing the racial application at all, what a surprise. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Academic journals are the best sources, and we do not discriminate here on the basis of national origin. Red Slapper (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? The point there wasn't national origin; it was legal opinions written by the specific military organization fingered for the human rights abuses in question. No shit they are claiming their abuses are legal. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed the part that it was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to law. or are the peer reviewers part of this conspiracy to claim the "abuses" are legal? Anyway, aticle 78 of the 4th GC is pretty clear: "If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment." Red Slapper (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on administrative detention, kindly focus on this article. But at best you have contested POVs, and Amnesty is an excellent source with an established consensus for being reliable on the topic of human rights. nableezy - 20:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who started this off-topic discussion, it was Iskandar323 who sought to use this as some kind of justification for the rocket attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reliable sources simply tie the events together, because the bombing began with the breaking of a ceasefire established after the violence that followed Khader Adnan's death in custody. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the bombing began with the breaking of the ceasefire, that followed Khader Adnan's death in custody? I think you are missing a pretty important event in that sequence. Red Slapper (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just state what changes you think should be made in 'change X to Y' format. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should change "Israel's surprise attack came despite a ceasefire that had previously been agreed to between Israel and Palestinian groups on 3 May following a smaller flare-up in violence after the death of a Palestinian hunger striker in an Israeli jail." to "Israel's attack came after Palestinian groups fired more tha a 100 rockets on isralei towns, following the death of a Palestinian hunger striker in an Israeli jail. Anonymous Palestinian sources claimed that there was a ceasefire following the initial flare-up in violence." Red Slapper (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol wut? Anonymous sources claimed? And the prior round of firing was not exactly one-sided either, with Israeli attacks occurring as well. No on all counts, what is in the article currently is a faithful representation of the reliable sources. Not a one-sided account that is actually disputed by those sources. There a ton of sources on the ceasefire eg [5], [6]. Anonymous sources lol. Theres also the week in between the two you seem to be ignoring? Wonder why nothing happened then? Why did they cease firing? Hmmm. nableezy - 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anonymous sources claimed. this is straight from the Reuters piece which is the source of all other reporting on this: (headline) "Israel, armed groups in Gaza agree to ceasefire, Palestinian officials say", and bidy : "Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza agreed to a ceasefire early on Wednesday, two Palestinian officials said". [7]. That's all we know. Red Slapper (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided a Haaretz article (on the 9th, so not just an immediate reaction on the day) which is unequivocal on the point (""Netanyahu has done here what he preferred not to do in the past and broke a cease-fire...") and does not attribute it to Reuters, to Palestinian sources or anyone else. So no, that is not "all we know". Selfstudier (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hadnt seen that actually, think that supports broke ceasefire as a fact as well. nableezy - 22:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an analysis piece, in a paper vehemently opposed to netanyahu, not news reporting. It may be correct or it may be incorrect, but what is is unequivocally NOT is factual news reporting on something that happened. Red Slapper (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we keep explaining, you are not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "analysis" right in the headline. Red Slapper (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok? Its a secondary source by Anshel Pfeffer. If you dont think its reliable for facts we can discuss that at RSN if youd like. nableezy - 23:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are suggesting, but yrez, if there's another place we can discuss this, we should. Pfeffer is a well known Netanyahu critic, and this piece is clearly labeled "analysis" . I can't read the whole thing because it is behind a paywall, but I am fairly sure you can't take claims by an analyst and present them as facts. Do you think, for example, that we could use that piece to write in this article or another that "Netanyahu caved to pressure"? I don't . that's opinion, not fact.Red Slapper (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should continue this once you know how WP actually works? The "caved" is WP:HEADLINES (also not a reliable source). Selfstudier (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another Haaretz piece from recent days and covering the same issue, also under the "analysis" heading, has the same claim in the body, not the headline - "Netanyahu caves in to far-right Ben-Gvir and his gang"[8] - you think we could call Ben Gvir's party a "gang", based on this? Red Slapper (talk) Red Slapper (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... a journal not published by any major academic publishing house. Yep, I guess I'm convinced. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you having difficulty reading? "Georgetown Law became co-publishers of the journal along with Syracuse." Red Slapper (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a forum. Please stop providing personal opinions. Sources attribute the PIJ rocket launches to retaliation over Adnan's death, which they held Israel responsible for. That you disagree with them is a nice personal opinion suitable for a blog. nableezy - 16:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This isnt a forum. Please stop providing personal opinions."
"the IDF's propaganda machine is not a reliable source for anything other than the IDF claiming something," Pg 6475 TM 02:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true for all armies (what do you think the IDF Spokesperson's Unit is?). And my comment was about removing actual propaganda released by a combatant in an armed conflict, meaning my comment was directly related to the content of our aticle. You may think youre being witty or clever here, but youre not. Kindly annoy somebody else. nableezy - 02:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peace. Pg 6475 TM 06:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified IDF gif[edit]

This should be removed. It shows nothing (farmland bombed), and is primary/not independent. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Moreover it isn't scaled properly. Pg 6475 TM 15:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
removed, the IDF's propaganda machine is not a reliable source for anything other than the IDF claiming something, and the POV balance of this article cant be skewed in either imagery or text. nableezy - 16:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV wording[edit]

“Targeted elimination of 6 senior terrorists”, among other things, is hardly NPOV. I'd suggest using "militant" instead. I'm not doing it myself though, since, as a Palestinian, I'd like to avoid POV accusations and endless edit warring. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The USA, UE, and the primaries of the Commonwealth define PIJ as a terrorist organization. That's a fact. That leaves you Russia and China as the only major countries who don't define it as one. Do you really want to relay on these pure democracies? Lilijuros (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros: That's still the POV of Israel and its Western allies. The other side of this conflict would gladly call these people "freedom fighters", and thus "militants" would be a NPOV compromise, since both sides would agree that these people are militants. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big understander of the Ewiki, yes, but doesn't Ewiki strive to meet the western standarts? Lilijuros (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros: Heavens, no. Wikipedia wouldn't be much of a neutral encyclopedia if it had to conform to the official lines of Western governments. I would understand if things were different in the Hebrew Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, are there any militant organizations described as terrorist organizations in Wikipedia? ISIS? Al-Qaeda? Lilijuros (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros: Neither of these two commands the popular and state support that PIJ, Hamas, PFLP, and others do, not to mention the wildly different circumstances between them. On the flip side, the Nelson Mandela article doesn't say Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was a South African terrorist, despite him having been listed as a terrorist by the US until 2008. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and obviously the circumstances are different. But I was asking something else... If you don't know the answer that's of course okay, just makes me wonder until what level can neutrality sit on the fence. Lilijuros (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to sum up, I very much respect your opinion, but still disagree. and I guess we will oppose until ever after. I just know that poeple who launch rockets toward civilians on purpose are bad as when innocent children are dying from our airstrikes. At least we cancel it when there are clearly children nearby. Lilijuros (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros: I'm not here to discuss the conflict itself, or the conduct of either side. My opinion on that, despite being firm and definite, is irrelevant to this conversation. What I'm here to discuss is NPOV wording according to Wikipedia's guidelines. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... This article is literally centered on a bombing run that intially killed just as many children as militants, so that moral equivocation is just daft in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros: Not to mention that "democracies" ("pure"???) are irrelevant to this conversation. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Festucalex, that was some sarcasm, I should've used Poe's law, my bad. Lilijuros (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Targeted elimination of 6 senior terrorists" is not only POV but blatantly obvious POV, as is all the result/outcome section of the infobox and the garbage twitter refs. Along with "For a week, Israel refrained from responding to the rocket fire from the Gaza Strip until May 9". I'll fix it when I have a moment if no-one else does. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Jesus, I didn't even notice the refs. That's not good. Do fix it, please. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the gratuitously re-added Marxist Leninist label (not in the source either). Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I have started a timeline of this conflict here in my userspace. Feel free to expand it or move it out from my userspace if you think it should exist in the mainspace. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar: Good idea. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel broke a ceasefire that had previously been agreed ?[edit]

After a barrage of 102 rockets in which Israel was attacked , The article states that "Israel broke a ceasefire that had previously been agreed" (when ???)

How can it be that Israel violated a ceasefire after being attacked?

The content is supposedly based on the article from the Guardian, but It is clear that the Guardian or the Wikipedia editors are confusing (misleading) a ceasefire agreement with a situation where for some time after the attack there was no response from the attacked side And of course, even if the attacking party announces that it has entered into a ceasefire, this has no meaning in the context of a mutual agreement, so it is not clear how the article claims this here. מי-נהר (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is currently very misleading. We need another (better) source for the claim that there had been an agreed ceasefire. Red Slapper (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not based only on the Guardian. On 2 May, there was an exchange of rockets and airstrikes followed on the 3 May by Haaretz/AP/Reuters
"The "reciprocal and simultaneous" ceasefire went into effect at 3:30 A.M. (0030 GMT) and was brought about with efforts from Egyptian, Qatari and United Nations officials....
....The IDF's Home Front Command assessed the situation on Wednesday morning and advised residents of Gaza-adjacent communities that they can resume their routine activities. The Education Ministry announced that schools in the region would be open as usual." Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is on i24 Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. This report (and others like it - [9]) seem to be based on claims by anonymous Palestinian sources that such an agreement had been reached. If we keep it in, we should attribute it as such. Red Slapper (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is The Guardian: The unexpected Israeli attack came despite a fragile ceasefire in place since a day of cross-frontier exchanges of fire last week triggered by the death on hunger strike of Khader Adnan, a prominent political figure affiliated with Islamic Jihad held in Israeli custody. The ceasefire it is referring to, which Israel broke with the surprise attack, was this one. nableezy - 17:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, there were multiple reports of the likes of Ben Gvir complaining about the lack of a robust response, boycotting the Knesset, etc. And then reports of Netanyahu "caving" to the extreme right of his coalition. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses
(Note that some sources state that the ceasefire is unofficial.)
In addition, terminology must be precise. Agreements are not between Israel and the Palestinian groups but between Israel and a third party. מי-נהר (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the "caving" ref it is unequivocal and says "Netanyahu has done here what he preferred not to do in the past and broke a cease-fire in order to assassinate mid-level jihadist commanders, along with at least 10 civilians, for carrying out rocket attacks in which no Israelis died." Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel generally avoids confirming ceasefire agreements..." according to ToI. Unofficial is the usual thing. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it to slightly to adhere to the source cited though. nableezy - 18:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in your edit you wrote: "Israel's surprise attack came despite a ceasefire that had previously been agreed to between Israel and Palestinian groups on 3 May following a smaller flare-up in violence"
  • 1. you call 102 rokkets on sderot a"smaller flare-up in violence" ???
  • 2. after that written in the article: "although the Israeli army blamed the PIJ for recent rocket attacks on Israel". Do the sources attached throughout the article claim that the information about the rocket attack is qualified by Israel's claim or did they write it as a fact? מי-נהר (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
102 << 1000 + Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, compared to the current flare up that was smaller. I didnt write that latter bit but in general each sides claims are presented as their claims, as they should be. Youll note I removed the statement of fact that Israel violated the original ceasefire as well. nableezy - 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not within your authority as an editor to determine what is big and what is small when it comes to the use of life-threatening force. Or make comparisons according to your opinion.
We as editors are expected to state the facts as they are.
Therefore, your wording regarding the sentence "on 3 May following a smaller flare-up in violence" does not fit the editing rules and must be corrected. The reader will judge what weight these facts have in their context and in comparison to everything. מי-נהר (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "smaller". Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders[edit]

Add Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant, and Hezi Halevi as Israeli leaders and add Ziyad al-nakhlala as a PIJ leader (This has been done) 87.68.160.61 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pg 6475 TM 02:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2023[edit]

Remove the part in the infobox where it says "17 treated for anxiety". That is not a real casualty. CR-1-AB (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reals. Done. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll of Palestinians[edit]

I can find no source saying that 37 Palestinians have been killed. (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/13/2-palestinians-killed-in-israel-raid-as-gaza-attacked-for-5th-day)

The IDF earlier said 4 of the killed Palestinians died due to misfired rockets (https://www.timesofisrael.com/military-believes-failed-islamic-jihad-rockets-killed-four-civilians-in-gaza/). But it has not been independently verified and is not a separate death toll. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli wounded[edit]

The israeli wounded ammount is completely off the record 7 was the wounded ammount after 1 big rocket attack hot tel aviv in 12th or 13th of may.

The wounded of the israeli side all together ammount to 30+ ATLEAST. If not more will habe to search more from sources. 80.220.169.198 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide reliable sources? Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://ochaopt.org/content/flash-update-4-13-may-2023 says 37 Red Slapper (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October clashes[edit]

with the current events seemingly overshadowing anything that has happened earlier this year, it seems that this page must wither be renamed, or somehow merged to include the massive influx of new events. 87.6.58.122 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to use the palestinian term for this event?
"Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" 87.6.58.122 (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline doesn't make sense[edit]

At the beginning of the article it says

  • On 9 May 2023, Israel conducted airstrikes on the Gaza Strip
  • The same day, in retaliation, PIJ militants fired around 102 rockets towards southern Israel
  • Israel held off on responding to the rocket attacks until 9 May

All of this happened on 9 May 2023 -- including the "holding off"? This doesn't make sense. Please improve the article. 2601:281:D880:7880:39FC:C29B:5F7E:2E94 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:May_2023_Gaza–Israel_clashes&oldid=1218474580"