Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Help needed to shorten proposed content on natural resources

Please feel free to improve the concision of the following proposed content, and post to the article. I'm far too busy in real life to work on this. Thanks. IjonTichy (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Natural resources

Natural resources include arable land (about a third of the strip is irrigated), and recently discovered natural gas. Environmental problems include desertification; salination of fresh water; sewage treatment; water-borne disease; soil degradation; and depletion and contamination of underground water resources. The Gaza Strip is largely dependent on water from Wadi Gaza, which is also a resource for Israel.

Gaza's marine gas reserves extend 32 kilometres from the Gaza Strip's coastline. In 1999, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak set aside exploration of Gaza's offshore resources for a future Palestinian state, with no prior consultation with Israel stipulated. The natural gas reserve was calculated to have 35 BCM, larger than Israel's own recently discovered Yam Tethys maritime gas field. The Palestinians signed a memorandum of intent on November 8, 1999 with British Gas and a company linked to the Palestinian Authority, the Consolidated Contractors Company, giving the companies rights to explore the area. According to Michael Schwartz, Barak deployed the Israeli navy in Gaza's coastal waters to impede the implementation of the terms of the modest contract between the Palestinian Authority and British Gas (BG) to develop Gaza's Mediterranean gas resources. Israel demanded that the Gaza gas be piped to facilities on its territory and at a price below the prevailing market level and that Israel also control all the (relatively modest) revenues destined for the Palestinians -- to prevent the money from being used to "fund terror." In Schwartz's view, with this Israeli action the Oslo Accords were officially doomed, because by declaring Palestinian control over gas revenues unacceptable, the Israeli government committed itself to not accepting even the most limited kind of Palestinian budgetary autonomy, let alone full sovereignty. In Schwartz's view, since no Palestinian government or organization would agree to this, a future filled with armed conflict was assured.

The Israeli veto led to the intervention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sought to broker an agreement that would satisfy both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. The result: a 2007 proposal that would have delivered the gas to Israel, not Egypt, at below-market prices, with the same 10% cut of the revenues eventually reaching the PA. However, those funds were first to be delivered to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York for future distribution, which was meant to guarantee that they would not be used for attacks on Israel.

According to Schwartz, this arrangement still did not satisfy the Israelis, who pointed to the recent victory of the militant Hamas party in Gaza elections as a deal-breaker. Though Hamas had agreed to let the Federal Reserve supervise all spending, the Israeli government, now led by Ehud Olmert, insisted that no "royalties be paid to the Palestinians." Instead, the Israelis would deliver the equivalent of those funds "in goods and services."

The Palestinian government refused the offer, and soon after, Olmert imposed a draconian blockade on Gaza, which Israel's defense minister termed a form of "'economic warfare' that would generate a political crisis, leading to a popular uprising against Hamas." With Egyptian cooperation, Israel then seized control of all commerce in and out of Gaza, severely limiting even food imports and eliminating its fishing industry. As Olmert advisor Dov Weisglass summed up this agenda, the Israeli government was putting the Palestinians "on a diet" (which, according to the Red Cross, soon produced "chronic malnutrition," especially among Gazan children).

When the Palestinians still refused to accept Israel's terms, the Olmert government decided to unilaterally extract the gas, something that, they believed, could only occur once Hamas had been displaced or disarmed. As former Israel Defense Forces commander and current Foreign Minister Moshe Ya'alon explained, "Hamas... has confirmed its capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations... It is clear that, without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement."

Following this logic, Operation Cast Lead was launched in the winter of 2008. According to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, it was intended to subject Gaza to a "shoah" (the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster). Yoav Galant, the commanding general of the Operation, said that it was designed to "send Gaza decades into the past." As Israeli parliamentarian Tzachi Hanegbi explained, the specific military goal was "to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel."

Operation Cast Lead did indeed "send Gaza decades into the past." Amnesty International reported that the 22-day offensive killed 1,400 Palestinians, "including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins." The only problem: Operation Cast Lead did not achieve its goal of "transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel."

More Sources of Gas Equal More Resource Wars

In 2009, the newly elected government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inherited the stalemate around Gaza's gas deposits and an Israeli energy crisis that only grew more severe when the Arab Spring in Egypt interrupted and then obliterated 40% of the country's gas supplies. Rising energy prices soon contributed to the largest protests involving Jewish Israelis in decades.

As it happened, however, the Netanyahu regime also inherited a potentially permanent solution to the problem. An immense field of recoverable natural gas was discovered in the Levantine Basin, a mainly offshore formation under the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli officials immediately asserted that "most" of the newly confirmed gas reserves lay "within Israeli territory." In doing so, they ignored contrary claims by Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and the Palestinians.

In some other world, this immense gas field might have been effectively exploited by the five claimants jointly, and a production plan might even have been put in place to ameliorate the environmental impact of releasing a future 130 trillion cubic feet of gas into the planet's atmosphere. However, as Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry journal Petrostrategies, observed, "All the elements of danger are there... This is a region where resorting to violent action is not something unusual."

In the three years that followed the discovery, Terzian's warning seemed ever more prescient. Lebanon became the first hot spot. In early 2011, the Israeli government announced the unilateral development of two fields, about 10% of that Levantine Basin gas, which lay in disputed offshore waters near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil immediately threatened a military confrontation, asserting that his country would "not allow Israel or any company working for Israeli interests to take any amount of our gas that is falling in our zone." Hezbollah, the most aggressive political faction in Lebanon, promised rocket attacks if "a single meter" of natural gas was extracted from the disputed fields.

Israel's Resource Minister accepted the challenge, asserting that "[t]hese areas are within the economic waters of Israel... We will not hesitate to use our force and strength to protect not only the rule of law but the international maritime law."

Oil industry journalist Terzian offered this analysis of the realities of the confrontation:

"In practical terms... nobody is going to invest with Lebanon in disputed waters. There are no Lebanese companies there capable of carrying out the drilling, and there is no military force that could protect them. But on the other side, things are different. You have Israeli companies that have the ability to operate in offshore areas, and they could take the risk under the protection of the Israeli military."

Sure enough, Israel continued its exploration and drilling in the two disputed fields, deploying drones to guard the facilities. Meanwhile, the Netanyahu government invested major resources in preparing for possible future military confrontations in the area. For one thing, with lavish U.S. funding, it developed the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system designed in part to intercept Hezbollah and Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli energy facilities. It also expanded the Israeli navy, focusing on its ability to deter or repel threats to offshore energy facilities. Finally, starting in 2011 it launched airstrikes in Syria designed, according to U.S. officials, "to prevent any transfer of advanced... antiaircraft, surface-to-surface and shore-to-ship missiles" to Hezbollah.

Nonetheless, Hezbollah continued to stockpile rockets capable of demolishing Israeli facilities. And in 2013, Lebanon made a move of its own. It began negotiating with Russia. The goal was to get that country's gas firms to develop Lebanese offshore claims, while the formidable Russian navy would lend a hand with the "long-running territorial dispute with Israel."

By the beginning of 2015, a state of mutual deterrence appeared to be setting in. Although Israel had succeeded in bringing online the smaller of the two fields it set out to develop, drilling in the larger one was indefinitely stalled "in light of the security situation." U.S. contractor Noble Energy, hired by the Israelis, was unwilling to invest the necessary $6 billion dollars in facilities that would be vulnerable to Hezbollah attack, and potentially in the gun sights of the Russian navy. On the Lebanese side, despite an increased Russian naval presence in the region, no work had begun.

Meanwhile, in Syria, where violence was rife and the country in a state of armed collapse, another kind of stalemate went into effect. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, facing a ferocious threat from various groups of jihadists, survived in part by negotiating massive military support from Russia in exchange for a 25-year contract to develop Syria's claims to that Levantine gas field. Included in the deal was a major expansion of the Russian naval base at the port city of Tartus, ensuring a far larger Russian naval presence in the Levantine Basin.

While the presence of the Russians apparently deterred the Israelis from attempting to develop any Syrian-claimed gas deposits, there was no Russian presence in Syria proper. So Israel contracted with the U.S.-based Genie Energy Corporation to locate and develop oil fields in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory occupied by the Israelis since 1967. Facing a potential violation of international law, the Netanyahu government invoked, as the basis for its acts, an Israeli court ruling that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories was legal. At the same time, to prepare for the inevitable battle with whichever faction or factions emerged triumphant from the Syrian civil war, it began shoring up the Israeli military presence in the Golan Heights.

And then there was Cyprus, the only Levantine claimant not at war with Israel. Greek Cypriots had long been in chronic conflict with Turkish Cypriots, so it was hardly surprising that the Levantine natural gas discovery triggered three years of deadlocked negotiations on the island over what to do. In 2014, the Greek Cypriots signed an exploration contract with Noble Energy, Israel's chief contractor. The Turkish Cypriots trumped this move by signing a contract with Turkey to explore all Cypriot claims "as far as Egyptian waters." Emulating Israel and Russia, the Turkish government promptly moved three navy vessels into the area to physically block any intervention by other claimants.

As a result, four years of maneuvering around the newly discovered Levantine Basin deposits have produced little energy, but brought new and powerful claimants into the mix, launched a significant military build-up in the region, and heightened tensions immeasurably.

Gaza Again -- and Again

Remember the Iron Dome system, developed in part to stop Hezbollah rockets aimed at Israel's northern gas fields? Over time, it was put in place near the border with Gaza to stop Hamas rockets, and was tested during Operation Returning Echo, the fourth Israeli military attempt to bring Hamas to heel and eliminate any Palestinian "capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations."

Launched in March 2012, it replicated on a reduced scale the devastation of Operation Cast Lead, while the Iron Dome achieved a 90% "kill rate" against Hamas rockets. Even this, however, while a useful adjunct to the vast shelter system built to protect Israeli civilians, was not enough to ensure the protection of the country's exposed oil facilities. Even one direct hit there could damage or demolish such fragile and flammable structures.

The failure of Operation Returning Echo to settle anything triggered another round of negotiations, which once again stalled over the Palestinian rejection of Israel's demand to control all fuel and revenues destined for Gaza and the West Bank. The new Palestinian Unity government then followed the lead of the Lebanese, Syrians, and Turkish Cypriots, and in late 2013 signed an "exploration concession" with Gazprom, the huge Russian natural gas company. As with Lebanon and Syria, the Russian Navy loomed as a potential deterrent to Israeli interference.

Meanwhile, in 2013, a new round of energy blackouts caused "chaos" across Israel, triggering a draconian 47% increase in electricity prices. In response, the Netanyahu government considered a proposal to begin extracting domestic shale oil, but the potential contamination of water resources caused a backlash movement that frustrated this effort. In a country filled with start-up high-tech firms, the exploitation of renewable energy sources was still not being given serious attention. Instead, the government once again turned to Gaza.

With Gazprom's move to develop the Palestinian-claimed gas deposits on the horizon, the Israelis launched their fifth military effort to force Palestinian acquiescence, Operation Protective Edge. It had two major hydrocarbon-related goals: to deter Palestinian-Russian plans and to finally eliminate the Gazan rocket systems. The first goal was apparently met when Gazprom postponed (perhaps permanently) its development deal. The second, however, failed when the two-pronged land and air attack -- despite unprecedented devastation in Gaza -- failed to destroy Hamas's rocket stockpiles or its tunnel-based assembly system; nor did the Iron Dome achieve the sort of near-perfect interception rate needed to protect proposed energy installations.

There Is No Denouement

After 25 years and five failed Israeli military efforts, Gaza's natural gas is still underwater and, after four years, the same can be said for almost all of the Levantine gas. But things are not the same. In energy terms, Israel is ever more desperate, even as it has been building up its military, including its navy, in significant ways. The other claimants have, in turn, found larger and more powerful partners to help reinforce their economic and military claims. All of this undoubtedly means that the first quarter-century of crisis over eastern Mediterranean natural gas has been nothing but prelude. Ahead lies the possibility of bigger gas wars with the devastation they are likely to bring.

References

It is a bit long. Perhaps it could be shortened to "It's all about gas - wake up sheeple!" Mezigue (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The resources part is not long. The problem is that it has a wagging tail of details about military operations in it, or Israel's clash with Lebanon and Syria for the northern gas resources (this might be covered with a link to the relevant pages where the excised information can be incorporated) e excerpted and merged with the relevant political history sections of other articles, unless those operations can be, per sources, integrated with the argument that one of the causes of war is related to Israeli (and PNA) interests in getting hold of Gaza's gas (and land: one proposal in the recent war was to finance the relocation of Gazans to Egypt to turn the Strip into a piece of Israeli, with an Israeli majority population of settlers).Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The entire passage added by IjonTichy is clearly a stratagem to add fringe interpretation of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (which is generally not thought to have anything to do with gas) to a different page. I didn't even react to the original proposal because I didn't think he was actually going to be cheeky enough to put it in the article, rather than just using the talk page as a POV dump. In addition to being off topic and a fringe view, it also seems to be largely a copy-paste job of the Michel Schwartz piece with just some minor tinkering. Mezigue (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are dozens of sources that throw light on the key geostrategic calculations in controlling energy resources like gas the world over, and, in this case, with the Gaza Strip (and of course, the water resources of the West Bank). It is acknowledged to be a key factor by Israeli planners themselves.

• Nafeez Ahmed,'IDF's Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas, avert Israeli energy crisis,' The Guardian 9 July 2014.
• Anais Antreasyan,'Gas Finds in the Eastern Mediterranean: Gaza, Israel, and Other Conflicts,' Journal of Palestine Studies, 167 Vol. 42, Spring 2013 No.3.pp.29-47

It's not 'fringe', and it is not an 'interpretation' of the conflict, as much as a laying forth in the article on one key angle which influences political negotiations between the PNA and Israel. Both want the benefits of that gas, and neither wants interference with the elected authority of the Strip to complicate 'deals' and improve the bank accounts in Ramallah. IjonTichy laid before us a sketch, based in good part on Schwartz, and asked other editors to improve it. I haven't had much time, but will contribute to its improvement.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Seib

That had to be copyedited, but I noticed it might be taken as 1R. This is the edit

.Philip Seib dismisses the comparison as absurd, and claims that it arises from sources like Al Jazeera and statements by Arab leaders.

Of course, this is an opinion and a reputable one. It is not true, - there is a notable literature on the Warsaw Ghetto/concentration camp analogy. Tony Blair's sister-in-law in short is not Assad, or Hamas, and she like dozens of other public people with high profiles, writers and philosophers, none of whom are 'Arabs' make the same point. I'll fix it with details tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Who's so noticed you? :(

In essence: a pair of Seib - LeVine is already there. Do I understand right that you propose to continue this senseless thing: to give an opinion of normal people against opinion of "useful idiots"? I'd propose just remove this nonsense from the article.

IMHO, Seib's arguments in his book (see. p.132) an order stronger than such ones of LeVine in Al Jazeera. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, сan you pls explain what 'Talk' you mean in the description of this your edit '15:27, 15 March 2015 (As per talk)'? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no answer... Because your "per talk" is not correct I move your addition to here to discuss it before moving to the article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Others compare it to a concentration camp.

The analogy was made by an IDF officer in 2000, and it was reported to be widespread in the IDF. For Robert S. Wistrich, and Philip Mendes, such analogies are designed to offend Jews, while Philip Seib dismisses the comparison as absurd...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See also" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS? & Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185#IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS regarding to LeVine and "one officer said". --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

1339861mzb, I guess you haven't read this topic before your revert. So I'd propose you to undo it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The revert was correct, and I was about to do it myself. Generally, and it may be because I am a native speaker of English, I find your comments very difficult to construe. Opinions don't count, re Seib/LeVine, and your prior remarks seemed to suggest you would like a lengthy infra nos forum on their respective merits, and the other texts. I haven't the time for this. If you have a policy ground, state it.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani thank you. I'm a rollbacker, editor and reveiwer in arabic wikipedia. And adminstrator in both arabic wikisource and wiktionary. So i know exactly when to revert revesions and gaza one of the regions that i know good information about it because i am palastanian. Regargs for all of you brothers. Thanks and sorry because i am not very good at english especially that i am writing from mobile--1339861mzb (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Награда нашла героя" :) Nishidani, are you glad? --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1339861mzb, so you haven't reread this topic and your revert was only because you "know exactly when to revert revesions". :(

But what about wp:NPOV ? I have to undo your revert. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I do not understand, what were the problems preventing (since 11 March) to ask any questions about what was unclear for you?

BTW, for me, your edit politics & "your prior remarks seemed to suggest you would like a lengthy infra nos, etc. as well :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You have no policy reason for undoing the substantial, an authoritatively sourced, material other than (see above) personal dislike of what in Leninesque terms you call 'useful idiots' or personal preference (Seib is more cogent than LeVine). Sinced you have no policy argument and (b) since the analogy is widely endorsed by serious scholars, politicians and various observers it is warranted (c) and multiple examples are given of those who propose the idea and those who dismiss it because what some, like yourself perhaps, might regard as raising issues like Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, a comprehensive set of references covering the claims (open air prison,concentration camp etc.) is due. (d)When you added per WP:NPOV Seib's dismissal of the claims, I enriched the point by adding Wistrich and Mendes.(e) Per WP:Lede, we have a laconic summary sentence in the lead which must reflect an expanded set of comments in the body of the article, other wise its place there would be WP:Undue. By expanding and nuancing the section below, the lead sentence can now be seen to summarize a set of assertions that are well documented. (f) at this point, the only thing to add, is a small adjustment to the lead sentence reflecting Mendes, Wistrich, Seib et al's dissenting view, which I will now add. Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Instead of so many words, let's see whom do you consider as "serious scholars, politicians and various observers": :(

Others compare it to a concentration camp; they are "British left-wing activist Lauren Booth", Tony Blair’s sister-in law,(once more about Lauren Booth), Philip Slater (who defends HAMAS' tunnels as "necessities of life" but forgot to add any word about the captured Gilad Shalit and 2 other soldiers killed by means of attacking tunnel), pro-Palestinian & pro-BDS Giorgio Agamben

The analogy was made by an IDF officer in 2000, and it was reported to be widespread in the IDF - Ronit Chacham who quotes some reservist, who refused to serve in IDF and said that :

"One of the top commanders in the Territories was quoted in Haaretz (Jan. 25) as saying that in order to prepare for potential battles in dense urban neighborhoods, the IDF must learn, if necessary, how the German army 'operated' in the Warsaw Ghetto"

- let's compare this quote with original, already mentioned in RFC above:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto... Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example

Tareq Y. Ismael, Jacqueline S. Ismael: only this couple of words: "evoking comparisons with Warsaw ghetto"

These are your "respectable" RS - even quote from Haaretz is distorted from "one of the officers" to "One of the top commanders" :(

So I do not see any reason to regards this source as RS. That's the pity, but I have already wrote you about in the RfC mentioned above, and I don't understand why do you continue to insist on its inclusion.

About the useful idiots: it's not only my opinion. :) See Charles Krauthammer:

It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. I don't take any editor seriously who can cite vituperative clichés from quarter-baked 'minds' like the dear of befuddled chap you mention just above and think this garbage constitutes an argument. If you are not personally familiar with scholars like Philip Slater, Giorgio Agamben, (or Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky, two leaders of their profession one could add), and think that the Seibs and Mendes and Krauthammers of the froth and foam commentariat will be remembered, unlike the former, more than 10 seconds after their diatribes have been heard or read, when the short term memory flicks them off the circuit, then it's pointless. Ever looked at their curriculums? Who reads them? (Well actually I've read Krauthammer for 3 years, but only because I read the IHT when travelling long distances in trains. I normally get half way through the first paragraph and then skip to the sudoku) Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's only your own problem. You may continue to believe in these idols, but you should not carry it on Wikipedia. :(

As I see, I'll not get (as usual) an honest answer to my specific arguments. Well, I simply remove the false source(s), and the rest - just name your sources on their real names instead of your fake list. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

'False sources' is meaningless, or rather, your personal POV is interfering with your obligations under wiki rules. No editor is entitled to describe numerous RS as 'false', which simply implies you disagree with their content, which is not a judgement we are allowed to entertain. I enter into these pages sources I disagree with every day, and that goes for 'pro-Palestinian stuff' as well. Don't edit war over this.Nishidani (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See above: "let's see whom do you consider as "serious scholars, politicians and various observers": :(" (--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2015)

I've retained their POV, only "opening the brackets", "naming a child by his name" & grouping (as for as Lauren Booth) your confusing refs. So your revert isn't justified and I cancel it.

"Don't edit war"? I agree, so let's search another way to resolve a problem. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, regarding to your revert (29 April 2015):

See also: Your revert (Gaza strip)

• (Undid revision 659753503 by Igorp lj (talk) I don't see any consensus for this nonsense)

(not relating to your "nonsense", made without any your participation in this discussion)
I will not insist on my "Such critics of Israel and left-wing / pro-Palestinian activists as" removed by you, but will restore their specific names (if it's possible) to

An not named Israeli analyst has called it "Israel's Alcatraz" and Lauren Booth, Philip Slater, Giorgio Agamben compare it to a "concentration camp".

And I do remind you that there is no consensus as well, for inclusion of such distorted or inaccurate info about "One of the top commanders" (Ronit Chacham). IMHO, such addition is just a real nonsense.
Any way, I'd invite you to present your arguments here instead of next not discussed revert and own estimates. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Israeli Occupation Subsection Neutrality

The last paragraph of this section presents two viewpoints from Richard Falk and Chris Gunness about the legality and appropriateness of the term 'occupation. Chris Gunness is not a lawyer, has a contentious past with Israel, and I am not sure why his opinion is presented. Richard Falk is a lawyer, but I believe in interest of neutrality, his opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue need to be prefaced with an international recognition of his bias on the issue. I inserted the qualifier about Richard Falk along with a reference, and the edit was reverted. Eframgoldberg (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia biography, Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University. He is the author or co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 volumes. Did you add any of that information to this article? No, you wrote that he "has posted anti-semitic cartoons and has received international condemnation for his anti-Israel bias". Please read the portion of our "Neutral point of view" policy concerning undue weight.

As it stands, Falk is described in this article by his most relevant title, United Nations Special Rapporteur, and his name is Wikilinked to his biography so readers can learn more about him if they care to. That is as it should be, and it is neutral. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

His quotation was not about authoring books. If his quote was about the Ukraine and Russia, then yes I agree, my qualifier would be undue weight and not relevant. If Richard Falk were talking about anything, other than Israel, then I agree the qualifier is not necessary. In this case, he is directly giving a legal opinion and being presented as an expert on a subject which he has been accused of and apologized for being biased. If you would like to replace that quote by another legal expert who has not been internationally accused of bias, then I think that would only strengthen your argument.Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The information I added as a qualifier so the reader can have a full appreciation for his comments. Consider the following, examples: Hwang Woo-suk, a stell cell researcher, stated "there is too much bureaucracy in science journals." Hwang Woo-suk, a stem cell researcher who fabricated experiments, stated "there is too much bureaucracy in science journals." Should readers have to follow his wikilink to find out about his scandal? I think if his quote is relevant to his prior biases than a qualifier should be given.Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a viewpoint that the Gaza Strip is occupied, but the reality legally. It's understandable that Israel has disavowed this publicly on occasion since 2005, but virtually even known legal expert in international law accepts that the situation is one of occupation.

“Occupation” is a legal designation of an international nature. Israel’s occupation of Gaza continues to the present day because (a) Israel continues to exercise “effective control” over this area, (b) the conflict that produced the occupation has not ended, and (c) an occupying state cannot unilaterally (and without international/diplomatic agreement) transform the international status of occupied territory except, perhaps, if that unilateral action terminates all manner of effective control.

Lisa Hajjar has written a monograph on precisely this topic. It's a technical reality in law, everywhere evidenced by behavior (driving every few weeks bulldozers over the border to redesign the landscape, shooting at anyone who walks within 500-300 yards of Israel's border fence, even if they are tending their own land etc.) And, slapping anti-Semitic accusations at Richard Falk is pointless. International law, and those who apply its provisions by interpretation, is not anti-Semitic.Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My post was not to dispute whether or not the Gaza Strip is occupied, so I will not reply to this straw man argument.Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First, Chris Gunness is not a lawyer no one has said why his opinion is presented. Secondly, I am not accusing or "slapping" Richard Falk of anything, I think that if his opinion on this topic is going to be quoted, then his internationally recognized bias against Israel should be noted.... this is not my opinion, a simple google news search will demonstrate Canada's foreign minister, the UK's UN ambassador and others make this claim and so do not turn it into a straw man argument. Furthermore if it was only an "accusation" I would think Richard Falk would have won several libel cases already.

I am not an international law expert, and I do not want this to turn into a debate into the application of the term "occupied". I was suggesting two edits: 1. Remove the quotation from Chris Gunness for reasons already mentioned. 2. Qualify the statements by Richard Falk. I am sure there are plenty of other legal opinions asserting that Israel still occupies Gaza, and I am sure many of them come from law experts that are not mired in controversy. If people are taking the stance that Gaza is still occupied, then I would think that they would prefer a less contentious source of expertise as Richard Falk. What am I adding to the article? I am providing a few words of background on one of the experts presented so that readers are presented with any particular accusations of bias or prejudice qualifying the opinion they are about to read.

As a thought experiment: If a football player was just suspended for 1 season for hitting his wife which of the following quotes do you think is more appropriate? Former Baltimore Raven Ray Rice, called the punishment "excessive and an unfair attack." or Former Baltimore Raven Ray Rice, who was previously charged and suspended for hitting his wife, called the punishment "excessive and an unfair attack." Readers should not have to wikilink to Ray Rice's wikipedia page to read about his history with domestic abuse, when the inclusion of the short qualifier, easily removes all appearances of non-neutrality. Obviously if the situation were different i.e. Ray Rice said "the new football uniforms are too colorful", the qualifier in that case would be non-neutral and not needed.Eframgoldberg (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, Chris Gunness should not be there. I've removed him, and replaced it by experts listed in law reviews, and and a large number of organizations listed as regarding Gaza as being occupied.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Greenhouses etc.

I have partially reverted this edit. The looting happened afterwards, the settler destruction before (the NYT article is in July, the AP article in September). The looting is already mentioned in the following sentence, the edit was garbled and didn't make sense. Also, I have removed the "according to international law". The international law part was talking about the homes and the rubble, not the greenhouses. The greenhouses were destroyed for entirely different reasons, mentioned in the first paragraph of the NYT article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for improving my edit, I intended to give it another go soon. Here we have more information about the greenhouses: about a half were dismanteled by the settlers, the rest were bought for the Palestinians and soon afterwards looted and destroyed. The source says "Under international law, that includes removing the settlers' houses, including the rubble.", which I understand to include the greenhouses as well as the rubble - both either had to be removed or covered by some agreement, but the source does not say this explicitly.“WarKosign” 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, not all of the rest was looted, some was. But the interpretation that international law required destroying greenhouses does not make sense, otherwise why would Wolfensohn and others spend money to buy them? Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that everything had to be removed or left according to some form of agreement. The rubble was left with the agreement that Palestinians were paid to remove it, and the greenhouses were left also under some terms agreed by both sides. If there is no agreement about a certain structure, it couldn't stay if Israel wanted disengagement to be considered complete. “WarKosign” 20:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead

Critics argue the blockade extends to drastic reductions in basic construction materials, medical supplies, and food stuffs. Under the blockade, Gaza is viewed by some critics as an "open-air prison," though the claim is contested. Israel supplies the Gaza Strip with electricity, water, food, medicine, and all non-military items free of charge. Due to the abundance of free foods coming into Gaza Strip from Israel, Palestinians are listed as the 8th most obese in the world among men and 3rd most obese among women.

I am dumping the disputed paragraph here. Please get consensus before including this again. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A simple question: who's decided about {{unreliable source}} (Eugene Kontorovich & Emmanuel Navon)? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, presumably a Pakistani Muslim. It definitely needs review.--Avner Kushner (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have concerns about WP:RS, you can bring it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Just for a start: The web-site "Political Arena" is an anonymous registered web-site, the article is supposedly by a "Chuck Norton". I have no idea if that is the real name, or not. But clearly not WP:RS Huldra (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources to support these claims. Just a Google search is enough. And there's also a tag.--Avner Kushner (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Avner, I explained on your Talk page why an opinion piece is not a reliable source, so you brought another?!? If there are indeed "hundreds of sources to support these claims" (as you wrote), why can't you find any that comply with WP:Identifying reliable sources? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avner Kushner: Firstly, it is wholly inappropriate to make statements like "Malik Shabazz, presumably a Pakistani Muslim". Even if the editor were a Pakistani Muslim, it is totally irrelevant here. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Regarding content, the politicalarena.org source is just a blog, and not WP:RS. The rest can be argued about, I will discuss this later.. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I do agree with your "Firstly" & "wholly inappropriate" and propose to Avner Kushner to "these words", but

what about my "{{unreliable source}}" question (21:38, 16 August 2015) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Igorp lj, there are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Please read the note I left above, the message I left at User talk:Avner Kushner#Gaza Strip, and my edit summaries—any of which answer your question. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop being rude and to answer on the merits.

The rest, see: If this is not double standards, what is it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

And I'd suggest you read the relevant policies and guidelines before you embarrass yourself further. Also, it's always a good idea to look at the edit history—including the edit summaries—before you join a discussion. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MShabazz, here are some of the many neutral reliables sources: Japan TimesYahoo News, and even the biased pro so-called Palestine, lying propaganda website The Electronic Intifada acknowledges [1]--Avner Kushner (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Israel provides Gaza with everything for free is just a lie. The fact that Israel's warriors in the press might repeat this canard doesn't make it any truer. It is dirt easy to check that a large fraction of goods are paid for by the largest international donors, notably the EU. The rest, including the electricity, is billed to the PA. Sometimes the Israeli government pays the electricity company out of tax money belonging to the PA, and sometimes donors pay part of it. This is dirt easy to verify because there is a long argument over the electricity debt. Just stick a few relevant keywords into Google and get pages of hits. Here is a 120-page report from the World Bank about the electricity. Zero^talk 00:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding later: Of course I forgot the work of UN Agencies, particularly UNRWA and WFP, who provide a large amount of food to Gaza. Here is a WFP report on it. Note that the USA is the largest donor. Zero^talk 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Avner Kushner is now going around WP:CANVASSing. diff1 diff2 diff3. Please slow down, and read policy. You are violating them at the rate of 10/hour. You should start by reverting your edit to the lead, because it breaks WP:1RR, which is a bright line. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I've been flagged by Avner Kushner, which may have been a case of canvassing, yet I am not aware of some policy that prevents me from responding.

This article and many others like it descibe the ever growing debt of PNA to Israel Electric Corporation. It's tricky whether electricity should be described as free - this source proves that quite a lot of electricity was indeed provided without being paid for (until the debt is repaid), but it does not show any intention to cancel the debt, so it is technically not free. The same situation exists regarding water.

While the claim that Israel provides Gaza with free goods doesn't seem to be supported, there are ample sources saying that trucks of goods do enter Gaza, severely weakening the blockade claim. “WarKosign” 07:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also it's probably worth mentioning Hamas's boycott] of Israeli goods. “WarKosign” 07:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Avner has been blocked for 24 hours, that's that. You are of course free to respond here. Regarding your points, the electricity part he added was useless, because it isn't free. The sources he added were talking about past payments which were due. As to the blockade thing, the issue is not that Israel blocks everything completely but it severely limits the volume. This was actually added in the edit, back in January, which this misguided edit attempted to "balance". Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add the information regarding electricity and food supply next to the POV statement in the "Economy" section saying "According to Sara Roy, one senior IDF officer told an UNWRA official in 2015 that Israel's policy towards the Gaza Strip consisted of:"No development, no prosperity, no humanitarian crisis."--LoveFerguson (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The "information regarding electricity and food supply" is unfortunately useless and false. So no. If you can find a formulation which is not obviously useless and false, I might consider it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the sources given don't support the text at all, despite two of them being written by hacks for the Kohelet Policy Forum. Kontorovich's reference to "the bill" shows that his phrase "free electricity" is just a rhetorical device (what bill, if it's literally free?). None of the sources say that Israel provides free food for Gaza. The stuff about obesity is dated from before the blockade and doesn't distinguish Gaza from the West Bank. Altogether nothing at all in that paragraph is salvageable. Zero^talk 10:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RS: double standards?

It is not about whether an electricity in Gaza is free, but about diametrically opposite relation of some editors to sources in the same Lede.
What I see in this topic is sharply critical attitude to the "pro-Israeli" sources, but it is quite liberal to those who criticizes Israel.
What is quite interesting, they do (not) apply the same criteria :) Alas, this is like a protracted symptom, and not in this article only.

Some quotes (see above):

A simple question: who's decided about (placed by Kingsindian --Igorp_lj (talk)) (Eugene Kontorovich & Emmanuel Navon)? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Avner, I explained on your Talk page why an opinion piece is not a reliable source, so you brought another?!? If there are indeed "hundreds of sources to support these claims" (as you wrote), why can't you find any that comply with WP:Identifying reliable sources? — MShabazz 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Igorp lj, there are none so blind as those who choose not to see. Please read the note I left above, the message I left at User talk:Avner Kushner#Gaza Strip, and my edit summaries—any of which answer your question. — MShabazz 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's check what we're talking about:

Author	professional	publicated at
Eugene Kontorovich	professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law	"'The Volokh Conspiracy' retains full editorial control over its content" - blog at Washington Post
Emmanuel Navon	MA and Ph.D. in International Relations	i24news.tv/en/opinion
Samira Shackle	"Freelance journalist and writer. Here's a selection of my work"	criticized for its islamist+ trends Middle East Monitor#Criticism - blogs
Jonathan Cook	freelance journalist	The National (Abu Dhabi) (why to hide Dubai? :) - opinion/comment
Anna Ball	Senior Lecturer in English, Programme Leader for the MRes in English Literary Studies	in

So I wait when Kingsindian, MShabazz (who yet?) will place the same for these sources too. The same aproach must be for all sources. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

References

@Igorp lj: I did not place the tags, but your fine work in comparing the two sources is unfortunately wasted. The problem is the source is not proving what the text claims to prove. So the tag should have been . Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

We are required to ascertain facts. The contested point is are these two sources, which assert what looks like a contrafactual POV, correct or not? Numerous sources lay out the payment arrangements, obligations under the law of occupation of the occupying power, etc. governing the supply of things like fuel and electricity. Any reader familiar with the subject would recognize at sight that Eugene Kontorovich, writing on a blog controlled by the bloggers, not by the RS Washington Post, is hazarding a highly dubious proposition (see here and and here, for example) as is Emmanuel Navon, who cites Yoram Dinstein for convenience, but ignores that the same authority denies what he asserts, i.e.,the Gaza is not occupied.(Dinstein, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation,pp.275ff., et passim. Indeed examination shows that Navon is asserting that the judgement of the Israeli Supreme Court indicates the state of international law, which, in Dinstein's view, it does not. We have experts on everything here, and opinion pieces, from any side, if they contradict or simplify complex realities, should not be used.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The most comic thing about that edit was the assertion that obesity in Gaza was due to Israel's abundant supply of free food. That kind of grotesque caricature of the fluctuating realities of material and food supply, outlined here and there on the page, should have set the alarm bells ringing.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Igorp lj, will you please stop belly-aching about this already. Read the relevant policies and guidelines. You can't cite a blog or an opinion column as a source of fact. You just can't. If you want to attribute an opinion to its author, go ahead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary: from those three who replied, no one answered in essence of my question: why (per same criteria) they reject the "pro-Israeli" sources but support "anti-Israeli" ones? Is that Kingsindian now has not insisted on , and offering .

"The most "comic" is Nishidani's reply - glibly (as usual) blaming those whom he doesn't like, in parallel, he added to the Skunk his favorite, but so controversial, Mondoweiss.

However, his response from a man who allows himself such next false accusations and boorish remarks to his opponent as :

• "See Mondoweiss and politely piss off. Do not revert me again or I'll start reporting this tracking"

isn't relevant at all, and should be of interest to administrators, if they ever will be found. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As I see, this discussion may be interested to Sean.hoyland who just now has reverted the Skunk article to Nishidani's version :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not constructively contributing to the building of articles, Igorp. Your talk page expositions are garbled, ill-focused, and difficult to reply to, and you frequently revert me, as do several pseudo-editors recycled from the past, without any talk page rationale or comprehensible edit-summary. This may not be purposive, but when repeated as a pattern, it figures as a controlled provocation, trying to elicit some impatience, which, in the case you cite, it did. That edit was totally unmotivated. If you want to edit wiki, learn collegiality.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but no, it doesn't interest me I'm afraid. I don't make content edits, write articles or participate in article talk page discussions anymore. People who have no personal connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict are best placed to determine the RS status of the source in this context in my view. I'm just reverting an obvious sock. I believe youngsters might refer to it as "fucking someone's shit up". It's a far more productive way to contribute to ARBPIA given the state of affairs as far as I'm concerned. It's also my way of supporting Israel by nullifying the presence of people who make Israel supporters look bad so that editors don't have the same experience as me. For example, when I started editing Wikipedia I was opposed to BDS, but years of exposure to many of the people who come here to advocate for the State of Israel helped to make me a firm supporter of BDS. This is probably not a good thing. Anyway, I shall go back to my Paul Auster novel, the 7th Auster novel I've read in the last few weeks, thanks in part to all that extra time not spent dealing with ethno-nationalist activists on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: I's really sad for me to hear that some/ones/thing made you "a firm supporter of BDS" with such its deals as "Spain condemns cancellation of Jewish musician Matisyahu at reggae festival", etc. Not so sad is your awareness that "This is probably not a good thing" :) Regarding to your 'ethno-nationalist activists on Wikipedia' definition: I see it (my own activity as min) in another way: to reflect what is / was happened as closely as possible to reality - without clichés and false versions.

Returning to a "Mondoweiss' case", let's continue in Talk:Skunk (weapon). --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

=> Talk:Skunk (weapon)#Mondoweiss as RS? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: There is no automatic rule for WP:RS in all cases. You are free to create discussions on talk page or WP:RSN in "Is source X reliable for statement Y" form. Since your question is general, I will not say any more. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I hope that placing for the sourses I've analized above should be enough at the moment. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512141943/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131025215301/http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/25/africa/web.0125pals.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/25/africa/web.0125pals.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629015352/http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1557518.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1557518.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402142039/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141028080406/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/ts_nm/palestinians_dc to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/ts_nm/palestinians_dc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130122185506/http://www.idfblog.com/2012/04/16/timeline-terror-2001-2012/ to http://www.idfblog.com/2012/04/16/timeline-terror-2001-2012/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131006114845/http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefing-notes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=21830 to http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefing-notes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=21830
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101204070226/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47273 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47273
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721135503/http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/2/293 to http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/2/293
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120525004953/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYVYAfX_Mu7L_Kv-VU_3g4XdDiSA to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYVYAfX_Mu7L_Kv-VU_3g4XdDiSA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090724154906/http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/9014.htm to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/9014.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130322120429/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717055454/http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp to http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp#hhi18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140204040731/http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au:80/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument to http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140126041704/http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/WWW/nationalsecurity.nsf/Page/What_Governments_are_doing_Listing_of_Terrorism_Organisations_Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad to http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/WWW/nationalsecurity.nsf/Page/What_Governments_are_doing_Listing_of_Terrorism_Organisations_Palestinian_Islamic_Jihad
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141028073307/http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1226/p99s01-duts.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1226/p99s01-duts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512141943/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927025542/http://cgi.omroep.nl/legacy/babel?/ceres/vara/rest/2009/VARA_101199822/bb.20090310.asf to http://cgi.omroep.nl/legacy/babel?/ceres/vara/rest/2009/VARA_101199822/bb.20090310.asf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529194740/http://zembla.vara.nl:80/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=11985&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1972&cHash=585b6a76ce to http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=11985&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1972&cHash=585b6a76ce
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109054713/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7NNG7m5AEfoCjIspXI7lya2LTFg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7NNG7m5AEfoCjIspXI7lya2LTFg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101201010130/http://imeu.net/news/article0017067.shtml to http://imeu.net/news/article0017067.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140812102748/http://www.paltelegraph.com/diaries/featured-articles/4847-cancer-increases-by-considerable-percentage-gaza-strip to http://www.paltelegraph.com/diaries/featured-articles/4847-cancer-increases-by-considerable-percentage-gaza-strip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Region of State of Palestine

@Nableezy and 137.147.164.232: I think it's wrong to say in the lead that Gaza is a region of State of Palestine. At the moment it is not controlled by the state and is not within its borders (since it has no defined borders), hence it is only correct to say that it's part of the territories claimed by the state - as the lead already says. “WarKosign” 14:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I share the idea that "claimed by the State of Palestine" is the right wording. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Trim

I'm cleaning this up some--the article is ridiculously long. For starters, here's a list of articles from the bibliography--articles that were never cited. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles

• Life in the Gaza Strip at BBC News
• Mowing the lawn (July 2014), analysis of Gaza by Mouin Rabbani, London Review of Books
• Arab Leaders, Viewing Hamas as Worse Than Israel, Stay Silent, The New York Times
• Archive 1 and Archive 2 of reports on Gaza, including also economic, social, political, cultural and security issues in Israel and Egypt directly impacting Gaza, The Real News
• Reports by Chris Hedges in Truthdig and The Real News:   Elites Will Make Gazans of Us All,   The Palestinians’ Right to Self-Defense,   Why Israel Lies,   On the root causes of the conflict between Israel and Gaza, and deconstructing the media's depiction of Gaza
• Yourish, Karen; Keller, Josh (16 July 2014). "The Toll in Gaza and Israel, Day by Day". The New York Times. In July and August 2014, after 28 days, at least 1,834 Palestinians and 67 Israelis have been killed.   Related: Inhuman shield: How The New York Times protects US elites from Gaza’s brutal reality, Patrick Connors, Mondoweiss
• A Slaughter Of Innocents, Henry Siegman's interview with Democracy Now! on Gaza, July 2014
• Economist Shir Hever discusses an Associated Press report about "attacks on the Gaza civilian population during Operation Protective Edge," The Real News
• High civilian death toll in Gaza house strikes, says report,   Ynet news

Drones

Resource for subject, still absent in the article:

• http://corporateoccupation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/life-beneath-the-drones-small-NEW.pdf Gaza: Life beneath the drones. Therezia Cooper and Tom Anderson, Corporate Watch, February 2015 (low resolution)
• http://corporateoccupation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/life-beneath-the-drones-high-res.pdf high resolution (35 MB)
• https://corporatewatch.org/publications/2015/new-briefing-gaza-life-beneath-drons The website
  

--Qualitatis (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is well known that Gaza is under surveillance a lot by drones, but those sources are activist ones and not really suitable for WP. I might dig around a little for this if I have the time. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I know the policy, but there is nothing wrong with reading forbidden sources. Absence in the article is strange, not? --Qualitatis (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

latest nonsense

What exactly does any of that have to do with the religion and culture of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip? Please, whoever wants to retain this material, explain that to me. nableezy - 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"Hamas view" of occupation?

I have removed this sentence. It says "per talk", but I see no discussion about this on the talk page. The sentence is a cherry picked quote from one random statement in 2012, and is not the "Hamas view" by any stretch of imagination. As anyone can ascertain with a minute's Google search, Hamas considers the whole of Israel and Palestine as "occupied". See this for just one example, many more can be provided. In fact, the second source cited for the statement says the same thing, and does not say that Gaza is not occupied. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting Ridiculous

It's rather pathetic that someone is turning this article into a propaganda piece. Yes, Gaza is blockaded, but the myths about everyone being stalked by drones and wading in sewage and starving (to be melodramatic) is patently absurd. Gaza is a region with thousands of years in history, and this article presents a distorted, recentivistic view. Not all of Gaza is a hellish war zone, the vast majority isn't. Its quality of life is far better than other countries in the region, say Syria or Yemen. It's an insult to our intelligence to turn a rather beautiful place into some sort of post-apocalyptic hell-hole. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You chose a good user name, as you seem to distinguish only black and white (you surely want to say the same about me ;-) ). Try to imagine how very very tiny this place is. Those who are interested in the thousands of years in history are on the right place here: History of Gaza. The common reader looks here for present-day Gaza and the history section in the article is way to long.

A beautiful place? I actually had the picture in this article in mind. Thank God you do not live in a country that is attacked by an occupying power on daily base and wholesale destroyed every few year. --Qualitatis (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

'Not all of Gaza is a hellish war zone, the vast majority isn't. Its quality of life is far better than other countries in the region, say Syria or Yemen.'

You really should study the work of Sara Roy, MM. Or consider that by the best estimates, the place will be uninhabitable within a few years.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 November 2015

Please could you add and protect my addition of the following sentence at the end of section 12.6: "All settlements in Gaza are considered illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Resolution 242"

This is a factually correct and uncontroversial statement which is pertinent to this section, and which has been deleted numerous times by contributors who wish to suppress historical fact for ideological purposes.

Thank you.

KMattar 01 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be stuck in the late 1990s. There are no Israeli settlements in Gaza, and haven't been any for 10 years. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey genius. Did you even read the edit request? KMattar 01 asked for the sentence to be added "at the end of section 12.6", which is about the history of the Gaza Strip, specifically about the 1967 Israeli occupation and the creation of the first Israeli settlement bloc. In other words, the right place for the statement.

However KMattar 01 did not cite a source for the statement. It's a good thing Israeli settlement has not one, but two, footnotes (numbers 9 and 10) with four sources between them. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

territory/enclave

This idea that territory and self-governing enclave are contradictory confuses me. One is more specific than the other. Hamas runs Gaza from within Gaza, how exactly is the more specific description inaccurate? nableezy - 19:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I expect the idea was to privilege the Strip as part of the rather Israelo-centric notion of 'Palestinian territories', which has never seemed an accurate term to me, since the West Bank's Area C under Israeli administrative engineering is being depopulated, making 60%+ of it a 'Palestinian territory' only in the sense that the West Bank is a Palestinian territory. 'Palestinian territories' in Israeli usage appears to me to vaguely suggest 'places in Palestine over the borders where Palestinians live', which excludes a lot of the West Bank, but which, if we take Gaza into consideration, extends seamlessly over all the territory within the Gaza Strip. Gaza is an enclave: the West Bank is, as a Palestinian territory, a congeries of bantustans or Indian reservations, as Sharon once said he designed it to be, squeezed between Israeli settlements on 'Israeli state lands'.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead section doesn't represent reliable sources and some sentences in it are confusing due to that.

First, the definition of the Gaza Strip.

• According to the Oxford Dictionary the Gaza Strip is a a strip of territory.
• According to UNRWA the Gaza Strip is a coastal strip of land.
• According to BBC the Gaza Strip is a coastal territory.
• According to Slate the Gaza Strip is a rectangular territory.
• According to IBT the Gaza Strip is a territory.
• According to ABC News the Gaza Strip is an area.
• According to Infoplease the Gaza Strip is a territory. (based on the The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)

Then I looked at some sources not in the lead section and found those:

• According to Drawing a Line in the Sea: The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, p.23: "The Gaza Strip is recognizable as the smaller of the two entities comprising the Palestinian Territories...it seems east to dismiss the tiny territory..." source
• In p.30 of that same source it is said on the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza that: "by doing so, the Israelis turned Gaza into the single largest contigues territory under Palestinian sovereignty." source
• From an article of IMEU "The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory" source

Sources not in the article:

• According to World Factbook the Gaza Strip is a territory Find in "Economy - overview" and "Introduction"
• According to MFA the Gaza Strip is a disputed territory source (but they zionist so who cares)..
• According to World Encyclopedia the Gaza Strip is a strip of territory source
• According to Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa the Gaza Strip is a region and a territory source
• According to the Gaza Strip is a coastal area, region and a territory source.

Funny enough, the rest of the article seems to have a consensus that Gaza is a territory. The second paragraph begins in "the territory" and a Simple Ctrl+F will reveal that the word "territory" is used to refer to the strip.

On the other hand, the first paragraph of the lead section says that the Gaza Strip is "self-governing Palestinian enclave". Before everything, I had to note that Gaza is not an enclave, since it borders Israel, Egypt and the Sea, it is an exclave. The source says the Gaza Strip is regarded by everyone as a "self-governing enclave cut from the Middle East", but three sentences after it is said that "An argument could be made that the territory is 'constructively occupied' by virtue of the blockade..." and in general the word "enclave" isn't mentioned in regard to Gaza in other sections of the book while Gaza is often regarded in the book as an occupied territory.

The next problem is in the lead's introduction of the status in the Gaza Strip. The lead says "Gaza falls under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and since July 2007 has been governed by Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic organization, which came to power in free elections in 2006. It has been placed under an Israeli and U.S.-led international economic and political boycott from that time onwards."

This whole sentence is confusing. The first part about the territory being under the jurisdiction of the PA and being goverend by Hamas since 2007 also doesn't reflect the source which says "Technically part of the Palestinian Authority, it has been governed since 2007 by the militant group Hamas." Also I can't see why the second part is in the first paragraph and what does it have to do with the information it follows. Yes Hamas was elected in 2006 and for one year the PA was under boycott but since 2007 the PA is not under boycott and Hamas governs the territory not becuase it was elected but becuase it forcibly took control of it in June 2007, which is ignored in the first paragraph but mentioned in the forth paragraph.

The lead should state that the Gaza Strip is a territory and the first paragraph should state that Hamas took the territory in 2007 and the sentence about the one year boycott should be removed from the first paragraph.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying the Gaza Strip is a territory is a bit like saying an egg is oval. One can find dozens of sources to say 'an egg is oval in shape', stating the obvious without defining how 'oval' defines the specificity of eggs, as opposed to cricket grounds. The word 'territory' has, per the link, many denotative and connotative extensions. The 'self-governing enclave', a legal term, is by contrast precise. It's endorsed by a OUP source which glosses the ambiguous territory by specifying that 'the Gaza Strip (is) a strip of territory in Palestine (which) became a self-governing enclave under the PLO-Israeli accord in 1994'. Numerous sources endorse the definition of the territory as, by common accord in 1994, a 'self-governing enclave'. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113201232/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2F9A128525643D007702E6 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/9EC4A332E2F9A128525643D007702E6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Life triumphs

Some interesting notes in this one: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4782584,00.html Anything worth inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/5lkG0pEAw to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrectly sourced and/or contradictory/false statements

The article states:

For its energy, Gaza is largely dependent on Israel either for import of electricity or fuel for its sole power plant. The Oslo Accords set limits for the Palestinian production and importation of energy. Pursuant to the Accords, the Israel Electric Corporation exclusively supplies the electricity (63% of the total consumption in 2013).

The source cited is note [21]. The sources draw from this [UN Report], which states:

20. The Oslo Accords set limits for the Palestinian production and importation of energy and the Palestinian energy sector is therefore highly dependent on energy imports from Israel. The Israel Electric Corporation supplies 88 per cent of electricity consumption in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and 95 per cent of electricity consumption in the West Bank. In 2013, it supplied 63 per cent of Gaza’s electricity, while the Gaza power plant and Egypt supplied 29 and 8 per cent, respectively. In 2013, the Occupied Palestinian Territory imported electricity from Israel at the cost of $660 million.

Firstly, how then is is true that "Israel Electric Corporation exclusively supplies the electricity"? Clearly, as stated, Gaza and Egypt both supply some. Perhaps it should be written "exclusively supply the Israeli portion of the electricity", if such is the intent.

Secondly, I direct your attention to the Oslo Accords themselves. The full text of[I] and [II]. Neither of "The Oslo Accords set limits for the Palestinian production and importation of energy". This appears to be patently false, and such claims should be ignored in favor of the text itself.

Furthermore, the article states:

Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,[21] the United Nations, International human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel ... Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.

This appears to be an irrelevant red herring or perhaps emotional ploy. Vatican City depends on Italy for its power, water, and sewage treatment, but this does not make it occupied. Dependency by choice or circumstance is not occupation; instead, forcefully inflicting dependency is occupation. As stated earlier, there is no such dependency asserted in the Oslo Accords, contrary to the claims made in [Cited Report]. It cannot either be unequivocally argued that the money or materials are not available - vast amounts of suitable money and materials (high grade concrete and metals) are poured into tunnel (re)building and other supplies and infrastructure for Hamas's military wing. It can be argued that by choice they prioritize such pursuits over local humanitarian needs.

18.189.105.140 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Status

Misleading information: governed by Hamas, claimed by State of Palestine.

Does someone imply Hamas is a rival entity to the State of Palestine? Hamas is an active party and the State of Palestine is the sovereign body to which Hamas belongs. This needs to be rewritten. As I interpret the situation, since Israel no longer lays claim to Gaza then its status as being Palestine is not disputed, regardless of whether fully recognised. The dispute I believe is between Palestine's internal factions, Hamas and Fatah. --OJ (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just like the Syrian Opposition is not a rival of "Syria" but rather of the government, Hamas is a rival the PLO and the State of Palestine is pretty much the PLO.--Bolter21 (talk to me)

Although the PLO is technically parent organisation to Fatah - Hamas being outside this group and in conflict with Fatah, none of this affects that status of Palestine; Hamas would wish to assert control over the West Bank just as Fatah has not washed its hands off the Gaza Strip. This rivalry is closer to what was witnessed in Kosovo in the 1990s when the KLA were at war with FARK. Both adhered to an independent Kosovo declared in 1991. --OJ (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a change but it is cumbersome. A solution may be to have "claimed by PNA, governed by Hamas", that way nobody disturbs the status of 'Palestine' or limits it to PLO. --OJ (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick query re: the current form of words,

State of Palestine, governed by Hamas (internationally seen as being outside of Palestinian National Authority)

Could this be ambiguous for those unfamiliar with the situation i.e. does it mean that it is the Gaza Strip, the State of Palestine or Hamas that is seen as being outside the PNA? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because they were undiscussed. We need to answer some important questions:

• Is the Hamas control over the Gaza Strip is unrecognized, thus implying it is recognized as part of the PNA? (In addition to being part of what is recognized by 137 nations as the State of Palestine)
• Is the Fact that the PLO is recognized as the sole representivie of the Palestinian people by over 100 states (based on book references in the PLO article), and the fact that Fatah is the leading party of both the PLO and the PNA, has anything to do with this topic?

I suggest for now to write: Part of the PNA according to the Oslo Accords, administrated by Hamas since 2007 (with a link to the Hamas Governance of the Gaza Strip) and to add a note saying "The Gaza Strip is also reocgnized as part of the State of Palestine which is recognized by 137 UN members". --Bolter21 (talk to me)

I am all right to talk. I am not hell bent on "one revision" and I have no issue with people making edits to my contributions, but reverting here was wrong. It needs to be rewritten one way or the other. Palestine's lack of wider recognition does not render Gaza a part of another state when Israel does not claim it and Egypt no longer defines it as part of its territorial integrity. If it can be perceived as being anything other than Palestinian, even Belgian if reliable sources exist, then you can say: claimed by Palestine and Belgium. But unless Hamas declares itself independent of Palestine, it is wrong to say Hamas control what Palestine claims. In 2006, Hamas and Fatah contested the very same election for the very same state; the rest of the jargon on Oslo and the PLA is splitting hairs and can easy be overcome with simple language that does not mislead. --OJ (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How come Aleppo is partially occupied by the Free Syrian Army? The Free Syrian Army is part of Syria, it's just that the Free Syrian Army fights the Syrian Government. The Gaza Strip is administrated by Hamas while the State of Palestine doesn't really administrate anything, not to mention the fact, that it is not recognized by France, UK and USA, which all put their veto on their legal sovereignty.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Free Syrian Army is not "part of Syria", it is the military wing of the conventional Syrian opposition. The Syrian opposition is at war with the Syrian government not with the view of independence but of ousting the authorities whereupon they assume the role of internationally recognised representative of the people of Syria. The legality of Palestine is not rendered invalid because three permanent security council members do not recognise it. Legality boils down to whether a nation has the right to self-determination. This in turn induces differing opinions among the world's nations.

With regards your posts, let's look at the main points you have made (verbatim):

1. . the PLO is recognized as the sole representative of the Palestinian people by over 100 states (based on book references in the PLO article), and the fact that Fatah is the leading party of both the PLO and the PNA
2. . the State of Palestine doesn't really administrate anything, not to mention the fact, that it is not recognized by France, UK and USA, which all put their veto on their legal sovereignty.
3. . Hamas control over the Gaza Strip is unrecognized

This is three-way kettle logic. It basically states that only the PLO/PNA is recognised as the representative of the Palestinians, that it is without legal sovereignty, and that Hamas is unlawful in Gaza for not being an embodiment of the PLO. Three contradictory statements.

I am not qualified to comment on which of these if any are correct, however I can tell you that in January 2006, elections were held in Palestine for the Palestinian Legislative Council. The decisive victor was Change and Reform (i.e. Hamas). Now regardless of result, how did it happen that these elections even took place with Hamas placed against Fatah for the legislature of the PNA? And when disagreement turned into full scale conflict, why has it led to the Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process if Hamas had been banned or unrecognised as active opposition in the first place? And how exactly does the Palestinian Legislative Council come to have a speaker from Hamas, Aziz Duwaik? The bottom line is that there is internal conflict, but none to the point that one should oppose the State of Palestine in favour of another Palestinian entity.

Why don't you go ahead with your original suggestion for amendment, obviously until you've done it I cannot see how it looks. I'm practically in favour of any change to the current layout. --OJ (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Those "points I made" were actually questions I don't have an answer for. My point was we need to see what is the status of the legal Hamas government according to the international community to see if we can actually say that the Strip is recognized as part of the Palestinian Authority, whose leader is the leader of the ruling party which is a rival to Hamas and also the leading party of the PLO which is recognized by over 100 countries and blah blah blah, you get the point. What I do now, is a SYNTH that I belive we need to examin if we can have sources for it. I found this Hebrew article from Haaretz, saying Duwaik is the speaker of the PLC from Hamas but it also say that the PLC ceased to operate since July 2007 since the "coup in Gaza". Haaretz and Gilli Cohen are reliable sources. I also found this source that seems to say the same thing. I don't have time to read it now, but from what I"ve read, this 12 pages article from a reliable source might have the answer to resolve this issue.

Also, the State of Palestine's leaders according to their mission in the UN is not the same government that Hamas holds in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has a different government than the one of the State of Palestine. Also the State of Palestine's government, is actually made up of the same members of the PNA's members of the new government of a failed attempt to create a Unity Government which had no members from Hamas and was not approved by the PLC.

So I think there is a serious problem in your suggestion.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well you're right that there are a lot of issues here. My only suggestion for the time being was that you went ahead with your first proposal as you offered in a previous post...if you make that edit, we can all see how it will look. --OJ (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Post amendment

@Bolter21: Thanks for making the amendment. One part of it is still puzzling: also claimed by State of Palestine. Also in addition to whom? --OJ (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a mistake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do here is keep the first two segments and remove the third which says "claimed by the State of Palestine", after all, this is obvious from the first point about Oslo Accords. --OJ (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the change, do you reckon we can merge it with the first bullet hole, "claimed by the State of Palestine" standing alone can go first, followed by remainder in second sentence. This way the passage says everything needed and nothing can be open to interpretation. --OJ (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the State of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority are entirely different things. The State of Palestine is unilateral, the PA is bilateral. The three statements show pretty much all the positions. The Gaza Strip, according to the bilateral agreement is supposed to be under the PA. De-Facto the PA is governed by Hamas through a cabinet of ministers. Also, De-Jure, the Gaza Strip is claimed by the State of Palestine, which currently fights for international recognition and has 137 UN members recognizing it although it has no direct authority over the Strip. So we have the De-Jure situation, the De-Facto situation and the disputed sovereign situation. I think we need no less and no more, other than maybe better sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes but unless Hamas declares a parallel Palestinian entity and adopts a new flag with a modified name (not State of) in the very same way you have Republic of China and People's Republic of China, you cannot proclaim Hamas to be outside of the State of Palestine, it is simply the case that the wider institutions reject them. As such, claimed by Sate of Palestine is totally wrong because Hamas purports to be the authority of this state. --OJ (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_340/l_34020051223en00640066.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141016214230/http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/pij.html to http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/pij.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/09/international/i104249S77.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070201/wl_nm/palestinians_dc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402142039/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/947775.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310183754/http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefing-notes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=21830 to http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefing-notes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=21830

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Egyptian blockade"

This is misleading. Egypt (like Israel) has every right to close its own borders. The only blockade is the Israeli sea and air blockade, by which Israel imposes control outside its own borders. Mewulwe (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good point. Zero^talk 00:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If Israel is considered "occupying" the strip, as the article claims, multiple times, then it of course has every right to control that territories borders. You can't have it both ways. I am happy to restate the blockade sentence, if we remove the claims that the strip is occupied. Epson Salts (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The blockade is precisely what constitutes the occupation. Mewulwe (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not the way these terms are used in international law. Epson Salts (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson, I don't know if you"ve ever learnt, but Palestine was retroactively given the right to distort any term they want, like "occupation", "apartheid", "refugee", "siege", "wall", "massacre", "genocide", "extrajudicial killing" etc. If you want to remove the "Gaza is still occupied", give up. It's a lost battle.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The source [22] in the article is cristal clear:

Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,[22] the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It which case it would be preposterous to claim that it is blockading a territory it occupies. Again, you can't have it both ways. Epson Salts (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article previously did speak of an Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade, so now you want to remove any reference to blockades? My edit was simply to separate the land border closures (definitely allowed under international law) from the more questionable Israeli sea and air blockade (or whatever you want to call it). This shouldn't be lumped together as "Israeli and Egyptian blockade" which suggests Israel is doing nothing more controversial than what Egypt does too. If you argue that the sea blockade is within Israel's rights on the basis of the occupation, then it is still as questionable as the occupation itself. The two, in any case, can't be separated as far as Gaza itself is concerned. Without the sea blockade, and if Gaza were a separate political entity, it would not be occupied. The primary reason the disengagement didn't change anything in international law is because the question of occupation is not applied to mere geographical regions but to political entities - and Gaza is simply part of Palestine, which, through the West Bank, remained unquestionably occupied. The de facto separate government didn't change this; even Hamas doesn't want an independent Gaza state. Mewulwe (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So agin, no.imposing a naval blockade is not an occupation under international law. Those are two distinct concept that you are conflating. I am aware of the pro-Palestinian talking point that Gaza is 'occupied' because it is part of a "Palestinian State" which also includes the West Bank is is occupied, but I can also see that propaganda point for the nonsense that it is. Answer me this: Is Damascus occupied by Israel ? There's no question that the Damascus governate is part and parcel of the same political entity called 'Syria', which includes the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel. Is there anyone making the ridiculous claim the Damascus is occupied, based on the same fallacious reasoning? Epson Salts (talk)

Enough with the hasbara. We go by what reliable sources say, and they say Israel is blockading Gaza. If you disagree, start a blog or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the prevailing international view is that there is a blockade, and that that is equivalent to an occupation, notwithstanding that even without the blockade Gaza would still be part of occupied Palestine, even while not by itself occupied. Likewise, Damascus by itself is not occupied but is part of (partially-)occupied Syria (of course, because of the relatively small part of occupied territory, one doesn't commonly speak of "occupied Syria"; the West Bank is a tad more significant for Palestine than the Golan Heights for Syria!). Mewulwe (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026025009/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/Address+by+FM+Livni+to+the+8th+Herzliya+Conference+22-Jan-2008.htm?DisplayMode=print to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/Address+by+FM+Livni+to+the+8th+Herzliya+Conference+22-Jan-2008.htm?DisplayMode=print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511202713/http://www.alsadaka.ps/index.php/archives/604 to http://www.alsadaka.ps/index.php/archives/604
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127035141/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402142039/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34;_ylt=AjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609072031/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/ts_nm/palestinians_dc to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/ts_nm/palestinians_dc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Flag

I think that, as the Gaza strip is functionally administered separately than the West Bank, dislaying the flag of Hamas algonside the Palestinian flag in the infobox would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glide08 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me to the section of the documentation for Template:Infobox country that recommends the addition of the emblem or flag of the governing party? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel.

@MShabazz: Part of which country Israel recognises the Gaza Strip? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 13:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No country. Israel doesn't claim the Gaza Strip either. The IDF defines the Gaza Strip as a "hostile entity", that's as much as you can say about this matter.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're asking me why I reverted your edit, which asserted that Israel claims the Gaza Strip, it's because (as Bolter21 wrote) Israel makes no such claim. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F12%2F09%2Finternational%2Fi104249S77.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_34%3B_ylt%3DAjoLFAN_35SNS_Y9GqjHedwUvioA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121307/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467655416&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6653437.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121359/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708616387&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708616387&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121459/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395602714 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395602714
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121629/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380807070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380807070&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523779483&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121547/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331192135&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331192135&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404835055&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404825125&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116053944/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/58981.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/58981.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121653/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513091337/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/373CC85C90E938F485257574005E7B2B to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/373CC85C90E938F485257574005E7B2B
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2002/9014.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches%2Bby%2BIsraeli%2Bleaders/2008/Address%2Bby%2BFM%2BLivni%2Bto%2Bthe%2B8th%2BHerzliya%2BConference%2B22-Jan-2008.htm?DisplayMode=print
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016210132/http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/09/gaza-crossings-operations-status-monthly-update-july-2015/ to http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/09/gaza-crossings-operations-status-monthly-update-july-2015/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=11985&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1972&cHash=585b6a76ce
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306115110/http://paltimes.net/details/news/11794/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84.html to http://paltimes.net/details/news/11794/%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119065656/http://paltimes.net/details/news/11090/%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%80%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A2%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%80600-%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81-%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7.html to http://paltimes.net/details/news/11090/%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%80%D9%81%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A2%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%80600-%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81-%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010213508/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52586 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52586
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601033156/http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_PSE.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_PSE.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514171248/http://atlas.pcbs.gov.ps/atlas/default.asp to http://atlas.pcbs.gov.ps/atlas/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hollande

change ((Francois Hollande)) to ((François Hollande))

Done! Huldra (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo - missing word

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

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

Map

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

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

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

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

Material removed from Natural Resources section

This I have removed because it is not directly related to the Gaza Strip except as the part of the wider context in the competition for Mediterranean gas resources. It is quite informative and should be readapted for several existing articles on Lebanon and Syria, for example.

Operation Cast Lead was launched in the winter of 2008. According to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai, it was intended to subject Gaza to a "shoah" (the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster). Yoav Galant, the commanding general of the Operation, said that it was designed to "send Gaza decades into the past." Israeli parliamentarian Tzachi Hanegbi said the specific military goal was "to topple the Hamas terror regime and take over all the areas from which rockets are fired on Israel."

Amnesty International reported that the 22-day Operation killed 1,400 Palestinians, "including some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians, and large areas of Gaza had been razed to the ground, leaving many thousands homeless and the already dire economy in ruins." However, Operation Cast Lead A field of 130 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas was discovered in the Levantine Basin, a mainly offshore formation under the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli officials asserted that "most" of the newly confirmed gas reserves lay "within Israeli territory." Contrary claims were made by Lebanon, Syria, Cyprus, and the Palestinians.

In early 2011, the Israeli government announced the unilateral development of two fields, about 10% of that Levantine Basin gas, which lay in disputed offshore waters near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil threatened a military confrontation, asserting that his country would "not allow Israel or any company working for Israeli interests to take any amount of our gas that is falling in our zone." Hezbollah, a political faction in Lebanon, promised rocket attacks if "a single meter" of natural gas was extracted from the disputed fields. Oil industry journalist Pierre Terzian, editor of the oil industry journal Petrostrategies, offered this analysis of the realities of the confrontation:

"In practical terms... nobody is going to invest with Lebanon in disputed waters. There are no Lebanese companies there capable of carrying out the drilling, and there is no military force that could protect them. But on the other side, things are different. You have Israeli companies that have the ability to operate in offshore areas, and they could take the risk under the protection of the Israeli military."

Israel continued its exploration and drilling in the two disputed fields, deploying drones to guard the facilities. The Netanyahu government also invested resources in preparing for possible future military confrontations in the area, and with U.S. funding, it developed the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system designed in part to intercept Hezbollah and Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli energy facilities. It also expanded the Israeli navy, focusing on its ability to deter or repel threats to offshore energy facilities. Finally, starting in 2011 it launched airstrikes in Syria designed, according to U.S. officials, "to prevent any transfer of advanced... antiaircraft, surface-to-surface and shore-to-ship missiles" to Hezbollah.

However, Hezbollah continued to stockpile rockets capable of demolishing Israeli facilities. And in 2013, Lebanon began negotiating with Russia, with the goal of getting that country's gas firms to develop Lebanese offshore claims, while the Russian navy would lend a hand with the "long-running territorial dispute with Israel."

By the beginning of 2015, a state of mutual deterrence appeared to be setting in. Israel had succeeded in bringing online the smaller of the two fields it set out to develop, but drilling in the larger one was indefinitely stalled "in light of the security situation." U.S. contractor Noble Energy, hired by the Israelis, was unwilling to invest the necessary 6 billion US dollars in facilities that would be vulnerable to Hezbollah attack, and potentially in the gun sights of the Russian navy. On the Lebanese side, despite an increased Russian naval presence in the region, no work had begun.

In Syria, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, facing a threat from various groups of jihadists, survived in part by negotiating massive military support from Russia in exchange for a 25-year contract to develop Syria's claims to that Levantine gas field. Included in the deal was a major expansion of the Russian naval base at the port city of Tartus, ensuring a far larger Russian naval presence in the Levantine Basin.

The presence of the Russians may have deterred the Israelis from attempting to develop any Syrian-claimed gas deposits. Israel contracted with the U.S.-based Genie Energy Corporation to locate and develop oil fields in the Golan Heights. Facing a potential violation of international law, the Netanyahu government invoked, as the basis for its acts, an Israeli court ruling that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territories was legal. At the same time, the government began shoring up the Israeli military presence in the Golan Heights.

Cyprus is another Levantine claimant. In 2014, the Greek Cypriots signed an exploration contract with Noble Energy, Israel's chief contractor. The Turkish Cypriots trumped this move by signing a contract with Turkey to explore all Cypriot claims "as far as Egyptian waters." Similar to Israel and Russia, the Turkish government moved three navy vessels into the area to physically block any intervention by other claimants.

As a result, four years of maneuvering around the newly discovered Levantine Basin deposits have produced little energy, brought new and powerful claimants into the mix, and launched a significant military build-up in the region.

Launched in March 2012, the operation "devastated" Gaza, while the Iron Dome achieved a 90% "kill rate" against Hamas rockets. However, this was not sufficient to ensure the protection of the country's exposed oil facilities. Even one direct hit there could damage the relatively fragile and flammable structures. In 2013, a new round of energy blackouts caused "chaos" across Israel, triggering a 47% increase in electricity prices. In response, the Netanyahu government considered a proposal to begin extracting domestic shale oil, but the potential contamination of water resources caused a backlash movement that frustrated this effort.

Article includes factual error re: Yuval Shany and vast omission.

As of now, this article wrongly claims that Yuval Shany argues Gaza should still be considered occupied. In fact he has argued the opposite.

It also lists supporters of the former view, but not any supporters of the latter view, although plenty exist and are frequently cited in the relevant literature. (e.g. Shany, Eyal Benvenisti, Marko Milanovic, Solon Solomon, Eugene Kontorovich, Elizabeth Samson...)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

In para. 4 line 4 change "European Quartet" to "Madrid Quartet" and change the URL link from the Visegrad Group to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartet_on_the_Middle_East 92.196.22.251 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

edit requests

Please add the following to the Economy sub-section:

• As of 2017, GDP per person in Gaza is about $1,000/year.
• As of 2017, Gaza has an unemployment rate of about 40%, described as probably the highest in the world, while youth unemployment is about two-thirds.

Sources

Thankyou.Mawlidman (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files2/201401_%27so_near_and_yet_so_far_eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714213821/http://www.idf.il/1283-12586-en/Dover.aspx to http://www.idf.il/1283-12586-en/Dover.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111233151/http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf to http://www.cogat.idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/1/2181.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unep.org/PDF/dmb/UNEP_Gaza_EA.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/blogs/lifestyle/7813-israel-tightens-its-blockade-of-gaza-for-security-reasons
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726062323/http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf to http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_special_easing_the_blockade_2011_03_english.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Source required

'as one of many solutions offered during a Cabinet brainstorming session on what to do with the Gaza Strip.' The article by Ateret mentions no such thing as a brainstorming session. Where did this come from. If you read the article, Eshkol said a consensus at the cabinet meeting was that:

'We are interested in emptying out Gaza first,” Eshkol summed up. To which Labor Minister Yigal Allon suggested “thinning the Galilee of Arabs,” while Religious Affairs Minister Zerah Warhaftig said, “We must increase [the number of] Jews and take all possible measures to reduce the number of Arabs.”

Where are the 'other solutions' or Endlösungen? Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, since when "mondoweiss" is a reliable source? Besides, this seems speculation, not factual.--Pari Chohadry (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Socks are recused, not excused, from commenting here.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

mw is not a reliable source. But you also put in haaretz. I suggest you read the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

you have been asked to source the words you introduced to show they are neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH. So get off your high horse or sopwith camel and cite the words in the source so far given which you state you are paraphrasing. Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, most of the Haaretz article is about a single Security Cabinet meeting in December 1967, at which various ministers offered suggestions, sometimes multiple suggestions, to the question of what to do with the newly occupied territories and the people who lived there. While Haaretz doesn't use the word "brainstorming", that seems to describe what it was: "a group creativity technique by which efforts are made to find a conclusion for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by its members." WP:NOR doesn't preclude Wikipedia editors from using their vocabularies to describe what reliable sources report; there is no requirement that editors restrict themselves to the words used in the source.

As a related matter, I was going to add a content note about some of the other suggestions that were raised at that meeting, including forcibly removing the Arabs and withdrawing from the territories altogether, but this article doesn't have any other content notes and I didn't want to start a "bad habit". What do other editors think? Without burdening the article text, would it be helpful to describe the range of suggestions that Security Cabinet members made? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I just disliked the word 'brainstorming': it implies people were actually using their brains. They were a lot of things, but in that session, they were not being 'intelligent' but proved themselves facile prey to oneiric fan(a)tasies, which, over decades, became a foreseeable nightmare for the 'other'. Nonetheless, your adjustment, despite my lexical reserve, is a fair compromise.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like the proposals were radically different - just differed in how (whether in Gaza, or Galilee, the goal to decrease the number of Arabs and increase the number of Jews but that some wanted to withdraw from the territories entirely and maybe link Ya'akov Shimshon Shapira). I think the current edit should be revised. But yes, I think the content of the Haaretz article is important enough to expand a little, and that it is too much to sum up in one sentence.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. Eshkol, Allon, and Dayan wanted to rid the territories of Arabs by various means (Eshkol suggested another war as a possibility); Warhaftig wanted to increase the number of Jews and reduce the number of Arabs. Shapira called for Israel to withdraw, Sapir thought remaining would be "a disaster for the State of Israel", and he and Aranne warned that the Palestinians would want a state of their own. That seems like a wide range of opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That is basically what I said. I don't see the different between "rid the territories of Arabs" and "reduce the number of Arabs". Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

'rid' and 'reduce' have profoundly different connotations. Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Malik on this one that there was a wide range of opinion from withdrawing to another war and yes MW is not reliable source for such matters--Shrike (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Ofir at Mondoweiss has been discussed at the RSN board and was found acceptable. Mondoweiss is no less reliable that the Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel etc., and Ofir's article draws on Haaretz's Hebrew language reportage. The fact that some think nothing 'left' of the Likud spectrum is reliable for the I/P area is laughable. Aas to the 'wide range of opinion', the word 'brainstorming' is defined as:

a conference technique of solving specific problems, amassing information, stimulating creative thinking, developing new ideas, etc., by unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion

There was no 'problem solving' other than a collective decision 'not to solve' the 'problem' and hope time would fix it; 'there was no creative thinking', but simply a shared awareness that a problem existed for Zionism; the 'new ideas' consist of rehearsing what had been endlessly vetted by Zionist planners since Herzl's time, i.e. we have to rid the Arabs from 'our' country, or reduce their numbers to a manageable minority. 'Braining-storming' for those who have never participated in such a conference, consists of thinking up dozens of potential solutions to a problem, and evaluating their practicality. The conference shows no evidence of taking into account any idea other than those already inscribed in the inveterate ideology: 'get the niggers out of there.' Why the word is inappropriate is obvious: any Cabinet deliberation could henceforth be eloquently pumped up as exhibiting an open intelligent assessment of any options that might arise among serious thinkers. Cabinet discussions are not normally anything of the kind, anywhere. They consist of calculations of power, intent, interests and what one can get away with. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Besides using a polemic source - this paragraph is WP:UNDUE - this was mere brainstorming/speculation in which many alternatives were laid out in the cabinet (yes the paragraph focuses on a single out of context alternative) - however what is stated in the paragraph was not carried out (much to he contrary to these thoughts - population growth rate in Gaza was (and is) extremely high).Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well right now the discussion is about whether we should add more discussion based on Haaretz - regarding Jonathan Ofir, I think he is WP:RS, especially since it has already been discussed at RS/N. Mondoweiss can be given attribution, but there is no need to jump in and revert something that is being discussed by five editors. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD - it is common practice to revert newly added information that is under contention. This should be removed from the article until this is a consensus - WP:ONUS is on those who want to include. Mondoweiss is not a good source, but that is besides the point (as the actual PRIMARY document is available as is Ha'aretz reporting on it (that Mondoweiss then repackaged as an attack piece)) - what is the point - is that this is simply UNDUE - the cabinet brainstorming is in itself not significant - and a single alternative laid out by some participants - is even less significant - and if presented should've been presented with all the other alternatives presented in said open discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think yes, we could add more. What is under discussion is User:SirJoseph's edits, Nishidani opened the discussion...and currently SirJoseph's edits are not being reverted. So jumping in and reverting everything and declaring it WP:UNDUE while it is being discussed by five editors is not per WP:BRD. I don't really think this history is WP:UNDUE, the Haaretz article is excellent and obviously the releasing of minutes from the 1967 war is of significant historical significance, if anything we should add more about this Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani [2] added this on 24th November. Discussion here was not limited to Sir Joseph's edits. In any case it is UNDUE - and doesn't appear in any significant historical treatment of the strip. It was published by Ha'aretz as post of their 50 year anniversary of 1967 publications and since the transcripts were released. Per BRD - it should be reverted until there is consensus to include this - and multiple editors are objecting to the inclusion of this UNDUE material.Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, only you. I do agree that "brainstorming" is poor wording and should be revised, discussion here has so far been limited to "brainstorming" and possible expansion based on the Haaretz article. What you are starting is a new discussion and it should have been started in a separate section. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz. Seraphim is correct. You broke every basic rule in the book by (a)reverting while the passage was under discussion; (b) inventing a pretext (WP:Undue) that no editor other than yourself had even mentioned (MShabazz, SJ, myself,Seraphim) so far.(c) In writing, '(it) doesn't appear in any significant historical treatment of the strip,' you are blatantly flying in the face of the obvious- Cabinet meeting documents released in November 2017 are not, by definition, going to 'appear in any significant historical treatment' of Gaza, since they hadn't been available for the past five decades (1967-2017) for historians to include. This is an egregious case of removalism from distaste, nothing less. Finally re using Ofir/Mondoweiss, we had this discussion just a few months ago. There have been numerous attempts to erase any use, a priori of Mondoweiss at RSN, and nothing there warrants the automatic removal of any source cited from that news/commentary source exists. Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In light of the discussion, I have no objection to changing "brainstorming", but I think it is important to convey the idea that many suggestions were made at the meeting. I haven't read the source in a few days, but I think I remember that Eshkol made two or three suggestions that weren't fully consistent with one another (but I may be mistaken). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

• "Several proposals were discussed: Eshkol's stated purpose was "emptying out Gaza" either by encouraging emigration or through war. While Eshkol suggested that Gazans might move “because of the suffocation and imprisonment there” Dayan proposed work permits for Arabs to work abroad. Dayan calculated that most residents would prefer to move voluntarily and the rest "must be removed from there under any arrangement that’s made." In contrast, Yaakov Shimshon Shapira, Zalman Aranne and Pinas Saphir supported withdrawal from the territories." Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Seraphim System; that seems like a good summary. Unless he's been mentioned previously in the article, Moshe Dayan's name should be spelled out and Wikilinked on first mention. We should Wikilink the other three ministers' names as well (Ya'akov Shimshon Shapira, Zalman Aran, and Pinchas Sapir), and perhaps we should use the transliterations used in their Wikipedia biographies (as opposed to those used by Haaretz). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume Seraphim's rewrite is for the context of the quote from Eshkol? And that it is not meant to erase the introductory point made by Segev, which links those discussions to a longstanding perspective in Zionism= As it stands, we have Eshkol noting 'suffocation, imprisonment' which does not cover the crucial idea, actually implemented, of reducing their water supplies to make their agricultural basis wither. Take that out and you are cleansing the text to no visible end. I see SJ has also struck preemptively to erase Segev. If Seraphim's rewrite excises the withering of trees, and SJ removes Segev's historical contextualization, directly linked to Gaza, then the result proposed would be a whitewash of the key elements that have now emerged.Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Undue - Eshkol's 1967 FART

The source for this is a single post-war cabinet meeting in which a whole range of ideas (including a withdrawal from Gaza) were raised. This particular idea wasn't followed up on or acted upon (to the contrary - Israel post-1967 constructed hospitals and electricity/sewage/water infrastructure, and population growth in Gaza was quite high 1967-2006 - rising from 280k to 1480k). The secondary source for this piece of information is news coverage of the unsealing of cabinet transcripts, and the coverage also included the other opinions raised in this cabinet session and not just this particular WP:FART.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, some initiatives to begin implementing that plan began almost immediately. The tag you added is as useless as tits on a bull. What we have now is the minutes of deliberations whose outlines are well known.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The minutes contain all sort of directions - in this meeting and in other cabinet meetings released during this past year. This particular idea wasn't implemented, wasn't subsequently discussed, and was mentioned in passing in a long discussion that involved a multitude of ideas. We should stick to critical historical analysis by reputable historians, and not to breaking news coverage of each protocol that is unsealed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree the tag is not helpful and while not technically a 1RR violation, was still not a good idea. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added several of a dozen sources any attempt to understand this would come up with, rendering Icewhiz's tag inappropriate. Some of those sources will tell you that the minutes were segregated because these deliberations were so secret not even Yitzhak Rabin was informed, but leaks to the press left traces the idea was to get Gazans to piss off to Germany or Jordan (hundreds were trucked there), which are handled in numerous historical works. The idea these ideas were not acted on is contradicted by the historical literature, Icewhiz. There is nothing 'sensationalist' about registering what is obvious: making conditions in the Strip impossible for Gazans has been implemented for several decades now, as all major Gaza experts (Jean-Pierre Filiu,Sara Roy, Norman Finkelstein, etc.etc.) concur.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz was out of line. Not only did he remove the newly added material, he deleted the sentence that says that Israel captured Gaza during the 1967 war -- key information -- and failed to restore status quo ante, his alleged intention.

As I wrote in the preceding section, I think more information about the Security Cabinet meetings during 1967-68 and the various suggestions about what to do with the newly occupied territories and the people who lived there should be added to the article. Including only one suggestion, even if it was that of the prime minister (who had more than one), is inappropriate cherry-picking. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Malik. the problem was and remains that this is an article about Gaza, and the subsection deals with the immediate aftermath of 1967. The material coming out deals with (a) '“Empty” the Gaza Strip, (b) “thin out” the Galilee, (c) rewrite textbooks and (d)censor political cartoons in Haaretz,' and several other topics. So the editor is not supposed to use it to make a major coverage of Cabinet discussions over several months on all of these topics. The focus must be on Gaza -what those Cabinet discussions had to say about that particular reality-, and Eshkol's remarks, backed by Dayan, are not cherrypicked. I didn't put it Dayan's suggestion the population of Gaza acceptable to the occupying power foresaw a 75% reduction in numbers (400,000 to 100,000). I left out Eshkol's hope that 'suffocation and imprisonment' there would lead to an exodus. I left out his idea that another war might fix things 'apocalyptically'; I left out the fact that Yaakov Shimshon Shapira, Pinhas Sapir and Zalman Aranne opposed keeping the territories, because those worries were too vague and were not focused on Gaza.

Above all, I have a sandbox bibliography on water problems in the I/P conflict I've never had time to work up, and Eshkol's remark crystallized a position that was later to be acted on. From 1967 to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian population in the territories doubled, while Israel permitted only a 10% increment in their water supply over pre-1967 levels. The restrictions on water use in Gaza were particularly severe, except for settlements, where pro-capita consumption was three times that allowed Palestinians. ( Rex Brynen, A Very Political Economy: Peacebuilding and Foreign Aid in the West Bank and Gaza, US Institute of Peace Press, 2000 p.41 ) Settler access to the new West Bank acquifers skyrocketed, while that of Palestinians dried up. That was policy, and that was in effect one working out of Eshkol's kind of thinking. It is in that context that I read the remark. I've always argued that all this political nonsense is ridiculous compared to the base-line strategic-empirical choices, which are based on calculations of resources and populations. Eshkol's quote brilliantly captures that.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Malik - I was trying to restore the status quo prior to insertion of this WP:BREAKING information - removal of the capture in 1967 was an unintentional mistake (caused by the hanging on this new information immediately after the capture) - it was not my intention to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BREAKINGof course has absolutely nothing to do with the addition of new material shedding light on a period of history already covered in articles. The status quo, which you broke when you made your edit, was to retain the fresh information and tweak it for context, as per SJ and Malik. Blank reverting of very experienced editors, which you do quite often, is bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some summary of the cabinet minutes should be in the article. Proposals that weren't acted on show the mindset of the people involved and are fair game in addition to proposals that were acted on. I don't have time at the moment to take part in discussion regarding the exact wording of the inclusion. Zero^talk 23:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

My impression was both SJ and Malik tweaked this for that context. Once you get into any more details of the Cabinet minutes, you are obliged to expand extensively. It is significant for example that a decision was made not to decide anything, and let the matter be 'fixed' by maintaining the status quo, with the usual dunam per dunam approach working, in Ehskol's words, 'covertly'.

Eshkol evidently felt no urgency in regard to the matter. “I suggest that we don’t come to a vote or a decision today; there’s time to deal with this joy, or better put, there’s time to deal with this trouble,” he said. “But for the record I’m prepared to say this: There’s no reason for the government to determine its position on the future of the West Bank right now. We’ve been through three wars in 20 years; we can go another 20 years without a decision.”He got backing from Transportation Minister Moshe Carmel, who said, “If we sit 20 years, the world will get used to our being in those territories, in any case no less than they got used to [Jordan’s King] Hussein being there. We have more rights; we are more identified with these territories than he is.”

As I said earlier, I have no problem at all with contextualization, but once you get beyond the minimum, you get into a balancing act that would threaten to overload the small section with so much subsidiary and essentially extraneous ballast that the specific points re Gaza would be buried in discursive clutter.I.e.

Synthetically, to meet these concerns, one could say:'Dealing with anxieties over the implications of a massive rise in the numbers of Arabs within the new territories occupied by Israel, several options were tabled, one including the idea of not deciding anything for some decades, until the world got used to Israel's presence in these lands.'

That is, in my view however, inordinate for one small section in the history of Gaza and ignores the need to deal with Gaza, and not the larger questions of Arabs in the Galilee/West Bank. I cut out most of the 'vitriolic' attacks on Arabs, even by ministers who didn't go along with the occupy and possess option simply for these reasons - not to overegg the pud, and violate WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• For some people who may not know what a brainstorming session is (and this cabinet session certainly appears to be one), what usually happens is that the facilitator of the meeting wants everyone to just throw out ideas, no matter how crazy they sound. The thinking is that out of 1,000 ideas bandied about, one might actually be a good idea. But to say that one idea that was mentioned should be the prevalent thinking of the time or person is incorrect. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Give me on example of an original thought there? All I can see are the same stale arguments, prompted by a repetition of an old dilemma, that had been recycled in Zionist literature and policy since the early part of the century.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

[3] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"newly conquered territories"

I intend to change that to "newly occupied territories" barring a reason not to. nableezy - 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No objection.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, nableezy - 19:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)