Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Hamas never said that 600-700 of its members died. The Haaretz article in fact quotes Hamas as saying 200-300 Al-Qassam brigades members died, but also quotes Hamas saying 49 of its members died. It also quotes "250 killed" at the police station, but these are not strictly from Hamas, nor is it clear if they are combatants at all. It also quotes an additional 150 security personnel, and again its not clear if they were combatants in the Gaza war or not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Al-Qassam Brigades actively works with Hamas, but is not Hamas. In fact, it was originally part of Fatah. Here, I think Hamas is just specifying the number of combatants each group lost, rather than contradicting itself.

Israel considers police and security officers to be combatants if they enter combat when they're on duty -- regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinian. As far as I've been able to tell, Hamas doesn't count them as combatants even if they enter combat and are on duty.

Just came across this today:

"To deconstruct these figures properly, the status of the Gaza police must first be considered, since approximately 250 of them were among those listed as 'civilians' who were killed. Although the Goldstone Report concludes that the Gaza police force was a 'civilian law-enforcement agency,' there is overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise.

"The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force. When the Executive Force was formed in 2006, its commander announced that the force was 'the nucleus of the future Palestinian army. The resistance must continue. We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.' According to the report, the Executive Force merged with a reorganized PA police in October 2007.

"Despite the fact that the Executive Force no longer technically exists, during Operation Cast Lead a police spokesman said, 'Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded.' This is conclusive evidence that the Gaza police were not entitled to the protections accorded to civilians in war. In addition, evidence suggests many policemen were combatant individuals regardless of their connection with the police.

"According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization or in infantry training, with a 'decisive majority' of casualties belonging to military wings.

"In any event, reasonable people can and do disagree as to the status of the Gaza policemen killed by Israel. [But] they cannot simply be lumped together with infants and other obvious non-combatants for purposes

of listing the number of dead civilians." Oakling (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to ping: @VR Oakling (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Oakling: Sorry for the delay. The source you cited seems to be a WP:SELFPUB work by two authors known to be pro-Israel advocates. There are a few misleading claims here:

• "The Gaza police has its origins in the Hamas Executive Force."
  • What the police used to be has no relevance. We know that Hersh Goldberg-Polin used to serve in the IDF, but given his IDF service ended in Apr 2023, he was rightfully considered civilian on Oct 7.
• "According to one count, 91% of the policemen killed were either members of a terrorist organization"
  • Well, yes. According to Israel all Hamas members are considered terrorist, yet we know that Hamas also runs the civilian aspects of Gaza.
• "Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded."
  • This appears to be a misleading translation. The man who made these instructions clarified "Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places, and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen." Goldstone report (416)
  • Further, the Goldstone report notes that 75% of police had been killed in a surprise Israeli attack before the ground invasion began.
• Further, "the Mission notes that there are no allegations that the police as an organized force took part in combat during the armed operations" (417). Indeed Dershowitz doesn't provide any specific examples of police taking part in combat.

Other RS consider the police to be civilians, for example Is There a Court for Gaza? (page 588) and Karma Chavez.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognised in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, non-violent resolution to their differences.

Why the Hamas charter isn’t a key obstacle to peace with Israel (theconversation.com)(source)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/01/israel

This is vital information on the events leading to the Siege of Gaza in 2007. The offer of Hudna should be inserted in this article in the third paragraph of the Background section, after "Hamas rejected..." Bill Shortell (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please phrase this as a request to change X to Y in the article and provide suitable sources, per WP:ARBECR, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades separated from Fatah in 2008, prior to this conflict. Fatah should not be in the belligerents column, at least not as a parent organization of Al-Aqsa. Bill3602 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit is correct, but could someone add the following word in bold, which is gramatically more correct?:

Most right-wing opposition parties, including Likud, etc, etc, etc

Thanks--37.212.89.252 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Left guide (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I propose adding "First Gaza War" as an alternative name for this conflict. I had added it, with supporting references, but was reverted by Slatersteven. I didn't think this would have needed consensus before being added. It's a minor addition, it's properly-referenced (and there are many other references that could be added), and the name is used more often recently to distinguish this war from the other Gaza wars. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do any RS call it this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Huh? I added three RS's in my edit. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but it does not alter the fact, this should not have been done without consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't notice the hidden message when making my edit. I should've looked more carefully.
Aside from that, do you oppose "First Gaza War" being in the article like this as an alternative name? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I just happen to think the rules apply to everyone, even if I agree with them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply