Extended-protected page

Talk:Israel–Hamas war

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article title

It seems that supporters of a move entangled themselves over whether it should be Gaza War or Israel Gaza War (and I suppose whether or not there should be dates appended). This discussion is opened to resolve this issue before proposing a new RM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked choice voting is the solution here. The RM question should be something like this:

Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to title:

  1. Israel–Hamas war
  2. Israel–Gaza war
  3. Gaza war

Please indicate your first, second, and third choice as to dates:

  1. No dates
  2. 2023–2024 [title]
  3. [title] (2023–2024)
Example vote: 3 2 1, A B C. If we all vote like this, it'll get decided. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a smart approach to me. Unbandito (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A or 3B given that it is still being discussed The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol... not only is this not an RM, but your vote didn't even follow the instructions. This is why we get nowhere. Levivich (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza war has already failed, so lets keep this simple - just ask Israel-Gaza war, with whatever form of disambiguation you prefer. If there is a dispute over the form of disambiguation, it can be resolved with WP:NOGOODOPTIONS and a second RM.
Unless, of course, the RM fails, in which case we should implement a six month moratorium so we can stop wasting time on this. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2,3. I'm not sure why it says 2023-2024 for the dates, shouldn't it be (2023-present)? RealKnockout (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy, Nishidani, Yeoutie, Urropean, Huldra, Iskandar323, Amakuru, Trilletrollet, RamHez, and K.e.coffman: Pinging editors who voted for "2023-2024" in the previous RM: would you support "2023-present" instead of "2023-2024"? Levivich (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A or 2B in that order as this name is being increasingly used by RS and due to involvement of many other combatants other than Hamas. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with 2A. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A, 3B, or even something else. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background to the Israel-Hamas war

I agree with @CommunityNotesContributor: on the need for a new article titled Background to the Israel-Hamas war. This would help us move the late 1980s - late 2010s background there, and keep the most immediate background, around 2018 till 6 October 2023, here as a summary (of course the most immediate background would also be covered in this new article). Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the basis of making more room for child article summaries in this already large article, per previous discussion. Based on WP:SIZERULE, this shouldn't be a controversial split given the article is back to 14,000 words. CNC (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with this content being merged to other pages as suggested below by others. CNC (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have articles like Israel-Gaza conflict, History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Gaza blockade, etc. etc. Why can't we trim the background section while making sure that those articles contain the info that is now in the background section? Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not move the entire background to new page. We still need the background info on this page. Gsgdd (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notable war whose background has been extensively discussed in RS and fulfills WP's guidelines regarding WP:notability, so it deserves its own standalone article. Also, of course we still need the background info on this page, albeit in a condensed manner that only summarizes the immediate 2018-6 October 2023 background. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would the background article not be a fork of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza-Israel conflict, Nakba, etc.? Perhaps what's needed is an Israeli-Hamas relations article to provide the background on the relationship between these two entities. Other than that aspect, it seems we already have background articles about Israel and Gaza. I agree though that the background in this article should be significantly trimmed. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure a pure "background" article can justify its existence. An Israeli-Hamas relations relations page would be very justified; other than that, the "background" here is just the entire rest of the conflict, as already covered by other, more general pages about the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence is justified by the many RS reporting on the background exclusively. Also, not entirely out of the box, there are numerous similar articles: Causes of World War I, Origins of the Six-Day War, and Rationale for the Iraq War, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rationale for the Iraq War" is different -- in that case, the reasons for going to war is a specific topic, given that there was a pre-war PR campaign advocating for that war; that's not just a background article, that's about a PR campaign. "Causes of World War I" I think is also not analogous because that conflict wasn't the culmination of like a larger century-long self-contained conflict like the IP conflict--it was the culmination of centuries of global geopolitical relations, but it's not like the IP conflict. "Origins of the Six-Day War," though, that one makes me think a little differently about this. I could see "Origins of" or "Causes of October 7" as a stand-alone sub-article. It seems rather obvious that the causes of or origins of Israel's attack on Gaza is the October 7 attacks, and the background for that really is the whole IP conflict. In some senses, the background for the October 7 attacks is also the whole IP conflict, but I could see a sub-article that talks about the portion of the IP conflict that specifically led to that specific attack. Such an article would go into more detail about certain aspects of IP than would be covered in the overall IP conflict article. Separate and apart from that, I can still see "Israel-Hamas relations" as a standalone (and its scope would be narrower than the IP conflict article, but broader than the "Origins of October 7" article. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including the much understated political co-dependence of Hamas and, collectively, Netanyahu, Smotrich and their ilk, and Netanyahu's historic exhortations to parties such as Qatar to keep funding Hamas. Least appreciated critical background notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subset content of the wider article which would be Origins of the Israel-Hamas war. Although obviously the immediate spark to the war were the attacks on October 7, Israel's response cannot be decontextualized from its far-right government, settlements expansion and its decades-long murderous "mowing the lawn" doctrine. This would be like creating an article about the Origins of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Do you see a significant difference between Origins of the Israel-Hamas war vs Causes of the Israel-Hamas war? I think the latter has a clearer and narrower scope, hence I prefer that. Technically "origins" can go all the way back to the 1948-49 creation of the Gaza Strip as a geographic entity.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, so I would also support causes or background, no preference for either; although background may be less POV considering it doesn't give approval to justifications by either side. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very unclear how the segue about Hamas' designation in various countries and the UN vote is particularly relevant background information. It seems entirely tangential to the real meat. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hamas' adversaries labeling them as The Bad Guys isn't particularly informative. A terrorism designation is relevant insofar as it materially impacts things, and it's not clear that the designation did materially impact anything discussed in that section. There might be a place for it elsewhere in the article. Unbandito (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the background section is too bad. It is better than the background section of the Iranian Revolution, which is humongous! Wafflefrites (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are we all in agreement over creating Background of the Israel-Hamas war? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No im opposed to the idea - the total word count approx 15000 to 15200 ( excluding infobox and references, notes etc.. )
The background should be in this article - if it is moved - less people will read it.
I will be ok to reconsider this at a later time. At this time, im opposed to this idea Gsgdd (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose to move it, I propose to move the bulk of it and keep the summaries here. The background is currently taking more space than the actual war, which is very unbalanced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's the takeaway from the discussion. I'm no fan of hyper-specific spin-offs: they are clutter. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you necessarily strongly opposed and can you elaborate? And regarding the similar background articles presented above? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on it, going through the current Israel–Hamas war#Background section, subsection by subsection:
So I'd support a background/origin/causes article that is very focused on the precursors leading up to this particular iteration of the conflict. Not decades of history, just the stuff in like 2023. And then I'd support, in the main Israel–Hamas war article, the entire Background section being condensed to like 3 paragraphs, with appropriate links to all these other articles. And to anyone who ends up doing this split/condensing, thank you for volunteering the time to do it :-) Levivich (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable, I would support this.
However this can't be used to justify this edit as it selectively removed only the part about the recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Alaexis¿question? 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was unrelated. I removed that because it is irrelevant trivia about Hamas, not background. I mentioned this above. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a lot of information that is only tangentially related to the war in that section (e.g., Hamas's victory in 2006 elections). I'm okay with removing the first 6 paragraphs entirely as Levivich has suggested but if it's too radical, we can trim everything down. This particular paragraph can be summarised in one sentence "Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by most Western countries". Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is Hamas being considered blue, white, pink, orange, or anything else in the West relevant as background to this conflict? The election is rather more relevant in that it resulted in the blockade, which created the concentration camp pressure cooker scenario. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So guys there's an algorithm for deciding these sorts of things: "terrorist" should be included in this article if and only if it's a significant WP:ASPECT or WP:DUE viewpoint of the Israel–Hamas war, which we determine by looking at sources about the Israel–Hamas war and seeing if they say "terrorist." I just went to bbc.com and apnews.com and looked at whatever article is on their front page about the Israel–Hamas war (BBC, AP), and neither of them say "terrorist" in their own voice (but they both say "Hamas-run"!). This is not a thorough source analysis of course, but you get the idea. (And I just remembered, BBC was a poor choice because they don't use the word "terrorism" as a matter of policy... but you get the idea.) Levivich (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] “ Hamas, or in some cases its armed wing alone, is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the US, the EU, and the UK, among others.” -BBC Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still meta background, not actual background, but if it was a sentence that short I probably would have ignored it ... but it's not. It's extensive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the attempted removal of the two sentences presenting the labeling of Hamas in the Background section. Deletion improves the article. I don't see how it pertains materially to the causes of this war. Moreover, it preferences a view maintained by one of the belligerents and its supporters that collectively comprise 35 / 193 UN member states. Even the 2018 labeling initiative was supported by a minority of UN member states. It may be appropriate to include these two sentences in a related article as a "background to the background." Chino-Catane (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

So seems from the above discussions that there is general agreement among users for three things:

1- that this article should contain a concise immediate background only and not the meta background
2- that the meta background going back decades is better moved to other existing articles
3- that a more detailed immediate background deserves its own standalone article named Background of the Israel-Hamas war, which would also include a very brief meta background

For this article, I would be ready to trim the background section into only three concise subsections covering the immediate background:

A- on Hamas and dealing with its justifications and the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian territories in 2023
B- focusing on Israel and its policy towards Hamas and Gaza and its intelligence failure in the lead up to the war
C- one on regional aspects relating to US-supported Saudi-Israeli normalization plans and any related international context

Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM, with one caveat just to be very clear: I do think the article should actually give some of the "meta background," the really broad strokes just to place the current event in a little bit of historical context. So, for example, these facts should probably be relayed: that there has been an Israeli-Palestinian conflict going on for ~100 years [and maybe that Israel was established in 1948]; that Gaza had been occupied by Israel since 1967; Hamas was founded in the 80s to fight against it; the 2005 pull-out and blockade since then; that there have been multiple previous rounds of fighting throughout this history. All of that can be done in like a few sentences. Maybe that's the first paragraph of the three paragraphs, or the beginning of the first paragraph. What I'm saying is we don't want to go so far as to suggest that the history began in 2023, but we also don't need to delve into that meta-background beyond some basic facts and dates. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that pre-2023 should be contained to a mere paragraph with links to main articles. Personally I think the Background article should be split off first, to avoid the controversy of over-trimming. Trimming can come later after a split, in order to reduce the section down to a summary of the child article. It's otherwise not necessary to remove it from a a split article I don't believe. Arguments that the background is vital context I otherwise agree with, and based on this it deserves to be it's own standalone article per summary guidelines as "a complete encyclopedic article in its own right". But fundamentally it doesn't need to be based here, given it's also notable enough to be a standalone. CNC (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

The article has been created and the entire background section simply copy pasted there ==> Background to the Israel-Hamas war. Next steps in this order:

1- Trim any excessive meta background from that article
2- Creating a lede for that article
3- Trim the background section here into three immediate background subsections as was elaborated above, but with one paragraph acting as a very brief meta introduction

I will start working on this tomorrow and anyone is welcome to join. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think stick to the format of summary guidelines. It should be similar to the lead of the child article; in this case based on article size (2,700 words), it should be a two to three paragraphs, four at most. There is no reason to have sub-sections for this; child articles are not summarised with sub-sections, they are summarised in a single section. With a decent summary, it can then be copied over to the lead of the new article. CNC (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have already agreed on the subsections part, but let's see how it goes later and whether we decide on something else along the lines of your suggestion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I missed that part. Hopefully it can just be combined into a single section summary. CNC (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you opposed to me doing more aggressive trimming here to clean up? At the moment the "summary" looks like a duplicate of the child article and the WP:SPLIT procedure hasn't been completed yet (ie part 6) CNC (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the intro part, the three subsections mentioned above still remaining to be trimmed and reorganized. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

motivations vs response

word motivation seems aspirational. it should be response. if you read the content - it is about the official response from hammas about why attack is done. @Unbandito@Chino-Catane I think response is more neutral Gsgdd (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't associate the phrase "Hamas motivations" with "aspirational goals", it simply expresses the notion of "reasons why". The term "response" would not be appropriate here because this article concerns itself primarily with an episode in time beginning Oct. 7, 2023. With that defined start date, it would not be correct to say that Hamas responded to anything. Hamas initiated the episode of armed conflict we are labeling "Israel-Hamas war". Chino-Catane (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
response here means a verbal or written answer. not a reaction to something. I guess words has many meaning - hard to come up with something Gsgdd (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Hamas "motivations" sounds too "aspirational", Hamas "motives" can be considered instead. Chino-Catane (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes- this is the right word. generally - A motive is a reason for doing something. Motivation is having the enthusiasm to do something Gsgdd (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section creep

I'm not saying the most recent lead insertion is the only example, but I have recently been reminded that information presented in an article lead must reflect notable content discussed in the article body. Indirect casualties are not discussed at all in the body of this article. I propose removing this insertion until indirect casualties have been presented, in a significant way, in the body of the article itself. Furthermore, the cited Khatib source is the fourth instantiation of the same exact Lancet "correspondence". This has the characteristics of a "drive-by" insertion designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. If anyone else has noticed lead insertions not reflecting notable article body content, those insertions should be removed as well. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect casualties were discussed in the Casualties section of the body (which is transcluded from a template). I expanded it in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree of course that the lead should summarize the body. However, If the only reason material added to the lead doesn't belong there is because it isn't in the body yet, and it would belong in the lead if it were in the body, I think the thing to do would be to add an exposition of that info to the body, rather than removing it from the lead. Although it's not how things are supposed to be done, it seems natural to me that editors will want to give groundbreaking new information like this Lancet study a prominent position in the article, even if that info isn't fleshed out in the body yet. It probably makes more sense to work with that tendency than try to fight against it. Unbandito (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of not doing it backwards is so that there is a proper assessment of due weight as it may be that when examined in the overall scheme of things, the groundbreaking new information is not actually all that groundbreaking. OK, it is sometimes permissible to add to lead directly but it will definitely get picked up on well traveled articles and while some editors might have a go at the add to body part on seeing something in the lead, that's not a requirement, so removal can be justified in that case. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich pointed out my oversight with respect to this particular instance of lead creep. As a matter of general practice, I appreciate Selfstudier's observation regarding "proper assessment of due weight". The problem with "not fighting the tendency" is that it invites "drive-by" insertions of lead content designed to skew article bias towards a particular belligerent. Per WP:LEAD, "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people read ... and may be the only portion of the article that they read." Doing things backwards allows propagandists to broadcast propaganda very inexpensively. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect casualties from the Lancet study

Hello.

Given that it was clearly stated that the 4x number of casualties was a conservative estimate, whereas the maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 deaths in sum total, should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a fairly clear statement of what is meant by 'indirect casualty' first. It dounds as uncertain as saying 'injured' without a reasonably clear definition. I do't expect some boilerplated definition, just something where one can know within 50% each way at a very minimum. NadVolum (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds a bit like Excess mortality, going by the linked https://aoav.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gaza_projections_report.pdf but that also says "To our knowledge, no such detailed projections have been issued during an ongoing humanitarian response, and the methods employed for this project are mostly novel" so I'd treat the estimates somewhat cautiously. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newarab.com/news/lancet-experts-put-harrowing-gaza-death-toll-186000 A secondary.
And there is https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q509 from February on projected excess deaths as well. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two other discussions talking place about this, and it was suggested by editor @Levivich: that they be consolidated here for ongoing discussion so I am just going to copy paste them. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following part of this discussion started at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation § Estimate of future deaths and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

@Genabab: re the estimate you added, I'm not necessarily against including this, but we should be cautious for a few reasons

  • Lancet lists this as "Correspondence", are essentially letters from readers. See here (emphasis theirs). Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed. The authors do have some credentials, so this isn't a dealbreaker, just more like a WP:SPS.
  • It's a projection of future deaths, so we should make that clear.
  • I feel "statistical estimate" is making this sound more rigorous than it is - they just picked a round-number multiple (four) that they felt would be not implausible for this conflict.
  • To corroborate the plausibility of the multiple, they seem to cite an article titled Global burden of armed conflict, which I can't find. They provide a URL which points to a report titled World Drug Report, so maybe it's that? That report seems to discuss some related ideas of extrapolation based on multiples, but in the context of heroin addicts.

Again not necessarily against including it, but I think it should be framed pretty differently if we do. — xDanielx T/C\R 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the line and the cite, and did the same at a few other articles (check my contribs). Feel free to massage it further. Levivich (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I might make some additional changes but will hold off a bit to see other input. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this information should be included, given that only the identifiable bodies directly killed by assaults from Israeli forces have been included in the listed statistics here thus far, not the ones hidden under the rubble of collapsed buildings or killed by starvation or diseases as a result from this conflict. David A (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was clearly stated that the 4x number was a conservative estimate. The maximum was 15x, which would mean over 570,000 total deaths of mainly innocent women and children. Should that be mentioned as well? David A (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what the source says directly, they do say conservative but also say not implausible, which I think reflects the high uncertainty with such difficult projections. Maybe we should include both?
My take (which is admittedly less relevant) is that something close to 15x probably isn't plausible here, since that would be at least 25% of the population, maybe 50%+ if direct deaths rise. The cases with high multiples, like DRC (~10x), seem to involve smaller proportions of the population, and also parts of the world that are more ignored by the West. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but given the systematic prevention of food deliveries caused by the Israeli military and settler groups, combined with complete destruction of sanitation, systematic targeting of medical personel and rescue workers, and so onwards, wouldn't the situation rationally be considerably worse than usual in terms of indirect deaths? David A (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have some valid points and it's probably fine to say conservative. Not sure about a number like 570k since we wouldn't have a source for it (maybe stil admissible based on WP:CALC but feels iffy to me), but we could mention the 3-15x range if that works?
I think for balance it would also be good to somehow highlight that these are very rough projections, with a lot of assumptions (that Gaza is comparable to other conflicts, that GHM isn't already counting indirect deaths, etc) and uncertainty. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that mentioning the 3x to 15x range seems reasonable, as long as we also mention that the 4x multiple was used for the currently listed estimate. David A (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that we should mention the 3x minimum and 15x maximum as well. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found what the authors meant to cite to back the multiples they mention: The Global Burden of Armed Violence, chapter 2. It says In the majority of conflicts since the early 1990s for which good data is available, the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number of direct deaths, and A reasonable average estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we cited this report as the main source discussing indirect deaths, and briefly mentioned the Lancet correspondence just for the 186k figure? This report just seems much more authoritative and rigorous. I think this could lead to a stronger, more verifiable statement, otherwise readers who check the Lancet source might get the impression that numbers were pulled out of a hat. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should use both sources in combination for stronger verification purposes. Mainly using the main source that the Lancet study used for its total casualties estimations does not directly mention the current situation in Palestine as far as I am aware. Meaning, please do not remove any current information, but feel free to add a reference and the 570,000 upper maximum number, in my personal view. David A (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx: I think we should mainly cite the Lancet article, and point out that this is where they got the multiples from, for extra clarity that it's not just a random made-up number. Citing primarily this report for a figure like this makes it feel like WP:OR. It needs to be clear that the idea to use this figure in this way comes from the Lancet source. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 21:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed the part which implies that it is predictive. Though, when I first read it I interpreted it as indirect deaths up to that point (which would make sense given they're using a figure of how many people died up until recently).
That's not to say there's no grounds for interpreting it in that way, and I think there is good reason to think about including the "future" part Genabab (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab: You missed it because at no point does the report say that the 186k figure is a projection.
Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. A report from Feb 7, 2024, at the time when the direct death toll was 28 000, estimated that without a ceasefire there would be between 58 260 deaths (without an epidemic or escalation) and 85 750 deaths (if both occurred) by Aug 6, 2024.
This is simple enough to interpret. For the current conflict in Gaza, a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death is applied (which gives us the 186k figure). These are not future projections but rather an estimate of the impact to date. The future projections mentioned are from a February report and are based on a different context and point in time. - Ïvana (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is a bit ambiguous, but I think the context from the two preceding sentences make it clear they're talking about a projection of future indirect deaths (or maybe both, past + future): Even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases. The total death toll is expected to be large given [...]
Besides, interpreting it as 186k past deaths would make the claim quite extraordinary. GHM must have a reasonable estimate of total excess (direct + indirect) deaths, which is simply total deaths minus expected deaths (based on pre-conflict data). If that number was anything close to 186k, surely GHM would have reported it and it would be all over the news. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What he's saying is that if the war stopped today and there were only 38k deaths and nobody was killed tomorrow (like by a bomb or a gun), then there would be some multiple in indirect deaths (author goes with 186k), but that doesn't mean 186k people have already died. People will die tomorrow from disease they have today that they got from yesterday's war. So these are sort of future deaths but they're caused by past events.
I think the "answer" is to hew even closer to the original text, like maybe go straight with "186k deaths may be attributable to the current conflict." This may be one of those instances where plagiarism is required for accuracy. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement about how to interpret the 186k figure; an author also somewhat clarified here (see the whole thread). I.e. it's a projection of future deaths caused by past conflict-related events.
I'm not sure about including attributable to the current conflict though. Normally I'm all for staying close to the source's language, but we should make exceptions for language that's ambiguous or likely to be misinterpreted, which the confusion here and on Twitter suggests this is. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a projection of future deaths, which the author said in that twitter thread ("some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future"). In that twitter thread, McKee says "The letter is clear," so he doesn't think it's ambiguous. To reproduce it in full:

To be clear, we are arguing that the count of direct deaths is, from the evidence we have, as accurate as it can be in the circumstances but almost certainly the indirect deaths are or will be much higher. We offer a conservative estimate but make clear it is just that.

and

The letter is clear. It is an illustrative example of possible scale of direct and indirect deaths resulting from conflict so far, some already happened and some of which it is not implausible to expect in the future. The point (as in the title) is need for better data

I think we should track that, meaning we should say there are 38k direct deaths, plus more indirect deaths, which a conservative (and reliable) estimate put at 186k but it could be higher. We should be clear that this is an estimate of indirect deaths that already happened and are expected in the future.
Like everyone, I am partial to my own writing, but I don't really understand what is incorrect or ambiguous about this: 186,000 Palestinians or more may have died as a result of the conflict according to a July 2024 conservative estimate by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf published in The Lancet. Except that may have died might be better said as may have died or may die in the future or, as I suggested above, could be attributable to the current conflict (which is their writing, not mine). Levivich (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My wording could have been better, I mean that the 186k figure includes future deaths (in addition to past ones). In other words, it's a projection of what the cumulative total of all excess deaths will end up being. Right?
(I suspect that the MoH data already includes at least some indirect deaths, as that other Lancet letter they cite seems to suggest: MoH data did not differentiate [...] whether deaths were caused directly. But yes this essay appears to have an implicit assumption that the MoH figure is direct deaths only.) — xDanielx T/C\R 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a projection of the cumulative total of all indirect (I don't know if that word means the same as "excess" or not) deaths based on the current best available data of the total direct deaths to date. In other words, if there are more direct deaths tomorrow, there would be more than 186k indirect deaths.
BTW, I think Mk17b's recent edit (thanks) improves the clarity of the sentence (and maybe should be made at Palestinian genocide accusation as well). Levivich (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is my strong impression as well. David A (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting that and citing would not be plagiarism Genabab (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be one of those instances where plagiarism is required for accuracy.

Surely what you meant to say here was "direct quotation", not "plagiarism"? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could quote it, but I don't think it's necessary, we can just use the same words; "could be attributable to the current conflict" is common phrasing. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following part of this discussion started at Talk:Gaza genocide § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024 (2) and was moved here to centralize discussion on this topic onto a single talk page.

One of the authors of the "Lancet" article mentioned at the end of the "Victims" section issued the following clarification:

"And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative" https://x.com/martinmckee/status/1810251590520950808

Given this clarification, it's best to remove the reference to this estimate entirely, as the author himself describes it as "purely illustrative". Zlmark (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this request is, are you requesting that all reference to the Lancet piece be removed?
Also see Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Indirect casualties from the Lancet study Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I request to remove the reference to the Lancet, because its only added value was the specific estimate, but now one of the authors clarified that it's "purely illustrative", as far as he's concerned.
This, along with the facts mentioned by other contributors - lack of peer-review, future projections mistakenly framed as current estimates and questionable methodology based on comparison to other conflicts with different dynamics - justifies a removal of this reference, in my view. Zlmark (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, EC editors will discuss that and decide what to do. Thanks for your input. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Estimate of future deaths Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These various discussions should probably be consolidated in one place? Maybe the main war article talk page? Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan, what to do, copy paste? Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tweet has been deleted; glad you copy/pasted it so others can still follow. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a tweet often means taking back a statement due to that it has been misunderstood. David A (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paper can be put into the Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war article but is just not definite enough to say anything much about in this article at the moment. In response to a query about the GHM not estimating higher figure - its figures are just for direct deaths, it does not count indirect deaths due to things like not having medical facilities or starvation as casualties of the war. This follows the standards of the OCHR reporting. NadVolum (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only assertion in this Lancet "correspondence" worth inclusion in an encyclopedia is, "almost certainly the indirect deaths are or will be much higher." The number of escape hatches the authors provide themselves with is remarkable. "not implausible to estimate", "up to ... or even more" → (this is the most useless qualifier), "could be", "purely illustrative". I don't see how a claim employing this kind of language should be presented as something reliable. Chino-Catane (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet study is not a peer-reviewed article, it's a correspondence. One of the three authors has now outright admitted that the estimate is "purely illustrative meant to show how high the death toll could plausibly be in the authors' view. We shouldn't use it as an official source. Let's wait for a proper estimate on the death toll.--RM (Be my friend) 20:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be used to ... illustrate. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A guess to try to illustrate a point has no place on Wikipedia RM (Be my friend) 11:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing it's not a guess. Levivich (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the authors openly admitted the 186k figure was purely illustrative. It's not a credible source. RM (Be my friend) 14:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All estimates are illustrative? What do you think a projection or forecast is? It's just a pretty line on a chart backed by a methodology whose veracity lies somewhere on the spectrum between half-baked and crystal ball. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think "illustrative" means what you think it means. It does not mean "guess." Levivich (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you interpret it? To me "purely illustrative" indicates that the figure was intended as an example of a conceivable number, rather than a rigorous estimate. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 186k figure illustrates a conservative estimate in between the range of 3x-15x direct deaths (37,396 reported), i.e. 112,188-560,940. He could have picked some other figure in that range, but he chose a conservative estimate of 4x indirect deaths per direct death. It could be lower, but more likely, it will be much higher, that's what makes it "conservative." It's not a guess, it's an estimate. Whether it's a "rigorous" estimate, like as that term is defined in the field of statistics, I don't know, I'm not qualified to answer that. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, just so no one's confused, and to explain myself in a bit more detail than I did in the edit summary, I just prettified Selfstudier's opening and closing indicators for the parts of this section that were originally copied and pasted from other pages. I added explanations in a way that should be less discouraging towards continuing the discussions in-place (I feel like calling it a "copy" makes it feel like adding anything inside of it is messing it up, but there's no reason it has to just remain a "copy" and it'd actually be best for readability if any new comments in response to something in one of the copied sections is placed right after what it's responding to, indented one level further, like normal) while still communicating the context that they started on a different talk page. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read the discussion fully but I assume it is mainly about how to describe the Lancet points in the lede? I think a good middle ground solution would be just to change the current phrasing into "at least three magnitudes higher". I wouldn't personally be inclined to go beyond that because I think it is too early, we could elaborate more when it gains more coverage and responses in RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Three magnitudes higher" is imprecise and hard to understand. "Between three to fiteen times higher" would be accurate going by the source. David A (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor David A: Why are you going on about "precision" when most of the language employed in the "correspondence" is wildly imprecise, laced with the same kind of linguistic hedging that economists often use to escape being held accountable for making irresponsible projections? Chino-Catane (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am "going on" about accurately citing the source in question and that it only used a conservative estimation of 4 times the officially listed casualty numbers. David A (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you going on about "precision" when most of the language employed in the "correspondence" is wildly imprecise ...

I think you're equivocating here. These are two separate points. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose modifying or completely removing the sentence, "Some have speculated that the total death toll in Gaza might be higher than reported, with roughly 10,000 Gazans believed still buried under the rubble."
  • I propose completely removing the clause, "186,000 Palestinians or more may die as a result of the conflict according to a July 2024 estimate by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf published in The Lancet's correspondence section."
  • Reason: WP:CRYSTAL states, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."
Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and likely several other editors here would strongly object to such an extreme attempt to remove highly valid information, yes. David A (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"extreme attempt": How is it extreme to cite Wikipedia policy as a rationale for a proposed edit? The assertion that the aforementioned speculative statements are "highly valid information" is not consistent with WP:CRYSTAL. Please explain how the aforementioned sentences do not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is completely invalid here because this is not a case of original research. If WP:CRYSTAL is the basis for your argument, you're gonna need to pull a different passage than this one. (It's also worth noting that WP:CRYSTAL goes on to state: Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research [emphasis in original] that embody predictions.) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an open question for clarification to other editors here, for the sake of academic accuracy, given that there seem to be contradictory interpretations of the Lancet source, does it refer to sum total current deaths, when including all indirect causes, such as starvation and diseases, or is it a projection for the sum total future deaths as a result of this ongoing humanitarian catastrophe? What does the source of the methodology that the Lancet article writers used state regarding the topic? David A (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is basically saying what would be the difference in population in a cople of year time between what one would have expected without the war and what the population turns out to be. But that is a valid point okay - the Gaza Health Ministry does not include deaths due to disease, starvation or lack of medical care in its figures for casualties of the war. Probably many thousands have already died due to those factors, particularly children and the elderly, but not as many as the direct casualties yet. NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an analysis of the letter to The Lancet on Action on Armed Violence's Web site: Mike Spagat (2024-07-10). "A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter "Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential". Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000". Looks like an expert to me and overall reliable organization, and we already actively cite both in other articles. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinsio Here are the key points in the above-mentioned critical analysis of the Lancet "correspondence":
  • "these figures come from a small, non-representative sample of conflicts"
  • "each number ... is presented with unwarranted certainty. These figures are, in fact, surrounded by considerable uncertainty"
  • "a four to one ratio does not even rise to the status of rule of thumb"
  • "Historical data from other conflicts should be used cautiously, recognizing the unique factors at play in Gaza"
  • "While the letter in The Lancet draws attention to the severe human cost in Gaza, its methodology for estimating indirect deaths lacks rigour"
The WP:CRYSTAL allowance for speculative "credible research" does not clearly apply to this contentious Lancet "correspondence". Acceptance of the speculative estimate is a matter of opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Editors of this article are generally doing a good job. However, I think some people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNP). People overreacted to a remarkable claim and decided to report it here in this article immediately. I propose striking the 186,000 figure from the article pending further supporting analysis. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes this charity particularly reliable? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I support removing the figure from the infobox. Significant concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the source and I think its inclusion in the main infobox gives the source far more weight than is warranted. EDIT: to elaborate a bit further, it does not appear that this source was subjected to extensive peer review. Also, their sole justification for using the 1:4 death ration was a citation to the entirety of a 2008 UN report on armed conflict (no page number was provided for the over 170 page document). The figure provided seems to be a rough guesstimate rather than a specific number reached through rigorous analysis. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential as there are significant problems with this source's reliability and it is cited in many articles. Suggest people participate there as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should this discussion be closed and editors directed to the RSN discussion? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why, is reliability actually in question, this discussion is more how/what to include in articles. Selfstudier (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-lancet sources on 4x indirect casualties

As pointed out above, the 4x number of comes from: Geneva Declaration Secretariat. (2008, September). Global Burden of Armed Violence. The Lancet letter merely applies this to the Gaza war. Before this letter, two other sources did the same without attracting much attention:

  • Adam Gaffney (assistant professor at Harvard Medical School) writing in The Nation: "For instance, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat’s review of prior conflicts found that indirect deaths have, for most conflicts since the 1990s, been three to fifteen-fold higher than direct deaths, and suggest a ratio of four to one as a “conservative” estimate. There are reasons to think this ratio could be on the low end in Gaza given, among other things, the protracted and brutal siege."
  • Dima Nazzal, director of the Center for Health and Humanitarian Systems at Georgia Tech writing in a couple of different places[2][3]: "The report places a conservative estimate that for every person directly killed by war, four more are killed by its indirect consequences – things such as waterborne diseases due to the lack of safe, clean water and destruction of water sanitation facilities, or deaths due to birth complications because of health services being disrupted. Given the scale and scope of destruction of six months of bombing, the consequential impact of war in Gaza may be even worse. And whereas there is usually a lag before these effects are felt, in Gaza they are already occurring."

VR (Please ping on reply) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's less and less an extraordinary claim then, and more a common sense, practical application of a widely regarded conservative rule of thumb. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this research. We can write a line about indirect deaths that summarizes all three now. Levivich (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you greatly for your investigation. I also think that this seems like a common sense practical application and conservative estimation then. David A (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VR thanks for these sources—I just want to note that Gaffney is a pulmonologist without formal qualifications in public health. He has written at least twice previously on this subject, including If, as the Trump administration has urged, it entirely overturns the Affordable Care Act, 19.9 million individuals could lose health coverage. Based on the same approach as outlined above, we estimate that this coverage loss would lead to 22,892 – 68,345 excess deaths among nonelderly adults annually. The life and health ramifications of this case — and of November’s election — are enormous. (link) and 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade. (source). So there's a consistent political activism to his statistical analyses.
Dima Nazzal is a professor of industrial engineering with an administrative role at CHHS. She is sometimes accorded a courtesy credit as final author on CHHS publications, but she is not a scholar of public health.
Ultimately the question is whether these three opinion pieces are enough to overcome WP:SYNTH issues with using the Small Arms Survey report's general conclusions. To me they don't move the needle. This claim requires attribution and clarity to readers re the underlying logic. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede Hamas motives

This is using too many words for a summary, any objections to trimming it this way?

From

"Hamas said its attack was in response to the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, as well as alleged threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinian refugees and prisoners"

To

"Hamas said its attack was in response to Israel's continued occupation, blockade of Gaza, settlements expansion, as well as threats to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the plight of Palestinians"? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "alleged threats", but otherwise looks good to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarized accordingly then. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BilledMammal, overall a nice trim which more or less retains the meaning. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liked billed mammal said, keep the threats alleged. Also recommend you include “international silence and Israel’s disregard for international law” as it was one of the factors Hamas cited as a reason for October 7 The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really into politics or conflict, but I think the status quo is better and should be kept. Wretchskull (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original certainly reads easier for me, the replacement sounds a bit garbled like it was being timed. NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant?

This article is, fundamentally, an article about the invasion of Gaza but with an extra-layer covering minor developments of the Arab-Israeli and Iran-Israel conflicts, none of which are really meaningful in the overall topic of the article; and discussing the October 7 attacks, not as the trigger of the war (as say, 9/11 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq), but as a part of the war itself (as if it was comparable to, say, the invasion of Poland in WW2).

The lack of consensus on what the article should even be named (as evidenced by the three-month long 'wiki-ceasefire' earlier this year), let alone the fact that the article itself is basically a replica of the article «Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)» with a bunch of bloating of minor, distantly related topics (aside from the over-emphasis on October 7 discussed above), make me question about if we should even have this entry in the first place, since, as it stands, the only battlefront of the war is Gaza. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 02:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last lede paragraph

Any objections to trimming this part?

From:

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large protests have occurred across the world, primarily pro-Palestinian ones. Israel's conduct have been denounced in the Muslim world and much of the Global South. In December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice that accuses Israel of committing genocide in Gaza; with the court later ordering Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive."

To

"The war continues to have significant regional and international repercussions. Large, primarily pro-Palestinian protests have been occurring across the world to call for a ceasefire. In late 2023, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice to look into allegations of Israel committing genocide in Gaza; with the court having ordered Israel to immediately halt its ongoing Rafah offensive accordingly." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Israel–Hamas_war"