Talk:Gaza Strip

Benvenisti and Roy

@Wafflefrites it would be more accurate to refer to Sara Roy as affiliated with Harvard rather than IPS, I'm not aware of any affiliation she has with IPS. DMH223344 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I have made the changes. Wafflefrites (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Benvenisti quote

@AnomieBOT, (@Anomie) why did you remove the quote from Benvenisti without any explanation? DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That was @Alaexis in this edit. Ill restore with past tense as that seems to be the lone objection in the edit summary, despite its complete removal. nableezy - 16:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In case of Benvenisti, another problem was that Gaza wasn't mentioned explicitly. But I'm not against restoring it provided that it's made clear that he was talking about the situation until 1984. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is something else that I forgot at first. The source for this is The West Bank Data Project: A Survey of Israel's Policies. Does he in fact discuss both the WB and Gaza? I can't find it anywhere to check it myself. Alaexis_¿question? 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it discusses both the West Bank and Gaza Strip: "This study by Meron Benvenisti is based on empirical data collected about key aspects of life in the West Bank and gaza and then analyzed in relation to Israeli policies." (from the foreward, page vii) DMH223344 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

See page 12 summarizing his description of policies, which he describes as generally for the occupied territories, which would include both gaza and the west bank: "Operatively the guideline can be summarized thus: We should not develop the economy of the territories, but we should not object to the improvement of the standard of living there. Development would cause competition with Israeli products. By gaining economic independence, subversive elements would achieve political power that would enable them to further their objective: the creation of a Palestinian state- a political and security risk for Israel. A reasonable standard of living can be achieved by employment in Israel, which, on the one hand, will increase dependence on Israel and, on the other hand, will diminish national aspirations. Economic dependence should be enhanced by interconnecting all grids (roads, electricity, communication, water) and by forcing the territories to use only Israeli ports for import and export. Economic measures should be an integral element in the carrot-and-stick policy of the military government. We can see how a dual system, neither preconceived nor well defined, could nevertheless emerge from these practical guidelines." DMH223344 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What is expected to remove One source section template?

I saw that `One source section` was added to the section "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)", the section does in fact reference multiple sources and authorities. What is expected to remove this flag? DMH223344 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename section "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)"

Propose to rename the section title "Israeli policies during the Israeli military occupation (1967 - mid-1990s)" to: "Impact of Israeli Policies".

The reasons:

1. The current title suggests that Gaza is no longer occupied
2. The section discusses issues that extend beyond the mid-1990s. For example the blockade and attacks on Gaza. Also the section describes the narrative of Roy: "Roy explains that the framework for Israeli policy established between 1967 and 1973 would not change, even with the limited self-rule introduced by the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, but would grow dramatically more draconian in the early 2000s."

DMH223344 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Renaming to Israeli policies following Israeli military occupation. nableezy - 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Literacy

@HudecEmil: Atlas source doesn't support the cited claim, please remove both. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

former Israeli diplomat Gideon Levy,[227]

he isn't a a diplomat. change it please. 84.110.218.178 (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Seems to be a fragment left over from this revision. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Open air prison characterization

The article mentions that the open air prison characterization began when the 2007 blockade started, but this is not true. See for example Amira Haas' 1995 book with a whole chapter called "Gaza Prison" discussing the permit system and restrictions on movement which go back to at least 1991.

Additionally, as early as 2004 Giora Eiland referred to it as a "huge concentration camp" https://www.makan.org.uk/glossary/the-gaza-strip/

Even in 2008 (just a year after the beginning of the blockade), Adalah described the conditions: "The metaphor of the Gaza Strip as the world’s largest prison is unfortunately outdated. Israel now treats the Strip more like a zoo." DMH223344 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If we have the sources, then I would support the characterization of a "prison" (effectively) from whenever. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Without Egypt blockading it's part of the border it wouldn't be a blockade. HudecEmil (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Blockade dispute

This recent edit dispute should be discussed.

I personally favour the version reading "The current land, sea, and air blockade [...]"

@Alaexis, @DMH223344

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We should say "The current land, sea, and air blockade [...]" or "Israel's land, sea, and air blockade [...]"

The blockade is an Israeli effort which is supported by Egypt. RS typically refer to it as an "Israeli blockade" or just "blockade of the Gaza Strip". See for example this FA article for a typical description of Egypt's role "The Egyptian government, after all, has been party to the 16-year-long Israeli blockade of Gaza, enforcing tight controls on what comes in and out of the enclave through the border crossing at Rafah." (emphasis mine)

For the movement of people, Israel controls the population registry--without Israeli approval, people in Gaza cannot leave, even through Rafah. For the movement of goods, Gaza has historically traded primarily with Israel and the West Bank (through Israel), Israel's restrictions are much more relevant. This is aside from the fact that Egypt enforces tight restrictions on Rafah border crossing, while Israel enforces tight restrictions on land, air and sea entry. See this quote from Gisha's report "Rafah: Who controls the keys?":

control of Rafah Crossing must be seen in the context of Israel's control of all the other crossing points of the Gaza Strip - land, air and sea - which make Gaza a "land-locked" territory, dependent on Rafah Crossing for contact with the outside world. That control has significant implications for Israel's responsibility for Rafah Crossing. Gisha - Legal Center for Ereedom of Movement (Gisha) and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-Israel) take the position that Israel continues to constitute an occupying power in the Gaza Strip, because it controls significant aspects of life in Gaza, including its borders, the Palestinian population registry, the tax system and the funding of public services; therefore, we ascribe to it increased responsibility for the freedom of movement of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Also, see this quote (cited in Roy 2016) from an Egyptian official on the status of Rafah:

The Rafah crossing is unlikely to be opened for goods anytime soon. The consensus of the security establishment and diplomat- ic circles is that Israel desperately wants Egypt to take respon- sibility for a Strip that is far away from Cairo’s central author- ity, packed with armed militants, and suffers from a persistent humanitarian crisis. Once Egypt opens the Rafah crossing for goods, Israel is likely to permanently shut down the Karam Abu Salem [Kerem Shalom] crossing, when the next crisis erupts, effectively turning Gaza into Egypt’s burden to bear [and deep- ening the separation with the West Bank]. The tunnels provide Gaza with items banned by the Israeli authorities at Karam Abu Salam, such as construction materials and weapons, but the bulk of Gaza’s daily needs actually come from the Israeli crossing. Should it be shut down, Egypt, through the Rafah Crossing, would be entirely in charge of supplying Gaza with virtually everything itneeds.

DMH223344 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gisha also describes Egypt's military cooperation with Israel as a mechanism through which Israel influences control over Rafah. This is no surprise, as the current Egyptian regime is aligned with the US and Israel. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say that both Israel and Egypt have been blockading Gaza, both scholarly ones (David Faris, Dissent and Revolution in a Digital Age (2013), p. 110) and newspapers ([1]).

Your own quote from Roy 2016 confirms that Egypt has its own goals (not having to deal with Gaza) and enforces a policy which is consistent to it (enforcign a blockade while tolerating some smuggling). Alaexis_¿question? 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course egypt has its own goals, that's besides the point here. Egypt's blockade plays a relatively minor role. Insisting that the Egyptian blockade must be mentioned every time we describe the Israeli blockade, misses the relative importance of the two. In your edit summary, you suggest that we remove these details entirely from the lead or keep the phrasing which incorrectly attributes air and sea blockade to Egypt. I disagree with both suggestions on the basis that the Israeli blockade is much more important than the Egyptian blockade.

> There are plenty of sources that say that both Israel and Egypt have been blockading Gaza,

Of course, Egypt does indeed support the blockade effort. DMH223344 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Israeli blockade is so much more important that the Egyptian one should not be mentioned at all?

The sources I provided treat Egypt and Israel similarly (Held in place by Israel and Egypt, the blockade restricts imports to the region and prevents most people from leaving). Alaexis_¿question? 07:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I say it shouldn't be mentioned? I said the current phrasing suggests to users that Egypt is involved in the air a sea blockade (which it isnt). DMH223344 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I would support the edit by Alaexis. The blockade is very important because it creates the conditions for mass death of Palestinians, i.e. the civilians can not escape the area of active warfare and potential hunger, this can regarded as a war crime. And the role of Egypt is critically important. Israel is a country-combatant that is not supposed to transfer people from the other side to its territory (consider Russia that takes Ukrainians to its territory as such example). On the other hand, Egypt could easily allow the free passage of civilians from the war zone, voluntarily of course. But it does not. That's significant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  None of your points here are relevant to the edit. DMH223344 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I explained why including Egypt (as Alaexis did) is important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Did I disagree that it's important? DMH223344 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli blockade is a major part of why the international community regards Gaza as occupied, while no-one at all regards Egypt as an occupying power, as noted by HRW "In 2022, Human Rights Watch issued a report on the situation in the Gaza Strip, which it called an "open-air prison" due to the blockade and held Israel responsible as the occupying power, and to a lesser degree Egypt, which has restricted movement of Palestinians through its border." This is the most accurate portrayal of the situation. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And I think the edit in question does portray it this way. I think we all agree that Egypt is important. There would be no blockade if it allowed free movement of Palestinians through its border. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Israel would still be blockading Gaza's coast and restricting the usage of its territorial waters and airspace. nableezy - 16:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the source cited doesnt support it is a blockade by Egypt and Israel at all, it rather says it is just Israeli. And many more sources say Israeli blockade that is supported by Israel. I removed the contested part as unsupported by the source cited. nableezy - 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead does currently say: The blockade became indefinite after the 2007 Hamas takeover, supported by Egypt through restrictions on its land border with Gaza., and it is supported by [2]. Moreover, another ref (a recent HRW report) [3] does say: “Israel, with Egypt’s help, has turned Gaza into an open-air prison,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch.. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes and I didn’t remove that. nableezy - 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your last edit was fine, given that the phrase The blockade became indefinite ... is already there. This is something so minor I am surprised we are having such discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, next to polity please add in West Asia. 2600:100C:A219:7127:1469:5428:B808:466 (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The introductory paragraph should include a statement about the population density in Gaza such as "The region has a considerably larger population density than the rest of Palestine." Calling the region "small" is a tad misleading without this clarification. 2600:1700:AC00:A390:4CA8:F6CC:54C9:372C (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)