Talk:Blockade of the Gaza Strip/Archive 1

Tkalisky's revert
The UN is neutral, i.e., this addition to the introduction is not a violation of WP:POV. Feel free to add Israeli and Palestinian POVs to the intro if you want, the intro is too short as is. Trachys (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No my friend, Richard Falk is not considered natural by Israel. He is actually considered extremely hostile even in UN standards. The fact that the intro is too short does not say we must insert into it POV statements from controversial figures. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Israel is not editing Wikipedia. As I said, feel free to expand the introduction with Israeli and Palestinian POVs. Trachys (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You said the UN statement by Richard Falk is not POV since the UN is natural. I told you that Richard Falk is a very controversial figure who has been expelled from Israel for being hostile and unbalanced. Choosing to selectively include his statement in the header is POV. We can include the both sides in the header if you want to (Israel security concerns plus criticism), but I think it is better to leave the criticism in the "Criticism" section and leave the header natural. Best Tkalisky (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I have added a whole section regarding the legal aspects of the sanctions on Gaza, pros and cons. Best. Tkalisky (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of historical info on spurious grounds
Canadian Monkey might have had grounds for saying the edit I made to the lead should have been in the background. However it was not 'original research', which Canadianmonkey appears to confuse with reading sources. Blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to, precisely any and every 'Blockade of the Gaza Strip', until the title is changed. It happens to be the case that there is a large literature using the word 'blockade' of Israel's actions on the Gaza Strip since the al-Aqsa uprising of 2000. These blockades, in the historical literature, reinforced the policy of 'closures' that followed on the Oslo Accords, in which the same policies used in blockades were employed. This uncomfortable fact has been elided on spurious grounds. The impression in this text and its sister article is that the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt after Hamas took over was something new, related to Hamas and terrorism. This is an unconscionable falsification of the historical record, and I will be quite happy to give as many sources as my interlocutors require for the period 2000-2005, 2006-2007, 2007-9, where 'blockades' are mentioned.

I'm in no hurry, but I ask for some reasons to be given as to why the close paraphrase of several books that deal in detail with the Israeli blockades on Gaza over those dates is a violation of WP:OR, instead of being what it is, background material, carefully culled, on the blockades preceding the most recent one. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to make things simple I have changed the title to "The 2007 blockade of the Gaza Strip". Previous blockades can be mentioned in their corresponding articles or in the main article on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Hope this will end all disagreements (at least in wikipedia, if not in the real world ...). Best. Tkalisky (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New article title is inaccurate. The blockage continues to today, it didn't end in 2007
The new title of the article is inaccurate. The blockage continues to today (although it might end this year.) Having the year it started in the title misleadingly implies that it ended that year -- that the blockage is historic. It isn't. I would suggest going back to the original title or adding the current year (which I will do now.) --John Bahrain (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there was no significant blockade of the Gaza Strip prior to 2007, the article should be simply called "Blockade of the Gaza Strip", with the effective years stated in the article itself (just like Blockade of Barcelona and Blockade of Porto Bello, to name a few). -- 62.0.34.136 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I think this article could use a little clean up regarding neutrality. Any thoughts on how to clean it up? I think I might be overly bold in some changes so would love to see if a few minor changes could be made.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "2000–2007 restrictions" section some of the wording (unsourced "immense") and the sole focus being the negative economic impact are a concern.
 * Israel's attempted rebuttals should be given in the "Perishable goods and basic supplies" section
 * "However" is used in most of the lines that could potentially show Israel in a less negative fashion
 * "Legal arguments" section looks like a list trying to prove a point. Again, "however" is used. Britannica's definition isn't even related but is only a semantic argument regarding this article's title.

Overly Critical Of Aspects
The article largely reads like two people from opposing sides wrote the other one's involvement.

As stated previously, the overzealous use of "however" tends to indicate the author(s) have contradicted their own statements. I point to the use of "however" under the "Israel's Arguements" section relating to the 2008 Gaza Offensive:

"Israel also argues that its right to self-defence cannot be ignored. In order to pressure the Hamas government in Gaza to stop rocket attacks aimed on Israeli towns - actions which are themselves a violation of the Geneva Convention prohibition on attacks aimed solely at civilians - limited sanctions are better than major military incursion.[14] However, in late 2008, Israel decided to launch a military incursion with the stated reason being to halt the ongoing rocket attacks."

Ignoring obvious grammatical problems, the "However" makes it sound like a pro-Israeli person started this, but a pro-Hamas author added the last sentence. It should probably read a neutral way, such as:

"Israel argues that it's right to self-defense cannot be ignored. It has argued that the imposition of limited sanctions against Hamas are more favorable than a full military incursion. Israel points to the Hamas rocket attacks as being a catalyst for the late 2008 Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip, which Israel maintains violate the Geneva Conventions as civilians are the target of the attacks."

Additionally: -"2000-2007 Restrictions" focuses on largely economic fallout, not the actual restrictions themselves. This should be divided into "Restrictions" and "Economic Effects" categories, or the entire summary should be placed under "Economic Effects".

-"Total Blockade" and "Perishables Blocked" should be consolidated into one area. It is not effective to have these chunked off into two completely different sub-categories in the article when they are very much linked.

-"Breach of the Gaza-Egypt border" section could and probably should be completely removed from this article, as it doesn't pertain to the blockade itself and deals more with humanitarian issues on land. If it remains, it should be consolidated under the previously suggested "Economic Effects" since Egypt would've had economic issues relating to it. It's small size here really doesn't warrant a category section when it has a link to a more complete page elsewhere.

-"Blockade Agreements" also hits on multiple topics, and could be redistributed to "Economics" as well as "Restrictions". There is little to do with agreements when stating what the Israeli's accused the Palestinians of. Weapons smuggling should be a key at the start of the article for why the blockade started, not part of a discussion about agreements and truces.
 * I just removed the "however in 2008" line. The primary legal argument is that Israel is asserting pressure (not saying I agree with it) not that one dude at an embassy in London followed it up with the military operation line which was easy to mock when Israel launched its recent military operation.


 * Total Blockade and Perishables Blocked looks to me to be in because an editor found a source and thought the information should go in. I bet it would be pretty easy to mesh them together. I noticed that the legal arguments section is primarily based on 1 source so I assume that is why it got cut into a list when it may be possible (don't know how myself) to integrate it in a cleaner fashion.


 * I think Blockade Agreements could be turned into the body of the article. The logistics of the blockade are as important to some readers as the legal implications are to others.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I Think "Opinion on the legality of the blockade is mixed. In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[16][17][18] " is not correct, given the Paplmer Report states this declaration is personal and non-binding, not be (ab)used in any other context

Reorganization
The timeline section should contain just that, a timeline of the blockade's development and important events. At the moment it appears that a variety of other topics have been shoehorned into that section that don't really fit since the topics are not limited to a particular time. Xotn (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rafah Crossing: Who holds the keys?
The report Rafah Crossing: Who holds the keys? from March 2009 by Gisha-Legal Center for Freedom of Movement and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel looks like a valuable source for this article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Title
Any reason we're specifying the date in the title? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Soon it's 2010 so we will have to rename the article. // Liftarn (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time we change the title to 2010, as the blockade still continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.166.114 (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would not 2007-present be more accurate? The title would not need to be changed unless the blockade was ended, and it would not imply that it has already ended as 2007-2010 could implyExoditeTyr (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Start of blockade
Although the lede says it began in June 2007, the substance of the article doesn't seem to mention this in any detail, and by tracing the start of military blockades back to 2000 it makes it very unclear in what sense "this" blockade started in 2007, and how, and why. Was there an official announcement? Was it in response to a specific event? Widsith (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

UNHRC is not controversial
Added POV tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.45.189 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit concerning the start date of the blockade, citing UN official sources for the changes. This was almost immediately removed.

As this is a page 'monitored for neutrality' will someone be kind enough to explain to me how the neutrality review process works?

Bernie4253 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Marokwitz's edit summary provided the reason for the revert, "Changes contradict the article title and the cited sources. This article is about the 2007-2010 blockade." This article is about the blockade that was put in place after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip although there is a background section too covering the 2000–2007 restrictions. There isn't a neutrality review process as such (although you can post things at WP:NPOVN). This article is covered by discretionary sanctions so editors are absolutely required to be neutral and walk away if they can't edit in a neutral way for whatever reason. If you see something specific that you think isn't neutral you'll need to argue your case on the talk page or just go ahead and change it if it's obvious POV pushing.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some news on the Flotilla
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/at-least-10-activists-killed-in-israel-navy-clashes-onboard-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.293089 FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The attack on the flotilla has left up to 16 dead and is making waves. Seems this will require its own article, note that the organizers call it the "Freedom Flotilla," Israel also calls it a "flotilla" in sources I've seen, so all we need is the verb: seeing 'intercepting', 'storming', 'attack/assault (on)', etc. Arab sources see a "massacre," Israelis a "battle" all this needs to be reflected. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Went up several hours ago sorry, it's at Gaza_flotilla_clash. RomaC (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please fix obvious grammar and spelling errors
Seriously, if you're going to lock it, it's the least you can do. Like, right there in the first sentence, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.247.97 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is title correct?

 * Should the title not be Blockade of Gaza, Blockade of Gaza Strip / 2000–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. Mrchris (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blockade of Gaza may refer to
 * How about Blockade of Gaza, Blockade of the Gaza Strip as disambig


 * For the ancient siege of Gaza, see Siege of Gaza.


 * 2000–2006 restrictions on Gaza Strip
 * 2006–2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority
 * 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip


 * I am for a simple title being this is the blockade and the other was a siege. If editors complain, I am for a disambiguation page too. A year was originally put in the title after some edit wars back in February 2009. I don't see any other instances other than what you covered and if the 2000-2006 restrictions are covered in this article, why put a year in anyway? If this blockade ends and another begins, maybe a new article with different years?--NortyNort (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

legalities
This legal analysis of the Gaza blockade may interest editors here.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  00:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

US Support?
The article currently says the US officially supports the blockade, citing an NYT article, which says "The Obama administration officially supports the Gaza blockade, as the Bush administration did before it. " The NYT article currently states that it had earlier mis-stated the EU position, so I think even though this is the NYT, it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it does not cite any official statement. It is hard or impossible to reconcile with the UN Security Council Presidential Statement which arose from negotiations with the USA and the other members :"..The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009).  In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza." United Nations Security Council Resolution 1860, whose absence from this article is glaring, has several provisions calling for delivery of humanitarian aid, and passed with US abstention and acquiescence.

Also the statements of Alejandro Wolff (USA) at the UNSC, who "stressed the need for allowing humanitarian goods, including construction materials, into Gaza" and like Hilary Clinton elsewhere said "the situation was unsustainable".

What the US position is is hard to understand. This says the US suggested that Israel ease the blockade. Note "The Americans said they do not believe in the policy of preventing goods from reaching the Gaza population because of the political situation there. 'We do not accept the current situation at the Gaza crossings,' one of them said." So I think we should say the NYT says ... but cite and attribute in the text the statements at the UNSC and from Ha'aretz too. Further research is necessary, but too late for me to do any more.John Z (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a more recent article in Ha'aretz which says "... Washington, which opposes continuing the blockade in its present format and demands that Israel make it easier to send civilian goods to Gaza." I think it is clear that having just the NYT statement is too misleading to use for the lead; I think there is a real possibility it is simply false. I think it is better to keep the discussion in the appropriate section below and will remove it, and balance it if it is restored.John Z (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blockade Was Closed
Today, 7 June 2010, the blockade was closed someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.129.85 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says the blockade is open on Egypt's side, as this Wiki article reflects. Not sure if the intro should be reworded since Egypt is only letting certain people through.--NortyNort (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

List of non-permissible items to enter Gaza

 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1217&intSiteSN=143&OldMenu=143
 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1798&OldMenu=13
 * http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1795&OldMenu=13
 * http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf

Exact sources. Kasaalan (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Arguments
This section looks like it could be worked into other subsections. There is plenty of information not currently in and it relates to other things mentioned. We don't need a list unless we are worried about a ghastly wall of text so if anyone has any ideas it might correct some issues.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 08/06/2010, Mr Benny Begin said that a special commission in Israël will make a investigation to know if the sea blockade is in accordance with international law ( source in french : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/flottille-israel-annonce-une-commission-juridique-les-pressions-continuent_897723.html ). So they aren't be sure to respect the law ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade
Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 386-DX (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Arguments
I have a few issues with the legal arguments section, and believe that the opening paragraph should be removed. Specifically, it deals exclusively with issues that are, in fact, more related to the so-called Freedom Flotilla incident. The point is that "Legal Arguments" should actually be more specifically related to the legal justification of the blockade of Gaza itself, which encompasses both the land and sea blockade. In this context, it is nonsensical to talk about the legality of boarding vessels and so on when the real issue to be referred to here is the legality of the entire blockade.

If others believe that this paragraph is in the right place, there is another issue that should be raised, and that is the fact that the paragraph reads as if it is a legal opinion of Wikipedia, and a rather biased one at that. Simply describing what's in the San Remo Manual is not enough, because there are quite varied legal opinions out there as to whether or not what Israel did was legal. If this paragraph is to stay where it is, at the very least, it should rather refer to the legal opinions of legal scholars presenting both sides of the argument.krou (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD that may be of interest here
Since this article has been mentioned several times at Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza, editors here may wish to weigh in over there. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza be merged with this page?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Egypt
why is there allmost a complete disregard of the fact thet Gaza bordering with Egypt and thet israel does not have any form of control over this border (so technically physically and legally israel canot and do not blockading Gaza.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.134.15 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The obvious reason is the antisemitism of Wikipedia editors. (Compare this article with the Wikipedia article about Darfur. According to Wikipedia, there is no genocide in Darfur.) The Arabs living in Gaza are one of the fattest people on earth and their population is exploding. They are not starving by any stretch of imagination. If they suffer any inconvenience, Hamas and Egypt are to blame.Quinacrine (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious to you, perhaps, but wrong. It's more likely because:
 * a) it's an opinion that Israel cannot be blockading Gaza, and Wikipedia is not the place for opinions. The facts speak louder than your opinions.
 * b) the article makes full mention of Egypt's role in the matter, so others can make up their mind
 * c) The majority of Gaza's border is with Israel, not Egypt, and Israel themselves state they blockade Gaza, as well as control the sea, and the air. Ergo, by their own admission, they are the primary force behind the blockade of Gaza.
 * d) The Egypt-Israel relationship is also complex enough to imagine that it's in Egypt's best interest to support Israel's actions. Note, that's my opinion, which is why I've not added that to the article.


 * As for the charge of "anti-semitism", that's completely baseless and unfounded. That accusation is the last refuge of those who simply don't like the facts. The article makes clear what Israel's position is, what Hamas's role has been, and what the international position is. If you've got evidence from reputable sources to prove that "The Arabs living in Gaza are one of the fattest people on earth", and evidence that disproves the studies conducted by various UN and Human Rights agencies in the region, then add them to the article instead of resorting to trolling and making ridiculous charges of anti-semitism.


 * Incidentally, I went to the Darfur page, and discovered a link to "War in Darfur" which refers to the charges of genocide repeatedly. There is controversy around usage of the term, and the article mentions that, too.
 * krou (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Easing of the blockade
Do we need a separate article on the 2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip? I think this really falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS; every single development in the Israel-Palestine situation does not need an article dedicated to it. I think a selective merge is best, as we need to resist the urge to write blow-by-blow accounts of events and include the opinions of all-and-sundry. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree. A merge with this article would be best. An easing of the blockade does not imply the end of the blockade.krou (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Once could even make a new subsection on the "new blockade".--NortyNort (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a stab at it.Marokwitz (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge done. Any comments? Marokwitz (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary Sources for UNOCHA statements
A "non-primary source needed" flag has been added to the following statements: "In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the formal economy in Gaza has collapsed since the imposition of the blockade. In May 2010, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated that the "restrictions imposed on the civilian population by the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip amount to collective punishment, a violation of international humanitarian law."

However, I believe this flag to be erroneous, and should be removed. The Wikipedia guidelines state: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Neither of the two statements above constitute an "interpretation of primary source material", as they are direct quotes from the material in question, and they can be verifiable by the sources in question. An interpretation would mean taking a quote, and adding an additional layer of meaning to it. For example, if I concluded that the UNOCHA statements meant that they supported Hamas, this would constitute an interpretation of the quote.

Unless there are strong objections, I will remove these flags sometime today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krou (talk • contribs) 08:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

in the section 1989
it seems that the blockade started without a reason. in 1989 started the first intifada. that's the reason missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.246.39 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera fishing vid
Setting aside the merits of inclusion (I added a commonscat link so the vid is accessible there even if removed from the article), removing it because "a video by al-jazeera fails neutrality standards" is not a valid reason to remove it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a complete rewrite
Since June 2010 the blockade of Gaza was significantly reduced. Yet most of the article speaks in present tense, citing figures from before June 2010. The whole thing needs a rewrite regarding all current issues. Drsmoo (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The blockade is over
Egypt is going to permanently open the Rafah crossing, so this blockade appears to be over. Any ideas how this information should be woven into the article? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, this article should be updated, although I'd agree that the blockade is not officially over (on the Israeli side) and a unilateral opening to people, not goods, on the Egyptian side is a welcome but incomplete end to the blockade. I defer to the authors; you can cite this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-rare-taste-of-freedom-as-egypt-opens-its-doors-to-gaza-2290814.html Cheers! Joel J. Rane (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read more about this, I also agree the blockade isn't over since trade is still not possible. However, the opening of the crossing does modify the blockade in a significant way and the BBC source says as much, too. --Dailycare (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of article
This article should be named "Blockade of the Gaza Strip (2007 - present)" not the other way around. I will rename it now.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

humanitarian crisis/cast lead numbers
I was wondering if the fact that a red cross official has been reported to say that there is no humanitarian crisis at this time should be included. Either under genreal, or Israel arguments, or under reactions of international organizations. (but that daily life is not normal etc.

second thing, i just wanted to point out this: also in the international response:. "Operation Cast Lead destroyed at least 60,000 homes" a quote from unwra, later in the article the UNDP quote "none of the 3,425 homes destroyed during Cast Lead have been reconstructed, displacing around " whereas on the gaza war page it says over 4000 homes, (quoted from bbc, quoting the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics.)96.57.43.154 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * An ICRC interview with Mathilde De Riedmatten, deputy head of the ICRC's sub-delegation in Gaza, that postdates the interview published by the IDF Spokesmen's Office which was used as a source by JPost is available here on the ICRC site.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Question
According to a consensus view among qualified international law specialists, both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal..

Full statement is: "Such a conclusion contradicted the earlier finding of a more expert panel established by the Human Rights Council, and also rejected the overwhelming consensus that had been expressed by qualified international law specialists on these core issues."
 * The source is an editorial.

If we're going to include a Falk cite, it must say - "According to Falk." Unless he provides a data sheet showing an overwhelming majority of "qualified international law specialists" (undefined) then it can't be stated as fact. It contradicts this article which suggests the views are split among experts and the UN itself. I suggest a self-revert. Wikifan Be nice 20:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can insert the attribution: although I don't consider it necessary I'm not strongly opposed to having it there. (concerning the "editorial" point, of course Falk is an expert who has published in the field so his text is a usable source, even when in the form of an editorial). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Falk is a notable source but his opinions can only be cited as his own, per WP:NEWSBLOG. Not as a certified-fact. Wikifan Be nice  22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NEWSORG, which leaves open the issue of attribution where the author is a recognized expert. Having said that, what I wrote above (19:06) still applies and I'm OK with the attribution in. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Statements by ICRC Deputy in Gaza Mathilde Redmatn
Hi there

I wanted to integrate the statements of Deputy ICRC head in Gaza Mathilde Redmatn (Mathilde de Riedmatten) described in the article in the Jerusalem Post Red Cross: There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza with the text of Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip. But I'm having trouble working out if her statements were taken out of context.

As far as I can see the article is a reworking of the IDF press release by Rotem Caro Weizman. According to Dan Murphys article Did the Red Cross say there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza?, Staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor (hardly anti-Israeli) her statements have been taken out of context by focusing on the existence of "nice restaurants in Gaza and a few good supermarkets. But they generally cater to foreign aid workers, journalists, and rich Gazans" "...according to ICRC spokeswoman Cecilia Goin, the situation remains dire and the Red Cross views the blockade on Gaza by Israel as the principal cause. Ms. Goin says the earlier interview with Riedmatten did not include the full context provided by her colleague, and created the understanding "that since there’s no evidence that there’s a humanitarian crisis that everything was OK."

I am particularly concerned about the context of her statements when I read that the US Embassy in Tel Aviv wrote in a 2008 diplomatic cable "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis." ref. It now sounds very like her statement was factual but not worthy of being the heading of your article as it barely represents the collective substance of the interview.

Mondoweiss writter summed up the situation in ‘Mathilde Redmatn’ and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza

I have sent a version of the above text to the Jerusalem Post writter YAAKOV LAPPIN and am providing the text here in case this discussion starts here. I couldn't find it on this page. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall I think the ICRC is reliable for the ICRC's own opinion, and even more reliable for it than the IDF. --Dailycare (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

June 2007 – January 2008 section
Alright, let's go through my most recent changes one by one. First of all, you do not get to claim what the Israeli cabinet was doing when all we have is a rough draft that the Israeli government says was never implemented. This is a misrepresentation of the source. So I'm deleting the first sentence.

I'm restoring the bit about the "humanitarian crisis" while also keeping your bit about malnutrition. You want the section to imply they were making the Gazans suffer, while the source was says Israel prevented them from starving. Regardless of our intentions, both facts are in the article and both are truth, so this should be a fair compromise.

I have no idea why you changed the last sentence. Paraphrasing is well within our authority as editors and "arrive at a minimum threshold or restrict quantities" is "capping". There are two claims here. The UN's claim that "IF it is capping food imports, it is a crime" and Israel's claim that "It is not capping food imports". Using the exact quote unnecessarily obfuscates the discussion, so I'm changing it back to the paraphrased version. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the source says "In September 2007, the cabinet, then headed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, decided to tighten restrictions on the movement of people and goods to and from the Gaza Strip. (...) However, the resolution added, the restrictions should be tailored to avoid a "humanitarian crisis." I think that means that "In September 2007, the Israeli cabinet resolved to tighten restrictions on goods passing to Gaza. The cabinet decided to tailor restrictions to avoid a humanitarian crisis in the Strip. ". --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This immediately follows that sentence, "The 'red lines'" document was written about four months afterward." By putting your sentence at the top of the paragraph, you are implying that this move by the cabinet led directly to the creation of the document.  This is not implied by the article.  Additionally, you are rearranging the facts of the article to fit your view.  The article opens with the release of the document, not with the move by the Israeli cabinet.  If you wish, we can include that bit after establishing the document is a rough draft, as the source does.  But we'll also mention the 4 months in between. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the source doesn't quite say the document was a rough draft, it says the COGAT represented it as a rough draft in his appeal. As to the cabinet decision, the source mentions the decision and the drafting of the document one right after the other. I don't see why we shouldn't do the same. The cabinet decision is relevant to the section even outside the context of the released document. I'm not aware of any policies that say we should replicate the order of various points in any given source. I'm however OK either way, mentinoing the cabinet decision is a separate paragraph in the section, at the beginning of this paragraph, or somewhere within this paragraph as long as the end result is readable and not an attempt to present any one side in the most positive/negative light imaginable. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, how about that. I added the full quote of the decision in a paragraph above the contested paragraph, and included a separate citation.  I'm hoping this will be enough of a separation between the two ideas to avoid the implication that the decision directly let to the document.  I hope you realize what an enormous concession this is from me, considering that I don't think that a rough draft is worthy of any mention at all. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that, thanks. --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

✅

Changes to the lead
I have made the following changes to the lead (diff):
 * 1) Removed redundant information about 2010 and 2011 easing and 2013 tunnel closings, which are present further down in the lead.
 * 2) Added 2005 disengagement to the first paragraph
 * 3) Added 2013 Egyptian coup as a prequel for the destruction of tunnels in 2013
 * 4) Added UN expert committee opinion on legality of blockade
 * 5) Changed "opinion on legality is mixed" to "most institutions consider it illegal". All the authorities quoted consider the land/air blockade illegal. The Palmer report concluded naval blockade was legal, but it is outweighed by tons of material on the other side. So, on the whole, it is fairer to say that "most consider it illegal".
 * 6) Moved statement by Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson down to notable people section, since it does not directly deal with the law. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A series of edits by
I have gone back to an old version after a series of edits here. Reasons include POV pushing, WP:UNDUE and putting too much detail in the lead which should be written in WP:SS. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead should be clearer
Now it gives the view that Egypt also have an air and sea blockade against Gaza, which is not true. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the first sentence. Kingsindian (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Great then. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

2007 planned opening
✅ The cited material: "In July 2007, Israeli officials planned an opening of the Rafah border crossing in order to allow stranded Palestinians to return, but the plan was cancelled after Hamas threatened to fire on the refugees." was removed with the edit summary "The fact listed provides a citation that isn't active. A search for other sources netted no other articles corroborating the fact listed." The citation Hamas threats keep crossing closed seems to support the material. Why should it be removed?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani goes shopping, but does so briefly
For this edit you wrote "The lead summarizes, and this forms a whole section and sister page." Can you explain how a list with over 40 items is a summery? It's a shopping list! Ashtul (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip has been blockaded ... since...
The current wording of the first sentence is worse than the previous, which also had problems. Why don't we keep the lead simple and go with something like:


 * "The Gaza Strip has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the course of the Battle of Gaza (2007), after forcing out Fatah."

and explain the situation in more detail in the body of the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the full explanation on the intro is ok. I just added that Egypt has lessened its restrictions as a way to indicate that somewhat of a change has occurred. I think that should reflect the current condition accurately and remain succinct. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is still problematic because the "sea blockade" did not begin in 2007, but rather on 3 January 2009. I'm not sure the best way to convey this so I'm holding off on making any changes, but I feel like it might be better to have it go like this:
 * "The blockades of the Gaza Strip refers to Israeli land and air blockades of the Gaza Strip begun in 2007 and a subsequent sea blockade on the Strip from 2009 to present."

Any thoughts? JudeanPF (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) The article suggests there was no blockade before 2007. I am unable to find any reference to the sea blockade being put in place only in 2007. When, if ever, was the port freelty accessible to ships from other nations? Danwoodard (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

World Bank report in the lead
I don't understand the edit summary in this edit. The lead is supposed to contain stuff which is repeated in the text. See WP:LEAD. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe me, the World Bank report is not worth to mention in the lead, which is not appropriate for such details.--Averysoda (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe so, then say it in the edit summary. The reason you gave earlier is irrelevant. Pray tell me, why is a report stating that the blockade destroyed half the Gazan economy is not appropriate to include in the lead? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"but that "the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law"?
It seems me that all after " but " has no connection with "blockade's issue": In the September 2011 Palmer Report, the UN investigative committee for the 2010 Flotilla to Gaza said that the Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law, but that "the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view." Here are the quotes from sources: The report noted that the panel did not have the power to compel testimony or demand documents, but instead had to rely on information provided by Israel and Turkey. Therefore, its conclusions cannot be considered definitive in either fact or law. In particular, the Panel’s means of obtaining information were through diplomatic channels. The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view. Another similar text in the articles, based on the same RS is more clear: In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade had been legal under the self-defense clause of the United Nations Charter, but warned that 'the procedures applied by Israel in relation to land access to Gaza are unsustainable and need to be changed.' It further advised that, Israel continue 'efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population,' ... At the moment I move this confusing part to here, retaining its clear part. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Change of "panel of five experts" to "richard falk + four other experts"
I am not sure why you changed the language from "panel of five experts" to "Richard Falk and four other experts". Why is separating Falk and mentioning him by name necessary? It is not clear to me how this is clarifying things, only seems awkward to me. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's according to a source what's mentioned Falk only. So let's try to attribute all of them.
 * BTW, what is "a panel of five independent U.N. rights experts"? Is Falk an independent one?
 * ++ IMHO, "Mostcn of the international institutions consider the blockade illegal" is excessive. A text below it speaks for itself.
 * --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * They are UN-appointed experts. The "independent" refers to "independent of governments". The terminology is a standard one, for instance in the Reuters link here. There is no need to list their names in the article itself, and especially not in the lead. I have added another source as a citation which lists their names.
 * "Most international institutions" is a summary in the lead of the "International positions" and legal arguments section. See WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. The notable ones are listed in the lead, while the overall position is summarized. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to exclude this Reuter's article at all, because of its "The so-called Palmer Report" for an official comission assigned by UN Secretary-General, and other POV-Pushing in favor of Falk & Co., as well as to attribute those unnamed experts according to your last source.
 * Waiting for RS proving your "Most international institutions"; IMHO, "a summary" doesn't mean arithmetic result of POVs, but their representation only. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I cannot understand your comment about Reuters. A Reuters news wire report is POV pushing? It did not name the experts in the panel -- what news report does name everybody in a panel?
 * On a widely discussed matter such as this, a qualitative assessment ("most international institutions") is appropriate. There needs to be an indication of what the dominant view is. This is why the statement is present. The basic authority of the Geneva Conventions is the Red Cross. See the statement by them here. They represent the most authoritative and consensus view here. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do not regard as RS this specific Reuters article whose author allows himself to use such expressions as "so-called Palmer Report" and tries to belittle the status of an official Palmers' commission (panel) regarding to a self-appointed Falk's group. So I think that after you've brought more detailed source, Reuters one is no longer needed at all.
 * Regarding to the "most". There is already detailed list of available now POVs. Let's give to a reader possibility to make his own conclusion, without our hints. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see the issue has been discussed here : Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid. So I do not inderstand why are you insist on so "independent" as controversial Falk and others from this group.
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not a native English speaker? There is no problem with the construction the "so-called Palmer report". The official name of the report is not the "Palmer Report", it is "Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry", which was chaired by Geoffrey Palmer thus "so-called" is used, to imply colloquial usage. See this for the "so-called Goldstone Report" among many other examples. The discussion on the other page is about a totally different matter, and is not relevant here. I am afraid that a Wikipedia editor's opinion that Reuters is not WP:RS carries little weight. If you feel that the Reuters report is not WP:RS, you are free to take it to WP:RSN, though I doubt you'll find many supporters.
 * Regarding your second point, the detailed list is of course partial, as every other list. The lead of the article is supposed to be a WP:SUMMARY, every statement does not need a citation. However, I have a better way to rewrite the last paragraph, which probably might not need to include the statement.Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"most" experts
The source used for this in the lead as an Op-Ed in a state-owned media outlte, which can't be used to state such information is if it were fact, in WIkipedia's voice. The statement needs to be either (a) removed from the lead, (b) attributed as an opinion of Falk, or (c) modified to remove the quantifier. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a further source that has none of the things you object to, and which confirms Falk's statement. It is not an opinion. Legality is obviously being summed up in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Blockade of the Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602001838/http://www.lifeline4gaza.org:80/crisis/ to http://www.lifeline4gaza.org/crisis/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100722021516/http://www.egypttoday.com:80/article.aspx?ArticleID=9067 to http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9067
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603045247/http://amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_20012.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_20012.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work bot, although doesn't seem to be a fan. -- Kendrick7talk 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the links, the issue was another user was inserting information into article and sneaking it in contrary to policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Blockade of the Gaza Strip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100531101434/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531,0,1839736.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531,0,1839736.story

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Blockade of the 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 https://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.629397
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alqassam.ps/images/userfiles/image/statistics/enthakat_thdeaa.zip
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_05_english.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_09_english-20090210-104024.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806062346/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/21/2739697/israel-announces-plan-to-ease-gaza-blockade to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/21/2739697/israel-announces-plan-to-ease-gaza-blockade
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307212611/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5D4CBD90BC8A8D4F85257C30005F790D to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5D4CBD90BC8A8D4F85257C30005F790D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807122201/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41275_20100623.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41275_20100623.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Facts that should be in the article
I am now on a vacation with limited internet access, so here are two things that are missing in the article:

There was a decision to increase the fishing zone in the Gaza coast. It apparently cancelled.. Also it seems from the sources that the fishing zone was extended temporarly in April-June 2016 (from the jpost source). Found anther seemingly good source.

Also, according to OCHAoPt's Protection of Civilians Report, in 2016, the avarage of truckloads entering Gaza is higher than the one in 2007.

Also I would like to bring up the fact that "blockade" means that nothing goes in and nothing goes out, but truckloads enter and exit, while people can sometines leave the terrtory. The blockade is only in the sea, while there is no aerial oppertunities in Gaza. But I guess this won't be fruitfull.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, a "military blockade" does not have to involve a complete seal. The key determinant is that the blockader decides what gets through and the blockaded does not.  Also, one must include the air since there was a working airport in Gaza but Israel destroyed it and prevents its reconstruction. Zerotalk 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I replied earlier in detail, B, but lost the edit in a crash. Briefly, the OCHA chart shows a slight increase in truck volume into Gaza over 2007, and a large decrease of truck volume leaving the GS (2) the Gaza ARA restrictions vary from week to week, show no stability, and in any case violate the standard rights of Palestinians to access their off shore waters. It's hard to keep track of these variations, and rather than use temporary 'good' or 'bad' news, one should look for an article that supplies the statistical data for a yearly period. As for blockade that is covered by Zero.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Blockade of the 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/20100507112222/http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/05/0503.htm to http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/05/0503.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alqassam.ps/images/userfiles/image/statistics/enthakat_thdeaa.zip
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524125511/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524125511/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=131972&catid=8
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_05_english.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5fmzNuPSN?url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/07/content_10776872.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/07/content_10776872.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ochaopt.org/gazacrisis/admin/output/files/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_02_09_english-20090210-104024.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531%2C0%2C1839736.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829162856/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-19/world/israel.gaza.flotilla_1_free-gaza-movement-gaza-coast-gaza-bound?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-19/world/israel.gaza.flotilla_1_free-gaza-movement-gaza-coast-gaza-bound?_s=PM%3AWORLD
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462%21OpenDocument

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in the lede
- please follow WP:BRD (no, posting to my talk page - that I'm not willing to discuss this with you and I'm going to restore my edits. is not a proper venue nor a discussion). I suggest you self revert. There are two major issues with the edits you just performed:
 * 1) The Israeli government has stated clearly that the blockades aim is to  "to prevent the entry of weapons and war material into Gaza" (direct quote). You diff modified this to "prevent dual use goods from entering Gaza", with the false edit summary of "paraphrase one of the quotes" (this can not be seen as a paraphrase) - which is not the Israeli government position (yes, the Israeli government's aims are ALSO to prevent dual use goods that may be used as weapons from entering - but not JUST such goods).
 * 2) The reorganization that elevates the position of certain UN officials and HROs to a separate "Legal arguments" is unbalanced. Such a separation is unwarranted, and even if performed should clearly state the Israeli (and where appropriate - other significant bodies) position regarding the law of war and international humanitarian law - which is not done at present. Such a section heading, which is unwarranted, should clearly state that this is international humanitarian law/law of war arguments.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * fine I misread the quote, dont accuse me of false edit summaries. It should still be removed for redundancy. Or rockets should be removed. There dont need to be two quotes about this "terrorism and rockets" covers it. Dual use materials is from the second source which summarizes the majority view. Also, I didn't add the legal arguments section, it was in a messy other section. The next thing I was going to do, before your disruptive reverts, was look it over the IGO and Legal sections to see if there really should be a legal section or if it should be rewritten and refimproved. The fact that you don't like how the section was written by(by another editor) is not a justification to  trying to obfuscate  it in a section  about the positions of different countries. The sooner the article stabilizes the sooner I can continue to make productive improvements. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Israel is preventing the entry of weapons for a stated goal - prevention "terrorism, rocket attacks and any other hostile activity". This is not redundant, though perhaps we should clarify the alleged causative relationship (by a "by" instead of an "and"). An badly (by other editors) written quasi-legal section should not be pushed up in the article order prior to more substantive international positions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you had asked me I would have told you I was planning to work on that section next. Instead we wasted two days on this - no you should not revert to conceal sections you don't like and then accuse other editors of POV editing, without justification it is a personal attack. I will check other sources, two quotes right on top of each other is too much. No, I am not going to discuss a rollback with you, if you raise things in a clear way one by one I will discuss. Don't roll back experienced editors. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a justification for your massive reorganization, nor have you corrected your admittedly wrong paraphrasing - which you should self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Kingsindian has since edited that section, and I am not going to revert his edits. The only thing I will say is that the second part of the quote about war materials should be removed from the lede entirely. It is already adequately covered by the three conditions where Hamas refuses to disavow violence, and a lengthy quote from the Israeli government is undue for the lede. If you want to leave in the link to rocket attacks with a brief quote, that is fine. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Scaffolding
Please open separate discussions for separate issues. The justification for the scaffolding changes is to improve readability. The way it was previously organized into a "Debate" section was incomprehensible. EU was a subsubsection of UN which is just wrong, and the World Bank is also an IGO. And why would legal arguments be in the debate section, but not "Humanitarian impact assessment" or "International Response to Easing of Restrictions" - the Justification is WP:NPOV. And on that note please do not open these discussions with WP:BATTLEGROUND section headings like "sweeping POV changes" - this isn't a forum, and separate issues should be discussed in separate sections. A long back and forth about multiple issues is impossible for other editors to follow. I have found that discussions are more effective when each section has a clear topic (even if this means starting multiple separate sections). Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or "Palestinian Authority support of the blockade" which is near the top and an entirely POV and misleading section heading that needs to be worked into the rest of the article, which you aren't complaining about. I don't really think any of the scaffolding changes I made were sweeping POV changes. How is it POV to put country positions and IGO positions in separate sections titled "Country positions" and "IGO positions"? Why are there two sections "Israel and Israeli arguments". What do their positions have to do with their UN membership? Why is the EU listed as part of the UN? Why is there an additional section "International Responses" and then UN countries? Did you actually look at how the section was structured with empty subheadings and flag link subs-sections before accusing me of "sweeping POV changes" Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section heading is absurd and so is its placement. Abbas may support this or that action, and there is definitely rivalry with Hamas, but to say that the PA "supports the blockade" (in general) is ridiculous. Abbas has made numerous contradictory statements on all things imaginable, but overall, PA's stance is against the blockade. Here's Abbas opposing it in 2013. Here is he opposing it in 2016. One should also distinguish between Abbas's attitude to Egypt's actions and Israel's actions. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)</p.

Ban Ki-moon description
Someone in the paragraph at the top re: reactions by Ban Ki Moon should change to refer to him as the former UN Secretary General. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 10:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , - while he currently is the former UN Secretary General, when he made the statement in 2010 he was the UN Secretary General - and I think we use the position of the person at the time the stmt was made - so I think a revert is in order (and if not - Ki-moon is mentioned again in the body in relation to the same stmt - and it should be fixed there as well). Perhaps we should state in the lede the year in which this was criticized (2010 I believe).Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "Ban Ki-moon (the then-UN Secretary General)". It's awkward, but perhaps it is more accurate. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Egypt was worried that Hamas control over Gaza would increase Iranian influence"
This line in the opening paragraph should be cited.. Doesn't seem Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian PM at the time, was overly concerned with Iran.. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Palestinian Authority support of the blockade"
If the section would be expanded to include views of other Palestianian Authority members, the claim that the Palestinian Authority supports the blockade could be correct. However, only Mahmoud Abbas is mentioned by name in this section, so as of now it should be "Mahmoud Abbas support of the blockade".. Even then, paragraph 2 contains a dead link which appears to be hearsay from Moshe Ya'alon. Paragraph 3 contains no names of any other individuals besides Abbas. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
change onging to ongoing, in the first sentence. Karinasarah (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 'Audit' of article
1) Reference specifically to the 2010 situation. Lede: Israel has repeatedly eased and tightened the Gaza blockade since 2007, and has done so to varying degrees.  Unless a full list of easing and tightening of the blockade is made, it is misleading to insert one snapshot in time into the article, particularly into the lede. I have therefore removed the sentence Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's misleading. Israel significantly eased the blockade after the 2010 raid on the flotilla. If you want to add other instances where Israel eased or tightened the blockade, feel free to do it.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So an atypical easing of the blockade in the lede is an example of good Wiki balance? I disagree based on Wiki 5 PillarsErictheenquirer (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that memo is not a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * }}, respecting the need to discuss edit reverts that are likely to be controversial, I will not simply 'undo' your latest 19 June 13:54 delete. 1) You offer as 'justification' that the theme of Israel's failure to lift the Gaza blockade is not addressed in the two sources that were provided. That is completely incorrect. Thrall's article notes with abundant clarity that "In the three months following the 2012 (a post-2008 ceasefire agreement) ceasefire, (Israeli) forces made regular incursions into Gaza, strafed Palestinian farmers and those collecting scrap and rubble across the border, and fired at boats, preventing fishermen from accessing the majority of Gaza’s waters. The end of the closure (blockade) never came." Not only that, but he notes further " The primary objective is that Israel honour three past agreements: the Shalit prisoner exchange, including the release of the re-arrested prisoners; the November 2012 ceasefire, which calls for an end to Gaza’s closure ... " The Oxfam article has an entire section titled "Obligations to End the Blockade", obligations that were never met by Israel both in 2008 and after the 2012 ceasefire agreement, as the article clearly demonstrates. So your claim is now triply not true. 2) Regarding not belonging in the lede, would it satisfy you if I additionally provided sources and text to the fact that Israel's failure to comply with three past ceasefire conditions in a number of ways (including not lifting 'closure'/blockade/embargo) directly contributed to increased tensions. It will naturally require a few more words to make sure that this lack of compliance be made more abundantly clear. Or are you suggesting that increased tensions are immaterial to the escalations to war and therefore do not belong in the lede? Your reasoning would be welcomed.
 * Regarding the lede - I suggest you work something into the body first, and then the lede (if appropriate) - not the other way around.
 * Oxfam is not a RS for determining ceasefire violations (which tend to run both sides) - and I do not see where under the "obligations to end the blockade" section it states that "Israel violated the terms of post-June 2008 ceasefire agreements" (I do see talk of obligations under international norms - but not any talk about ceasefire deals). Thrall discusses Hamas's views of things (which is fine - but is not a stmt of fact), it talks about 2012 and not 2009 in the context of incursions mainly - I could see how you could use for events in the months after 2012 (which I do not think are lede worthy, but could go in the body). And I don't quite see how the Guardian supports this.16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed re body then lede.
 * Who says Oxfam is not RS? We had this POV on a previous occasion and it was rejected, yet here it is again. Regarding not seeing the Israeli non-compliance in the provided sources, I need to point out that in Wiki it is not necessary to prove that the sky is blue. As I have already documented, the Thrall article says that the lifting of the closure was part of the ceasefire agreement. Thrall then states that the Israeli closure/blockade was never lifted. That is a 'sky is blue' example. It is a self-evident fact (not SYNTH) that Israel did not comply and non-compliance and violation are synonyms in this context. If we want to bloat the sources list, there is commentary by U.N. representatives to this fat at, also by Amnesty Internationsl - which additionally shows that the blockade was in violation of International Humanitarian law. The Guardian recorded that Israel broke the ceasefire on 5 November. Who says The Guardian is not reliable on such topics? Break and violate are also synonyms.
 * So I am going to create text in the main section making it clear what is common knowledge and tying the issues together. Various post-mid 2008 ceasefires catered for the blockade being lifted - June 2008; November 2012; August 2014 ; that the blockade was a form of collective punishment with the majority being innocent civilians, that Israel never came even close to lifting the blockade after any of the 3 agreements (already part of the stable 2012 Wiki article). That these were all in violation/non-compliance/breaking of all of these agreements. Then I will create a summary for the lede which will read pretty much as the text that was recently deleted. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxfam might be an expert source for poverty (to be used attributed) - but not for international relations. But that is besides the point - as Oxfam does not address ceasefire violations (it is talking about humanitarian obligations of Israel - but doesn't go into warfare or bilateral Gaza/Israel relations). I suggest you find a source (with a quote) for each ceasefire violation (e.g. after each of the major wars) you are entering - and I do think that covering what caused the Israeli response is DUE. AFAICT, Israel never agreed to lift the blockade - it mage vague promise of easing (e.g. more goods, concrete, etc.) - but not any promise of wholesale lifting.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense ... another pure POV fabrication. The documentations of the ceasefire agreements of 2008, 2012 and 2014 are clear on this and have been provided. Israel was obliged to lift or significantly ameliorate the embargo, which it never did, demonstrated with sources, therefore = Israeli ceasefire violations, also properly sourced. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear always to use WP:DUE to remove anything outlining criticism of Israela, and it is an abuse, and also a violation of WP:NPOV, since ther lead as you edited it was strongly biased towards the Israeli version of the blockade. Your 'due' is undue. A generalization has been made, and sources have been given that cover the 2008,2012, and 2014 breaches, satisfying your concerns. There is no need to go beyond that.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

2) Palestinian Authority support of the blockade Deliberate misleading editing in the first sentence which implies that Abbas supported both the Egyptian and Israel blockades. This is nonsense as can be confirmed by the offered sources. He gave support only for Egyptian actions without approving the Israeli embargo. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC) There is a nonsensical first phrase in the third paragraph; will remove it. The second part is a cherry-pick of the source - will correct it. Erictheenquirer (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Blockade of the Gaza Strip
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Blockade of the Gaza Strip's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nathanthrall": <li>From 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers: Nathan Thrall, "Hamas’s Chances", London Review of Books Vol. 36 No 16 • 21 August 2014 (1 August) pp. 10–12</li> <li>From 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2018
With regards to describing Hamas, in the lead, it should be noted that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, The US, and the EU. The first time Hamas is mentioned it should change from “Hamas...” to “Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, The United States, and The European Union,...” Ajackson12 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A version of this is already in the article. The first mention of Hamas in the body of the article (in the Background section) does include the phrase "Hamas (which is regarded by several countries as a terrorist organisation)". Further detail is provided in the Hamas article itself. I don't see a need to move it to the first mention in the lead section, which is already plenty long enough (probably too long, in my opinion). &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fiscal blockade and economic sanctions section
Should the current "fiscal blockade" of Gaza and the ongoing economic sanctions imposed on actors within Gaza go in this article, another existing article, or in their own article? There is an article for the 2006–07 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority, but nothing that I know of for sanctions imposed since then.

I previously added the following paragraph about the fiscal blockade to the article, but it was removed for being "not in the scope of this article":
 * Israel has used its control of Gaza's currency—the New Israeli Shekel is the primary currency used in Gaza —as part of the blockade. Israel has refused to convert Gazan currency to and from shekels, dinars, and dollars, procrastinated in replenishing damaged currency stocks, and targeted Gazan foreign exchange shops by designating them terrorist organizations, confiscating their assets, and raiding or bombing them. These measures form a fiscal blockade that has prevented foreign direct investment (FDI) and imports of medicine and other goods from entering Gaza, halved the liquid money supply (causing deflation), and cost the Gazan economy $500 million per year according to the Gazan head of the Palestine Monetary Authority, thereby contributing to Gaza's sharp declines in GDP and employment., ₪400 million held by foreign exchange firms have been prevented from entering the Gazan economy. Israel's stated reason for these measures targeting foreign exchange has been to prevent terrorist financing and deny funding to Hamas.

Per a suggestion from to use English-language sources, here are some more sources about the fiscal blockade—a news article, a State Department cable, and IMF and World Bank reports:

There are also ongoing economic sanctions targeting actors in Gaza, such as these 2015 U.S. sanctions, these 2017 PA sanctions, and these 2018 Israeli sanctions. These have been covered by reliable sources; the links in the previous sentence are to a U.S. Treasury press release, a Reuters article, and a Haaretz article. There are scattered references to some of these sanctions across other articles, but I think there should be a centralized place for all of them, just as there is a single article for the 2006-2007 sanctions. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! --Chumash11 (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

nav boxes
The article as presently construed - version - has 3 long nav boxes running down the right side. At least one navbox - is a recent addition from 14 April. I'm sure there is some WP:MOS guideline against this - but perhaps we can resort to common sense? Articles are supposed to be, umm, articles. Not a random collection of navboxes.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

gaza wall protests on n off, what agreement with israel?
www.google.com/search?q=gaza+protests+border&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi71MPkqovmAhVSJzQIHSOSBsoQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1366&bih=586

where is website just to monitor how many palestinians were killed at the border?

www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.99.96 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am afraid there isn't any, at least not on Wikipedia. The closest is Mass civilian casualties of Israeli bombing, shelling and rocket attacks on the Gaza Strip, and some people work very hard to have that article deleted: Articles for deletion/Mass civilian casualties of Israeli bombing, shelling and rocket attacks on the Gaza Strip, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2018–19 Gaza border protests needs updating.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)