Talk:Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war

Many more sources available

 * https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-06/after-six-months-of-war-israels-isolation-grows-with-no-end-in-sight
 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israels-war-in-gaza-is-creating-enormous-hidden-health-problems/
 * https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/gaza-israel-invisible-environmental-war/article67576383.ece
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/israel-war-destruction-gaza-record-pace/
 * https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/03/06/the-un-is-investigating-the-environmental-impact-of-the-war-in-gaza-heres-what-it-says-so-
 * https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/israel-hamas-war-bodies-rotting-dangerous-chemicals-environmental-hazards-gaza-strip-13276482.html
 * https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/reminder-israel-and-gaza-importance-and-limitations-environmental-peacebuilding
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/sanammahoozi/2024/01/04/the-environmental-toll-in-gaza-will-endanger-residents-long-after-wars-end/
 * https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/03/06/the-un-is-investigating-the-environmental-impact-of-the-war-in-gaza-heres-what-it-says-so-
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2023/12/14/how-much-environmental-damage-is-israels-war-on-gaza-causing
 * https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/gaza-israel-war-hamas-carbon-emissions-climate-damage/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change
 * https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2023/12/06/how-gaza-has-become-a-critical-issue-for-climate-activism-no-climate-justice-without-peace/
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/5/is-israels-war-on-gaza-also-hurting-the-climate
 * https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1149126

John Cummings (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/gaza-israel-agriculture-food-fisheries/ Levivich (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Israeli/ IDF POV
John Cummings, could you mention the Israeli/ IDF POV in the article, as the Guardian article does? I can't see any mention of it at present. The DYK reviewer will need to check that the article has a NPOV. TSventon (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, I added a sentence. John Cummings (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cost
In case it's useful, the World Bank has that up to the end of January the conflict had caused more than US$400 million worth of damage to Gaza's environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggested rename
I propose this be renamed to Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war. There's no need to say "in the Gaza Strip" in the title; that's where the war is, so it's obvious that's where the damage is. Also, this would be more in line with other existing titles such as
 * Environmental impact of war
 * Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea
 * Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * Environmental impact of the Vietnam War
 * Environmental impact of the Gulf wars
 * Environmental impact of the Second Chechen War (redirect)
 * Environmental impact of the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (redirect)

RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree the proposal makes sense. Bruxton (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. See also the related discussion at WT:DYK RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree and I think there should be a WP:RM so we can attract more community input.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an "RM BEFORE" source analysis is called for to see what scopes/titles are supported by RSes. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vice regent you are certainly welcome to open a RM discussion if you wish. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is a better title Zanahary (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

POV tag
The lede is misleading and biased to say the least. What Egyptian-Israeli blockade during the current war? Whose bombing is it? Israeli-cited study claiming there is too much food entering the Gaza Strip? Israel blaming Hamas for the famine despite international condemnation of its starvation policy? Why pollution of Israeli beaches rather than the destruction a third of the strip's green cover? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss much of the content you are concerned about was added here on 26 May. TSventon (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, explains, since it is impossible than no one challenged this framing before. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There was strong consensus to move away from the current title, which included the word 'damage'. There was rough consensus to move to the proposed title with the word 'impact'. Supporters focused on consistency with other articles, and noted it was more concise, kept the scope open and believed it was more neutral. There was some opposition to moving to the proposed title, not because those editors liked the current title, but wanted the word 'ecocide' or a reference to the invasion of Gaza. There were concerns from other editors that these alternatives were not neutral.

Thanks to everyone for contributing, (non-admin closure) Tom B (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Environmental damage caused by the Israel–Hamas war → Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war – As noted in above, there is well-established precedent for naming these types of articles Environmental impact of .... This is a more neutral description than Environmental damage of ..., as required by WP:NDESC. @Vice regent @Amakuru @Launchballer @Bruxton @Schwede66 @Lightburst @SafariScribe all of whom were involved in previous discussons of this topic. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as article titles should be neutral.
 *  Schwede 66  16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing non-neutral about using the word "damage".VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support more definitive. Per move rationale. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I checked our article. I see that 8 of the 21 sources in our article say mention that Israel caused the environmental damage in their titles. The others say things in their text like: "Due to the Israeli occupation, all aspects of life and the environment in Gaza have been heavily damaged".
 * 1) "No Traces of Life, Israel's Ecocide", "Israeli attacks have decimated 70 percent of northern Gaza's water wells"
 * 2) "Ecocide in Gaza: The environmental impact of Israel's war"
 * 3) "Report: Deliberate Ecocide a Key Element of Israel's Genocidal Campaign in Gaza"
 * 4) "The staggering carbon footprint of Israel's war in Gaza"
 * 5) "'Ecocide in Gaza': does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?".
 * 6)  "Ecocide in Gaza: Who will hear and heal its dying environment?"
 * 7) "Widespread destruction in Gaza puts concept of 'domicide' in focus". (Domicide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a living environment)
 * 8) "Gaza : Israël accusée de commettre un écocide environnemental"
 * I note that we have no issue with saying Russia caused environmental damage in these articles,
 * Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea
 * Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * But we are more cautious with a title about causation involving the United States
 * Environmental impact of the Vietnam War
 * Environmental impact of the Gulf wars.
 * So after saying all of that, the suggested title change works if we want to mirror the way we treat the United States in our article titles about the impact of their actions. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * based on the above, would you be ok with the "Gaza ecocide" as a title? All the sources you cited above have "ecocide" (or "domicide") in their title.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see it as an editorial choice and it feels like charged language. I think we should call out who destroyed the environment in Gaza the same way we do with the Russia hooks. Something like Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or to Levivich's point Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip is probably more accurate. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide, which is what I think this is called by RS. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think "impact" is less neutral than "damage." "Impact" strikes me as whitewashing... an "impact" can be positive, but this is definitely not positive. The impact on the environment is that the environment is damaged. Also, in other wars, say WWI or WWII, the environmental damage is caused by both sides in the war. Here, not so. So "caused by the Israel-Hamas war" or "of the Israel-Hamas war" again strikes me as whitewashing. Further, in other wars, the environmental damage caused by a belligerent is typically a side-effect of, e.g. bombing stuff. But here, not so: in this case, we're talking about a belligerent doing things like bringing in bulldozers to bulldoze agriculture. This isn't just damage caused by bombs, it's the intentional destruction of agriculture/ecosystem/environment. In other words, it's ecocide. Finally, all the environmental damage, AFAIK, is in Gaza, not in Israel, not anywhere else. So, "Gaza ecocide." In addition to being WP:CONCISE, it's also the most WP:PRECISE title even if it weren't the WP:COMMONNAME (although I think a source analysis would reveal it's the common name). Levivich (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose in favor of Gaza ecocide. Other acceptable alternatives are Environmental impact/ damage of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip or Environmental impact/ damage on the Gaza Strip of the Israel–Hamas war. The current article exclusively discusses the environmental impact on the Gaza Strip, and not the environmental impact anywhere else. Naming the article what its content is not about is a violation of WP:COATRACK. The topic of environmental impact in Gaza is a topic that is notable alone in its own right, so there's no reason it needs to be lumped with other topics.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Passive voice: using the word 'damage' is putting the description into the passive voice, which is a common problem with many sources in the conflict and misleading. I'd suggest the other articles which use this word suffer from this same passive voice issue, also I'd note that passive voice and being neutral are not the same thing.
 * Alternatives: I suggest the current title isn't great because it doesn't say where the damage is happening making it confusing for the reader. I would agree with and others above that Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip would be most accurate, I'd also suggest Environmental destruction caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip since the damage is so severe, it describes the what, where and why of the situation.
 * Ecocide: I understand the idea behind the use of the word ecocide (being the person who wrote most of the ecocide article), however I want to point out that ecocide is mostly legal definition, e.g the International Criminal Court has a crime specifically for ecocide during war, also the EU, Ukraine and a few others have it as a national crime. I would also suggest using a technical term like ecocide will make the article harder to find but I appreciate the editor who made the redirect for it.
 * Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency and neutrality, with impact allowing for changes which are not unambiguously damaging to be included. Strongest possible opposition to any use of Gaza Ecocide as a highly NPOV title not sufficiently supported by RS. FortunateSons (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the rest of the title is fine, strongest possible opposition to moving it to invasion, it should focus on the larger scope and not be merely restricted to the invasion of Gaza. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support, "impact" is a broader concept than "damage", which is again broader than "ecocide". It makes sense given this is a developing real-world topic as well as a developing short article to keep this as a broad topic, and to spin out new items when and if that will aid the understanding of the reader. CMD (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * would you be also open to the title of Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip? VR (Please ping on reply) 05:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vice regent seems a bit POV to me 48JCL 12:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @48JCL can you explain? We have the article Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023-present), so why would it be POV to have Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
 * After all, we also have Environmental impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Environmental impact of the Russian occupation of Crimea, which correspond to Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian occupation of Crimea.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war – this is the title in the format of other similar articles. --Gruznov (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as a more standard, definitive, concise and not-unnecessarily-scope-limiting title. Zanahary (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: relisting after a discussion with at User_talk:Robertsky.  – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As a follow up on that, I want to summarize my points here.
 * There's no reason to presume the word "damage" is inherently non-neutral. Featured articles use the word "damage" in wikipedia's voice to refer to environmental damage caused by human activity (eg construction of the Rampart Dam "would cause critical damage to Alaska waterfowl"). We also have List of damaged cultural sites during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, List of works by Banksy that have been damaged or destroyed etc.
 * The parent article for this article is not Israel-Hamas war but Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present). As such it should be titled "Environmental damage caused by the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip" or some similar variant.
 * The reason for the parent article is this article doesn't consider any of the environmental damage caused by the October 7 attacks (which is an integral part of the Israel-Hamas war). Even if in the future we wanted to create a single article to encompass all environmental damage caused by Israel-Hamas war, the environmental destruction of Gaza is so, so notable, it would justify a WP:STANDALONE article. Not only does it pass WP:GNG but the enormous scale of it also has enduring significance.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Environmental impact of the Israel-Hamas war, since most other similar articles on the impacts of wars use this phrasing. Oppose Gaza ecocide because Israel has not been convicted of ecocide and calling this ecocide would be inserting bias. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * would you support or oppose "Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip" as a more WP:PRECISE title given this article is only about the Gaza Strip and not what happened elsewhere. The parent article would be Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present).VR (Please ping on reply) 17:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, although the title I supported in the above comment would be my first choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per above. xq 00:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, supporting either Gaza ecocide or Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as more descriptive terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support some sort of move. The current title is rather euphemistic at this point – it reads like the environmental impact at work here is mild and of the academic variety, like an increase in groundwater acidity, or a decrease in the diversity of nematodes. What we are actually talking about is Ecocide and urbacide in the bombing and invasion of the Gaza Strip. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 would Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza be acceptable to you, though perhaps not ideal?VR (Please ping on reply) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Anything is an improvement. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is reasonably neutral, not really a WP:POVNAME, but "impact" is more WP:CONCISE, consistent, and encyclopedic. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources also are likely to discuss impacts and results without specifying them as “damage”—limiting this article’s scope like this will only lead to problematic editorial decisions and disputes, and in any case there’s no reason to do it. Impact is better. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 23:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

nobody has commented here in two weeks. Could you re-close this? RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @RoySmith would you be also open to the title of Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip? That would be WP:CONSISTENT with the other articles you mentioned. It would have a narrower scope, which is appropriate in this case, as this article is absolutely not about other theatres of the Israel-Hamas war (like the October 7 attacks, or the Israel-Hezbollah conflict). Whether that title includes "2023-present" should depend on the outcome of this RM. There is a strong case to be made that the Environmental impact of the Israeli invasion alone is so historically significant that it deserves a stand-alone article.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My main point when I proposed this was that it should start with "Environmental impact of...", so I'm OK with your suggestion. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm totally neutral on what comes after the "...". If somebody were to propose "Environmental impact of something VR did not like", I'd probably be OK with that too. RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Logical consistency with other articles. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

White Phosphorus
The paragraph about WP cites 2 sources - the first one does reference any environmental damage, the 2nd one does not even mention Gaza. Combining these two sources to make a claim which neither source makes - that the use of WP on Gaza has created an environment impact is textbook WP:SYNTH (Not to mention that the edit restored by User:Richard Nevell includes the sentence "This chemical weapon.'." which  is explictly contradicted by the very sources uses, both of which say "WP is NOT a chemical weapon" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This source links white phosphorus to environmental damage. As for the description of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, I suggest changing the wording from This chemical weapon causes an environmental catastrophe at the level of the basic elements of the environment to It causes an environmental catastrophe at the level of the basic elements of the environment. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was not the source in the article, but if you want to add. it, go ahead, attributing it to a claim by the law professor who claimed this, and using similar terminology to what he used, i,e "can have a long term impact" or "could be devastating", rather than stating this as fact.
 * If you want to claim 'an environmental catastrophe' - you need to find a source that says that, and hopefully something that explains what "at the level of the basic elements of the environment" means. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Does famine belong?
The famine section has some issues, e.g. the Gaza Strip is experiencing famine is attributed to two opinion pieces, with no attribution.

But taking a step back, is there even a clear connection established by reliable sources? The article says famine is due to destruction of agricultural land, but I don't see that in the current sources. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Food and Agriculture Organization has definitely drawn a connection between food access and the destruction of agricultural land. See this France24 article from earlier this month: Across Gaza, 57 percent of agricultural land has been damaged since the war began, according to a joint assessment published in June by the UN's agriculture and satellite imagery agencies, FAO and UNOSAT. The damage threatens Gaza's food sovereignty, Matieu Henry of the Food and Agriculture Organization told AFP, because 30 percent of the Palestinian territory's food consumption comes from agricultural land. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)