Talk:Israeli disengagement from Gaza

Untitled
Archive 1: April 2005 - October 2006

Warnings about the consequesnes of the Disengagement
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/319985/jewish/Gaza-

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2024
Please revise the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph to include important context on settler relocation. This fact is verifiable using the attached reference under ISBN 9781139493963.

Eight thousand Jewish settlers from the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip were relocated, receiving an average of USD $200,000 in compensation per family.

Also, please note there exists some typo of "thi" in the very first words of the article. ARationalPerson (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Good day—  RetroCosmos  talk 11:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Viceglass
https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART/793/162.html

Sharon Office: "In the absence of a Palestinian partner, the government initiated the disengagement plan in order to strengthen Israel's political position, improve its ability to protect its citizens and ease the suffering of the civilian population until such time as a Palestinian partner is found who will fulfill all the obligations of the road map and with whom it will be possible to conduct political negotiations and move forward Bye." Visgels: "The quote in 'Haaretz' is only partial. It is the first half of a sentence. All that is said is that in the period we are in, with a disbanded Palestinian Authority, with murderous Palestinian terrorism, there is not and will not be a political process that could, God forbid, lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on anarchy". 2.55.172.13 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Greenhouses
Suggest including a reference to the further looting that occurred in early 2006, perhaps after the sentence that starts "In early 2006", with citation https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/2/13/looters-steal-gaza-greenhouses Alkflaeda (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Gisha quote
A quote was recently replaced with what should be a summary of the contents of the quote. Instead it changed the substance of what Gisha has stated. Here is the original quote:

The text now reads:

Note that the original text states that Israeli approval is required to open the Gaza Egypt crossing, but it has been changed to "due to the Gaza-Egypt crossing" in the new text. DMH223344 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for paraphrasing the quote, rather than directly copy/pasting a large quote block per WP:QUOTEFARM? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Gaza Strip, residents face restrictions imposed by Israel on various aspects of daily life. The Israeli human rights organization Gisha lists various examples of actions requiring Israeli permission or approval in the year following the disengagement. These restrictions include the need for Israeli permission to import basic necessities like milk, host foreign lecturers at universities, and register children in the Palestinian population registry. Additionally, fishermen must obtain permission to fish off Gaza's coast, and nonprofits need approval to receive tax-exempt donations. Financial transactions such as the transfer of salaries to teachers are also controlled by Israel, which affects the payment of salaries by the Palestinian Ministry of Education. Moreover, farmers require authorization to export agricultural products, and students wishing to study abroad depend on Israel's approval for the opening of the Gaza-Egypt crossing. DMH223344 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, looks good 👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many or most of these restrictions were not in place prior to the blockade, which is a separate event. Drsruli (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is coming directly from Gisha who is describing the year following the disengagement. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the blockade beginning in 2007, without being very precise, one might include that year. (It’s close.) Drsruli (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not tied to the 2007 blockade. Israel has imposed restrictions on Gaza for much longer than 2007. DMH223344 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The restrictions mentioned seem to pertain to the blockade. (Even if some of them were at times in effect prior.) All or most of the restrictions mentioned relate to trans-Gaza interactions. Some of them would not seem to be applicable during the Israeli occupation. Drsruli (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Following Manual of Style
@DMH223344

There were some style issues in your recent edit to the Background that I fixed. I would recommend reviewing the following MOS policies/guidelines:

WP:WIKIVOICE - which says to avoid stating opinions as facts. For example, the bold part in this sentence is an opinion: "Persistent attacks by Hamas on Israeli settlers and soldiers increased the costs of maintaining a presence in Gaza, making it unsustainable."

WP:INTEXT - gives examples on how to attribute

MOS:QUOTEPOV - "demographic time bomb" needs attribution

and MOS:CLAIM - "claim" should be avoided, instead use "said" "states" etc. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral
It would seem that characterization as “unilateral”, is not technically correct. The disengagement had been formally agreed to, in general term, years previously. Both sides agreed to the disengagement, and whatever authority was there to cooperate with Israel in the matter, did so to the best of their ability. The people of Gaza and their representatives supported the action. Arab sources made no requests for Israel to reconsider and remain. Of course it was done, and done at that time, to serve Israel self-interests. Drsruli (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Cuyckens
A person named Hanna Cuyckens is cited five times in the article. She is an academic specializing in international law. Given that she has a fringe minority view on the definition of occupation, why is she being cited? Wouldn't that give WP:UNDUE weight to her view? More generally, she's only ever referenced in the main body text by her last name, without any introduction whatsoever. Does she belong in this article? JasonMacker (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a good point, it would be worth looking into more closely. Of course the Israeli state makes similar arguments and I'm sure we can find plenty similar arguments in Israeli academia. It would be good to figure out what the shared main arguments are rather than just throwing around the name of a single academic. DMH223344 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I found this source from Rubin that is based on Israeli law. It says “In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister the Court assumed that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip had ended with the disengagement…  It is the conclusion of this Article that regardless of the terms imposed by Israel after disengagement and other reservations that have been raised in this regard, occupation ended following the complete withdrawal of any Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip.”
 * Based on what I have read so far, I agree that it seems the view that Gaza was not occupied in the years after disengagement is a minority view in academia and internationally, but it is not fringe. In the lead, it does say that “many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.” I tried to add some more emphasis that this is the majority view in the academic realm in the lead based on the existing source in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
The word 'left' is used twice in first sentence of the third paragraph in the introduction. Sivir21 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I fixed it! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)