This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page:
.ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request
You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
Re this reversion: Currently this is all we're saying about Hamas' motivations for starting the war, unless I missed more somewhere else in the article:
As a general point, a lot more could be said about this subject, although I accept that this is a long article. The quote from Haniyeh that I added (taken from the Guardian article we're citing) was a good addition in that regard, it tells the reader something about their outlook and war aims, in their own words. More contentiously: were the attacks a response to the post-1967 occupations of Gaza and the West Bank, which is what we're saying now (we're linking to Israeli-occupied territories in the sentence above) or to Israel's general existence? Look at the sources we're citing. The Al Jazeera source says:
"Hamas said its unprecedented offensive by land, air and sea was in response to the desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque as well as Israeli atrocities against Palestinians over the decades. These include the 16-year blockade of Gaza, Israeli raids inside West Bank cities over the past year, increasing attacks by settlers on Palestinians as well as the growth of illegal settlements.
The Guardian source says, "Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group is dedicated to extinguishing the state of Israel and reclaiming all of historic Palestine using force against soldiers and civilians" and quotes the Haniyeh speech that I added. Here's the quote they use in full:
Our objective is clear: we want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners. We have no hesitation about this. This is the goal that is worthy of this battle, worthy of this heroism, worthy of this courage,” he said in a speech.
To “the enemy”, he concluded: “We have only one thing to say to you: get out of our land. Get out of our sight. Get out of our city of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and our al-Aqsa mosque. We no longer wish to see you on this land. This land is ours, Al-Quds is ours, everything [here] is ours. You are strangers in this pure and blessed land. There is no place of safety for you.”
Finally, the AFP/Times of Israel source says:
In an interview with Al Jazeera, al-Arouri defined the large-scale assault launched by the terror group on Israel as an “open battle” aimed at achieving the liberation of the Palestinian people and their holy places, claiming it was a reaction to the alleged “desecration” by Jewish worshipers of the Al-Aqsa compound on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount over the holiday of Sukkot, and alleging that Israel planned to impose an unspecified “new reality” on Temple Mount after the holiday.
It also includes part of the same quote from Haniyeh. The fact that two of our sources include this passage argues for inclusion.
At the very least, the idea that Hamas said the attack was a response to the post-1967 occupation only isn't supported by the sources we're citing. None of them say anything about the 1967 borders, and the Guardian explicitly says that Hamas is opposed to Israel's existence in general. More broadly, Hamas has said ambiguous and contradictory things over the years about whether they'd be willing to accept a peace deal based on the 1967 borders. Maybe this isn't the place to get into that history, but it should be clear that they consider all of Israel to be occupied territory, not just the areas conquered in 1967. And this is exactly what Haniyeh said in that speech, if you read it in full:
How many times have we warned you about what you are committing and perpetrating in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1948 [today called Israel], and your attempts to isolate our people there? You have spread death, terror and targeted assassinations among our people there. All the operations to eliminate Palestinian figures, leaders and scholars; even women, children and ordinary citizens within the territories occupied in 1948, are an occupation policy, and one of the [unjust] actions of the Israeli security services.
...
That’s why I want to stress three things that must be made clear:
1. Operation Al-Aqsa Flood was launched from Gaza, but it will extend to the West Bank, to Al-Quds and to our people within the territories occupied in 1948, as well as to the Resistance and the Palestinian people abroad.
...
If we want to avoid getting into this issue in this article, we could adopt a phrasing like Al Jazeera does: "Hamas said the attack was a response to Israeli crimes against the Palestinians over the decades, including...". But I think the Haniyeh quote is a good addition, and linking to Israeli-occupied territories in this sentence is misleading. Hamas doesn't share Wikipedia's viewpoint on which parts of Israeli-controlled territory are "occupied." Prezbo (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No as Hamas is not a single unified voice. My issue is not that it didn't happen. But you are giving it too much weight. There were immediate triggers before the attack, and you are overstating that Hamas official reasoning of attack is to make Israel to no longer exist. Such strong declaration can not be pushed from a rhetoric from an individual but rather it has to be done in a formal legalistic manner. And Haniyeh's rhetoric does not phrase this as a formal policy statement like “we will abolish the state of Israel” and explicitly say this is why we attacked. He did not give a legalistic declaration that these attacks will continue unless Israel cease as a state. That would be synthesis unless sources explicitly state that.
Hamas demands were instead specific and involved immediate triggers and made smaller doable requests like release Palestinean prisoners, blockade relief and status quo at holy sites. They didn't officially ask Israel to abolish as a state and explicitly cite that as objective for the attack. Whole organisation statements for attacking Israel should stick to what reliable sources specify and not overstate.[1]
You have so many top Israeli gov officials, saying we should kill even women and children as no civillian is innocent in Gaza. Is that also the official stance of Israel just because a few top officials have said that? No. We stick carefully to due weight and sources for official entire organisation statements for the attack. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to rely on RS and the BBC article you linked says Hamas has described the attack as a response to what it says are decades of Israeli oppression, the killings of Palestinians and years-long blockade of the Gaza Strip. This is very similar to what @Prezbo suggested. Alaexis¿question?07:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis Not aware they are asking to add in the stuff in your green text quotes but if they did - I got no issues with that. However all of that is already in the chapter and am pretty sure they didn't add that.
My issues is the background sections should summarise context rather than include extended primary-source rhetoric. An insertion of a lengthy, emotive quotation from a single individual gives disproportionate weight to one statement, is also mostly redundant when much of the speech is already well summarised directly above, and it shifts the framing of section from being a neutral background synthesis to being more a rhetorical presentation per WP: SUMMARY STYLE and WP: UNDUE. Also the issue with these emotional quotes is that they are designed to persuade or mobilise, not to neutrally explain a causation. If they're dropped into background sections, they can start appearing like analysis even though they aren't.
So I oppose the editorialising here that they had tried to insert and got reverted - [2] in which they selectively cherrypick and insert to background - only a long informal emotional quotes from only one side in a way that implies as proper explanatory weight of their operation.
This quote seems to imply the attack was only all for one thing and only one thing and no other demands. That's misleading. It's redundant as we already mentioned they oppose Israeli presence in Palestine. But cherrypicking specific blurred phrases to set a tone like "get out of our lands" and "get out of our sight" and "There is no place or safety for you" ; are emotionally charged direct quotes unsuitable for background. Understand the obvious fact that they are clearly NOT documented, formal, organisation-wide policy statement. If Hamas officially say all Israelis have no place to go to, and that they need to not only vacate Gaza and west bank but also Israel too and that this attack is explicitly for that - then I assure you it will be very formal and clear and media would be talking EXPLICITLY on such a demand. That has NOT HAPPENED. So know why such individual rhetoric shouldn't be used to infer or define any operational objective absent an actual reliable secondary-source analysis, let alone have mega space on a background section.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the phrasing in green that gets rid of the piped link to Israeli-occupied territories. I don't have the stamina for an extended debate over the Haniyeh quote so I'll accept whatever other editors want on that. Prezbo (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jared, though I oppose the phrasing in the quote as it is a truncated and less accurate version of what is already in the article. It excludes the reference to the al-Aqsa Mosque, which was the name of the operation. Since your complaint appears to be with the link to the Israeli occupation article, the same BBC source references that explicitly: Hamas has also said the attack was a reaction to what it claims are Israeli efforts to take over the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem - Islam's third holiest site. Hamas also wants the release of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons.
The year leading up to the attack was also the deadliest in the occupation of the West Bank, since the UN began recording data in 2005. By the end of the year at least 505 Palestinians had been killed there, mostly by Israeli soldiers and settlers. In the same year, 30 Israelis were also killed in the West Bank.
All Palestinian factions and parties oppose Israel's presence in the West Bank, as well as occupied East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. They want the land to be part of a future independent state, something backed by the vast majority of the international community. (Emphasis mine.)
Israel's occupation of the land and settlements it has built there is illegal under international law. However, Israel's current government does not recognise the right of the Palestinians to have their own state, arguing that it would be a security threat. It also claims a historical right to the West Bank.
A plurality of RS show that Hamas opposes the Israeli occupation (which includes Gaza, also considered occupied territory under international law), and this was a central part of the motivation for the attack. There's no reason to introduce any doubt about that because of a subjective reading of Hamas' position on the 1967 borders, which is contested by many scholars and RS, including Hamas recently once again reiterating that it will lay down its arms and accept a state on the 1967 borders. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AP article you link to says that "Over the years, Hamas has sometimes moderated its public position with respect to the possibility of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But its political program still officially “rejects any alternative to the full liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea” — referring to the area reaching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which includes lands that now make up Israel." I'm unconvinced that a plurality of RS show that Hamas opposes the occupation of West Bank and Gaza but not Israel's existence. Their position is ambiguous. Prezbo (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says Speaking to the AP in Istanbul, Al-Hayya said Hamas wants to join the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by the rival Fatah faction, to form a unified government for Gaza and the West Bank. He said Hamas would accept “a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance with the international resolutions,” along Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
@Anythingyouwant I reverted some of your changes. It was not organized correctly. The lede is already big enough and should be a brief summary of the body. I suggest you remove or integrate your addition as briefly as possible into the existing lede. 🐈Cinaroot02:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By September 2025, Israel had killed thousands of Hamas soldiers, plus its senior military command, destroyed much of its arsenal and tunnel network, while killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, reducing cities to rubble, and disrupting access to food, water and electricity for the two million Gazans, but Hamas refused to surrender
Lot of it is redundant. Id support adding - Israel had killed thousands of Hamas soldiers to second para.
Here is a diff showing my edits today to the article. Keep in mind that there's a separate Wikipedia article titled Gaza genocide, that article's lead shouldn't and doesn't discuss the war between Israel and Hamas much, and the lead of this article shouldn't talk about genocide much. That's one reason why I moved down one of the two sentences about genocide in the lead. Another reason was to make room for updates about the war. I included two very brief updates, one for September 2025, and one for April 2026, both sourced to articles in the New York Times. This is very basic stuff: the degree to which Israel has degraded Hamas, and the reaction of Hamas to Israeli demands. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide is a big part of Gaza war. That's why its placed in first para. It should not be moved anywhere else. The sentence you moved is the most critical piece that has been part of the lead for a long time - recently updated. Someone added A number of states have characterized Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide recently. That may be removed.
... plus its senior military command, destroyed much of its arsenal and tunnel network, while killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, reducing cities to rubble, and disrupting access to food, water and electricity This is all repetitive info - that’s already covered in the lede in some fashion. 🐈Cinaroot04:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the info. Per Cinaroot's comment ("That may be removed"), I instead shortened the other genocide sentence in the opening paragraph. Also, I drastically shortened the stuff that Cinaroot reverted about the current state of the war, because the two cited NYT articles are quite informative and provide the kind of overview that one would expect in an opening paragraph about a war. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your changes to the first paragraph. These are written with much discussion - which you may not change unilaterally. 🐈Cinaroot05:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a diff of my first set of edits above. Here's a diff of my second (and final) set of edits. As you can see, I followed your own advice about which genocide sentence to edit. Moreover, I complied with your objection that the stuff added in my first set of edits was too lengthy. The idea that I've edited this article unilaterally is thus incorrect. But now that I've made one edit, and then amended it in response to your criticism, and then been criticized for doing so, it does appear this is yet another Wikipedia article whose owners don't want to give the basic facts in the opening paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ok - with Despite setbacks, Hamas has refused to surrender... being in second para. I think it fits better there 🐈Cinaroot05:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to a very brief status update on the war: "Despite setbacks, Hamas has refused to surrender, and as of April 2026, Hamas continued to resist demands for full disarmament and demilitarization of Gaza." I'd much prefer it at the end of the first paragraph. Wikipedia policy is that the opening paragraph "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." A brief sentence like this explains why the war is still happening, which is (IMHO) essential. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph discusses the war - that's why I think it fits better in the second paragraph. It’s weird to discuss Hamas’s refusal to surrender after genocide text. 🐈Cinaroot05:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the first paragraph, it makes a good segue into the second paragraph. Moreover, here's a diff from before I edited the article until now, you can see we've agreed to shorten the genocide stuff in the first paragraph. Since the genocide text is shorter now, it's easier to add a sentence that addresses why the war is happening. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By September 2025, Israel had killed thousands of Hamas soldiers, plus its senior military command, destroyed much of its arsenal and tunnel network, while killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, reducing cities to rubble, and disrupting access to food, water and electricity for the two million Gazans, but Hamas refused to surrender
Suppose we add this sentence at the end of the opening paragraph: "Despite setbacks, Hamas has refused to surrender, and as of April 2026, Hamas continued to resist demands for full disarmament and demilitarization of Gaza." If we do that, then let's delete the sentence that begins with "By September 2025". OK? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait for someone else opinion. "By September 2025...." this info is already covered in lede. Its redundant. 🐈Cinaroot05:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the sentence that I've asked to be at the end of the lead, where else in the lead is there any discussion of surrender, or any discussion of destruction of tunnels, or destruction of much of the Hamas arsenal? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
whats repetitive is plus its senior military command -> They have assassinated Hamas leaders inside and outside of Gaza.
while killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, reducing cities to rubble, and disrupting access to food, water and electricity for the two million Gazans this is covered in 4th para 🐈Cinaroot06:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your cooperation. You don't have to change, lol, if you don't agree. One last thing plus its senior military command - we already have "They have assassinated Hamas leaders inside and outside of Gaza" 🐈Cinaroot06:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a significant difference between assassinating a couple of leaders versus killing a senior military command. I'm disappointed that you're still opposed to moving the sentence we discussed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have not established sufficient context in the first paragraph before saying Despite setbacks, Hamas has refused to surrender what setbacks... ?
Now in the second paragraph - those contexts exist (Hamas leaders killed, Hamas soldiers killed etc... )
Second paragraph - we discuss the war and Hamas. Third paragraph about the humanitarian crisis, effects of the war in Gaza and so on. Paragraphs are organized by some theme. I don't support messing that up. 🐈Cinaroot06:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning in the lead that Hamas has suffered setbacks but has refused to surrender is a summary. It tells the reader that if they keep on reading they'll learn more about the setbacks. It gives the reader the gist of the situation, i.e. that Israel has had enough military success to raise the question of why Hamas doesn't surrender. This big picture stuff is what an opening paragraph is supposed to do. As it stands, the opening paragraph emphasizes the very unfortunate civilian deaths (which is fine to do) without saying anything about Israeli successes in the war. That is not NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See, I’m not trying to hide the things you added. Israel’s success in war - as you put it - is now added in the second paragraph. The lede has really good visibility - even in the second paragraph. I’m sorry these have nothing to do with NPOV. 🐈Cinaroot06:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant It's actually ridiculous to oversimplify a pov as if the responsibility of continuing the war is heavily all on just one party alone. Saying Hamas "refuse" to surrender as if it leaves Israel no choice but to continue on killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, reducing cities to rubble, and disrupting access to food etc. Why not also say Israel refused to surrender and put the onus on them for not ending the war? It is against NPOV to suggest that one side should surrender but they won't and hence the war continues. You can similarly say the same thing about Israel that despite international condemnation of war-crimes and declining support, Israel refused to end the war and continue bombing. We don't do that as it's not up to us to frame which side should be surrendering or withdraw from the war. Stable version prior was much better. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good points. There is no obligation for Hamas to surrender. That word should be struck down. Both Israel and Hamas are defending. Hamas was the initial aggressor. Then Israel became the aggressor (because of disproportionate response). So yah - its not NPOV to say Hamas refused to surrender. 🐈Cinaroot07:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Israel is committing genocide is virtually the same as saying they should stop their war and their leaders should be put in jail. Have I objected to that in the opening paragraph of the lead? No. I have said you ought to balance it out per reliable sources like the NYT. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's for readers to decide. What we don't do is assign responsibility for the continuation of the war to one party in wikivoice. Similarly we don't say "Israel refused to end the war" despite accusation of genocide. And there's nothing factually wrong about that statement but the issue is a tone and framing problem. Such wording implies that one side is solely responsible for the war continuing, which is not neutral. The same standard would apply to any party - for example, stating that Hamas "refuses to surrender" and is why war continues because of them - would be equally inappropriate.
The lede should instead describe developments factually, such as stalled negotiations or rejected proposals, without adding evaluative language. The stable previous and current version already follows this approach.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well this article says Hamas started the war on October 7, 2023. That's perfectly appropriate to say. And it's perfectly appropriate to say Israel is willing to stop the war if Hamas surrenders, which they have declined to do despite serious setbacks. Facts are facts. They also decline to disarm, and decline to demilitarize, despite those setbacks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It did not begin in a vacuum. In the months before the attack, Israel was doing massive raids and killing record number of Palestinians in West bank. Their right wing gov wasn't doing much to prevent the rise in settler violence that was killing hundreds of civillians. When it comes to who is responsible for the war, most scholars do not over-simplify as if it all hinges on one side alone. Similarly you won't get the world to agree with you that the war not ending is entirely on one side alone especially when Israel has committed a disproportionate attack on civillians and people are not willing to let that go either. So no, you will need strong consensus to assign prime responsibility of the war continuing to one party alone. But you will not likely get that consensus nor support from me. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly simple. We have reliable sources that say Hamas has suffered devastating losses but won't give up, won't agree to demilitarizing the Gaza Strip, and won't disarm. See Rasgon, Adam. "Why Hamas Refuses to Give Up", New York Times (5 Sep 2025). See also Odenheimer, Natan and Rasgon, Adam. "Hamas Officials Say Group Is Ready to Hand Over Some Weapons", New York Times (19 Apr 2026). Amidst all the slamming of Israel in this article, that should be mentioned. I didn't say Hamas was wrong to start this war. And I didn't say it's wrong to refuse to surrender despite their enormous losses. What I did say is that those are essential facts of this war. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant We are not newspapers or tabloids. WP:NOTNP Again - the issue is not facts but assigning responsibility of the war continuing which is a tone issue. I too can also propose to say in lede that Israel has refused to surrender "despite" global views and support have plummeted for them and people protesting against them to stop.[3] I have many sources and it's all factual. But I don't do that even if it's straight facts, because it is editorialising - specifically, attributing intent and blame in Wikivoice to frame that one side is largely responsible for the war continuing. And your latest rationalisation; in claiming that because we slam Israel as we add that mainstream scholars had concluded them doing genocide - we now have to also "slam" the other side too by making them seem responsible for war not ending. That's not how we do things and is a WP: FALSEBALANCE. A fair majority of respectable scholars agree that Israel actions fits the genocide label but the mainstream consensus do not equally back that only Hamas alone deserves the bulk of responsibility for continuance of this war. In wikivoice, we cannot frame an impression that the war is continuing only because it's just one side alone that is refusing to surrender - and making the other have no choice but to continue. We don't claim either side is more responsible for war continuation esp when responsibility is disputed and subject to differing interpretations. I made it clear to you why I won't support your addition, and won't repeat again. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many people admire when a person facing difficult circumstances refuses to give up. Your subjective view that refusing to give up is blameworthy is just that: your subjective view. The objective facts are as stated in the NYT articles I cited, see Rasgon, Adam. "Why Hamas Refuses to Give Up", New York Times (5 Sep 2025). See also Odenheimer, Natan and Rasgon, Adam. "Hamas Officials Say Group Is Ready to Hand Over Some Weapons", New York Times (19 Apr 2026). Hamas has suffered severe military setbacks, but declines to surrender, to disarm, or to demilitarize. Those are simple critical facts that you personally think make Hamas look bad. I've made clear why I think your approach here is mistaken, and won't repeat it again. Take care. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. We both know it's not bravery here that's the issue but the framing of fools. You add in that Hamas refuses to surrender while framing them as if they have not much incentive to fight for. We all know only an unreasonable person will fight for too little as that's how you are framing them. Except that is dishonest over-simplified pov pushing as the real context is they objectively in fact have a lot of reasons to not submit to Israel's ridiculous demand to throw away all weaponry - as because if they submit to this then there's absolutely nothing to stop letting Israel annexing Gaza. They would prefer the old Status quo than accept total capitulation esp with unprecedented global opinions now supporting them.
If you had genuinely believed it's "admirable" for them to fight then in the body (not lede) - you should not over-simplify as if there is only cons and instead properly outline the many substantial pro points to show why they have morale justifying reasons to continue resisting occupation. That would at least be more "admirable".
Also read this source - [4] that argues that Israel is the one that is being unreasonable as they no longer need to fight as the key realistic strategic aim of disabling Hamas has been met yet are continuing for political reasons. And are not caring at all about the humanitarian costs despite there is no strategic or security imperative which justifies continuing military operations in Gaza and certainly not restricting the supply of much needed humanitarin aid. That analysis is fair and shows not everyone agrees with your narrow pov it's largely Hamas being the real fools and not ending this war. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be difficult to explain in this article that (1) Hamas has suffered severe military setbacks but declines to surrender, to disarm, or to demilitarize, and that (2) Israel has suffered international criticism and isolation for the civilian casualties caused by its conduct of the war but likewise declines to end the war before disarming its enemy. This is called NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant Simply just summarise that "negotiations have failed to reach a lasting resolution" in the lede. You can add the much finer details of their negotiations in the body. But stick to observable outcomes - neutral acceptable phrasing such as "rejected proposals", "stalled negotiation" and "ongoing hostilities" better reflects observable events. Hamas is obviously wanting an off ramp too but Israel asks too much. There are other factors like they are not willing to accept the others proposal or trust the other. But by just saying they "refuse to surrender', it just frames them as not wanting the war to end and that is potentially highly misleading. This is called interpretive motivation and there is a reason why it is best avoided on wiki. Even when applied symmetrically to both sides, this still introduces a flawed POV framing by suggesting the war continues primarily because each side merely "refuses" to stop, rather than just describing observable facts. You are a veteran editor so you should be already well familiar with this nuance that Wikipedia article-writing ideally avoids assigning broad motivational explanations in Wikivoice, even if they are argued elsewhere on flawed opinion pieces. I hope that is clear enough however am going to stop replying to clarify as don't want to be accused of Bludgeoning. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
characterization vs conclusion
The stable version of lede was
The administrations of Israel and several other countries, including the United States, reject that conclusion
i changed it toThe Israeli government and its supporters, including the United States, reject that conclusion
@Cinaroot This was already discussed in three threads above.[5] And they mean virtually the same thing. The only issue is that conclude implies states did an investigation and followed the conclusions. The US for example did not base their decision on any investigation but merely their admin decided to label it as not a genocide. Hence is bit misleading to say conclude - and why characterise is perfectly acceptable here. It just means to "label" an action and that's literally what states are doing here. They are characterising the actions as genocide despite the UN court has not reached final conclusion yet and they don't need to follow a conclusion of any investigation to officially label this now.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
UN court decisions have nothing to do with the many scholarly sources and international organizations that conclude or recognize Israel’s actions as genocide. Wikipedia, per a recent RFC, recognizes Israel’s actions as genocide. You are negating that by using the word “characterization.” So no, it is not the same thing. 🐈Cinaroot06:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinaroot Huh, I did not see the current revision. It has changed again. Previously on 30 April, the lede did not mention any country recognising the actions as genocide so I added it in.[6] When I added it, I made a separate sentence that wrote states characterised it as genocide with a link to the article for the countries recognising it as genocide. However the lede has changed again by now combining countries and scholars together in one sentence. I agree that many scholarly sources and international organizations conclude it as genocide. Tho I am not sure it's accurate to say "most countries" recognise it as genocide. There is no clear global count and most countries actually avoid making any legal conclusions and sit on the fence. I may need to research this more to be sure. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant changed it. It needs to be fixed. I can’t change it now because of 1RR. We have Gaza genocide recognition that lists the countries and their position.
I think you are right; most countries are silent on the matter. Someone should change it to the earlier version. 🐈Cinaroot07:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - I've reviewed it. More accurately a number of countries basically accuse of genocide and some also support legal proceedings related to genocide allegations, while Israel and supporters reject the allegations. So I've used "allege" for states as a neutral and fact-based term. For scholarly sources, I've retained "conclude"; and for opposing views - I've used - "reject the genocide classification".[7] The wording should now be sufficient but am open to suggested improvement if needed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that any image chosen is going to be controversial and probably have lengthy discussions on this talk page. Not that that's a reason not to change the image, of course. What pictures would you suggest to use instead? GnocchiFan (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a combination of images to satisfy both parties. 2-3 (destruction of buildings, human sufferings), 1-2 (Israel tankers or soldiers or something of that sort) 🐈Cinaroot09:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No rule saying controversial means not allowed. The point is due weight representation. A map provides geographic context, but it can not convey material / humanitarian impact that is central to how this conflict is described in RS.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the map. It's the most neutral image possible. There are already plenty of image combos further down the article. -- Veggies (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is that strong objection to my proposal? Yes. And you keep citing wars that have long since ended. When the Syrian civil war was in full swing, their infobox looked like this. These kinds of maps are especially useful for wars of maneuver where different factions control different zones, and less so for irregular guerilla warfare. -- Veggies (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that lone image of the map is the most NPOV option. It is so limited in terms of what it illustrates about the topic that it is tantamount to censorship. إيان (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most farcical argument I've heard, especially in light of all the pictures that the article has. No one is "censoring" anything. Stop acting so self-pitying. -- Veggies (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان I agree it kinda resembles a bit like censorship if people aren't allowed to add lede pics showing the war's destruction of Gaza. Visal lede pics tells a thousands words and are arguably more informative to average readers than a map. Those who argue that we must only stick to maps and claim they are "controversial", should remember that media around the world do not deny such pics. This war is relatively unprecedented in that there is no shortage of pics to use from Wikicommons today. Unless there's an actual policy that bans the use of available photos to show the destruction of the vicinity and weaponry used in this war, there's really no acceptable reason to withhold it now. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should have a few illustrative images. The first image should illustrate flattened Gaza, as this is one of the most prominent images. There should also be images illustrating the total blockade on food, electricity, fuel, etc. as another defining feature. إيان (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should have a few illustrative images. The article has many illustrative images. Have you tried actually reading past the first sentence? -- Veggies (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Context should make it clear to an attentive reader that what we are discussing here is a lede image/images for the infobox for this article. إيان (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Alaexis, @Cinaroot and @إيان. If the goal here is to present a representative set of infobox images for this conflict, then relying on a single map is clearly incomplete. At minimum, an image depicting the war destruction in Gaza City would help illustrate the urban and civilian impact that is central to the war's reality. A second image showing the blockade or its effects would be very important, given its widely covered major role in shaping humanitarian conditions and prominence in international discussion.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having only three such images would be an utter violation of NPOV as it doesn't show the impact of the war on Israel (destruction, deaths, hostages, evacuations). Alaexis¿question?11:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that NPOV means dutifully representing RS. It does not mean forcing parity where there is none. إيان (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map is best. [8] is also representative of the impact of the war on Israel, should that also be shown compared to Gaza? NadVolum (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly there is no parity here. If you want to talk about evacuation and impact of war (destruction) - then objectively you find the disproportionate bulk of that within Palestine and not in Israel's borders. In terms of due weight, the pics should prioritise the largest physical impact and the largest Humanitarian displacement from this war. And not to give any false parity as if to say both sides suffered at equal proportion. I suggest a collage of common-use pics that shows at least those two areas.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can have upto 7 pics if we follow this layout War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). I don't know if we need more work to support it technically.
If we have 7, I support 4 pictures of war destruction in Gaza, 2 of Israeli military operations, and 1 showing damage on the Israeli side. 🐈Cinaroot09:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See the weight given to October 7 attacks and to hostages by the NYT here. Also, why do you want to show 2 images of Israeli military rather than one image of Israeli military and one image of Hamas military? Alaexis¿question?13:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking at the weight given to Oct 7 attacks in this article. I’m looking at the images in this article. Oct 7 attacks are a very small part of the Gaza war article in terms of text related to Oct 7 attacks. Israeli military operations are a big part of the Gaza war (tanks, soldiers, etc.). 🐈Cinaroot15:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than blaming us - tell me what would you like to see? I think I made a fair proposal to depict one image showing Israel’s sufferings and two Israel military and 4 destruction in Gaza. The war is hugely asymmetrical. Do we even have pics of Hamas military or their military actions against Israel? All I have seen is missiles over Israel and thousands of Palestinians getting killed and Gaza destroyed. So yeah- the pics should represent reality and we should debate about if it’s due to represent Israel’s sufferings using more than one pic. 🐈Cinaroot19:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even have pics of Hamas military or their military actions against Israel? You mean like this? Yes, there's plenty. It didn't take much digging to find it, actually. -- Veggies (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still not hearing your proposed split for the pics. Looking at other wars with lede pictures - it should reflect key moments and actions. So I still stand by my proposal. 1 pic for Oct 7 attacks - 2 Israeli military tanks and IDF forces - 4 images of Gaza death and destruction.
I already said above: the war isn't over and will likely reignite soon. On top of that, given what I'm reading in this discussion, I don't see any agreement forming on even the ratio of images to use, much less what images to use. My proposal is: keep the map until the war actually ends, and then decide what pictures summarize the conflict. -- Veggies (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless - what has already happened cannot be changed. If war continues - more Palestinians will be killed and Gaza will continue to be destroyed... Pics we use on the article has no effect on the future of the war. It represents the Gaza war and can be changed - if something extraordinary did happen in the future. 🐈Cinaroot03:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis In terms of war damage, Palestine suffered at minimum ~ 30 to 40 times more casualties and way more property destroyed. So showing one pic of Israeli damage to four pics of Palestinian damage is actually overly generous to Israel tbh. Yet to compromise if the war infobox shows damage, I will support one pic of Israeli damage alongside 4 pics of Palestinian/Gaza damage. I also agree with @Cinaroot point on asymmetry that Israeli military is both far more diverse and larger than Hamas (10 times more personnel with far more machinery) so it justifies minimally two pics of Israeli forces to one pic of Hamas.
@Veggies The bulk of Gaza is already destroyed - What do you think can possibly happen further? The very few parts of Gaza left to be eroded? The difference in pattern is negligible. It's already a major historical development. And there's no rule or common practise saying wars need to be finished to have pics. Look at Afghanistan war before it ended - it had pics mostly of US military vs the Taliban. [9] Wiki should show the overview and flexible to major updates. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ping me for every comment you make. I know how a watchlist works. And there's no rule or common practise saying wars need to be finished to have pics. Where did I say there was such a rule? -- Veggies (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies You can't use videos in infobox when we use pics for all others. And if we can't find Hamas pics, then the war would still be summed up from the unprecedented historic damages. Majority of the war coverage is on Israel's military response that left civilian infrastructure decimated and sparked a severe humanitarian crisis/mass displacement. Infobox should sum that per WP:DUE. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use videos in infobox when we use pics for all others. I never proposed that we use a video. I was replying to another user's questions about whether any images of Hamas' military actions against Israel existed. And if we can't find Hamas pics, then the war would still be summed up from the unprecedented historic damages. Majority of the war coverage is on Israel's military response that left civilian infrastructure decimated and sparked a severe humanitarian crisis/mass displacement. Even in the Pacific War article, the infobox contains an image of the Pearl Harbor attack, even though that single event was miniscule in damages compared to the rest of the war. (And, interestingly, it also has zero images of the "civilian infrastructure decimated" in Japan as well as any images of the severe humanitarian crisis of late-war Japan.) So, no... a Palestinian-only gallery is not due weight. -- Veggies (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VeggiesSo, no... a Palestinian-only gallery is not due weight. Who is even arguing for a Palestinian-only gallery? I already replied above advocating for a mixed set of imagery; specifically a Palestinian majority for damage/destruction imagery and an Israeli majority for military imagery - and explained my reasoning there - [10] And quit implying false equivalences under WP:OTHERCONTENT. This isn't WW2. At least with WW2, each battle is significant in itself. With Gaza, there isn't really much of a conventional matched battle . It's largely just Israel conducting sustained air strikes excessively on the city, resulting in widespread destruction and international condemnation. The majority of reporting isn't focused on some discrete signature battles, but on the unprecedented destruction unseen elsewhere in 21st century. We already show damages done in same decade Russo-Ukraine war infobox reflecting how media heavily covers it. There's even more basis to do that for Gaza.
Specifically I propose 2 out of the 6 imagery to be: Forced displacement during the Gaza–Israel war[11] and [12]. The other 4 images can be Israeli military (2), Hamas (1), and damage in Israel (1), which I leave others to select. If there continues to be blanket opposition to including my representative imagery of Gaza's destruction then this likely needs wider community input via an RFC. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't clear from my reply above: stop pinging me for every comment you make. Who is even arguing for a Palestinian-only gallery? The person who implicitly made the point that the "Oct 7 attacks are a very small part of the Gaza war". And quit implying false equivalences Unfortunately for you, you don't get to be the end-all, be-all final say on what's NPOV—especially on an ultra-contentious topic like this. Also I find it amusing (but not surprising) that after telling me not to use WP:OCON, you reference the Russo-Ukrainian War article with a straight face. -- Veggies (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly was tired of you cherrypicking wars and framing if they are the template to follow, so I pointed to a more recent-era war that does not follow your proposed standard. Either way, your earlier reasoning against including images of Gaza’s destruction does not hold up. And either address my reply and give your reasoning if you disagree - [13] or just leave it. Regardless if it becomes clear the few of us involved cannot reach a basic agreement, then I think an RFC be appropriate.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
your earlier reasoning against including images of Gaza’s destruction does not hold up. Where did I say that the article lead should not "include images of Gaza's destruction" specifically? Where? Because I can't find where I wrote or implied that. In fact, my proposal circumvents that issue entirely because I recommended not to include any images except for the neutral map. -- Veggies (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The inevitable POV disputes that this proposal will spawn – and which are already on display in this discussion – precludes an NPOV compliant shift from the status quo. The current discussion lacks a concrete proposal, only a vague gesture towards a infobox gallery being needed. The arguments for which are weak: No, not having a gallery in the lede is not censorship (that's an absurd claim as also noted by Veggies); the galleries in other articles are not a relevant benchmark (WP:OTHERCONTENT) particularly as the opposite argument can be made by citing counter-examples, e.g. Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), which lack such galleries; and the article has an abundance of images of all of the requested subject matters already and about 50 images (including wartime photographs, graphs, maps, and a video). Mr rnddude (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lede pics allow readers to immediately identify the nature and impact of the conflict in a way a map alone can not.
The only relevant question is not whether war articles can include lede imagery - most major war articles on Wikipedia already do - but whether the proposed images here have due weight in reflecting proportional aspects of the war.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forced_Displacement_of_Gaza_Strip_Residents_During_the_Gaza-Israel_War_23-25.jpg#){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Damage_in_Gaza_Strip_during_the_October_2023_-_29.jpg){kind=link}