Talk:Gaza war

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

First lead paragraph

@Quantling: I've broken this off from Continuing or starting for better visibility and comment from others. The linked section had discussion on the context for the war, and level of detail for that context. Different versions were looked at. My concern is that the live version doesn't describe much, but sticks to the definition in a staccato fashion, jumping from point to point. An alien from outer space, reading the paragraph, would not understand much. Here is the last iteration I proposed, taking into account commentary on the previous too-long and too-short versions: The Gaza war is a war/conflict/armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is the 15th war of the Gaza–Israel conflict dating back to 1948. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, and unprecedented destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. A Middle Eastern crisis also followed. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have major objections with both this text and the text it would replace, That said, the newer may be better than the older. At any rate, I wouldn't accuse you of edit warring if you were to go ahead and make edits along these lines. (I can't speak for others!) As to my major objections:

1. "is a war ... since 7 October 2023" is how people frame things when they want to imply that the attacks of 7 October 2023 were "out of the blue" or an unprecedented escalation, etc. To indicate that the conflict since 7 October 2023 is somehow a distinct war from what preceded it is capitulating to that bias. (I have no problem indicating that this article focuses on those parts of the decades-long conflict that have occurred since that date.)
2. "A Middle Eastern crisis also followed" is similar. The fact is that a Middle Eastern crisis also preceded 7 October 2023, and to imply (by omission) that that isn't the case is capitulating to a biased framing of events.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling: Thank you for your commentary. I feel that, with each iteration, we draw closer to a final version. Regarding (1), I am of the view that the second sentence makes it clear that the present conflict is a continuation and a part. (2) I am not sure how to resolve this, being perhaps a problem with that article's name. In summary, propose a version of this paragraph so that I could see what readings you've got in mind, and we can work from there. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

> propose a version of this paragraph...

The second sentence tries to count wars (subwars?) saying that this is the 15th despite that the Gaza-Israel conflict article lists it as 14th. This counting of subwars may be of interest to someone but I don't think it belongs in the lede, even if we could agree on what constitutes a subwar and how many there have been. The first sentence is written as if this subwar is an entity all on its own, which it is not. So I end up with something like:

Gaza War refers to the part of the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict that has been occurring in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history and the subsequent violence has been the deadliest for Palestinians.

If we instead have separate citations and/or wikilinks for Israeli and Gazan deaths in the second sentence that would be okay by me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I also think that the counting of subwars is superfluous but I'm not sure about the first sentence. Normally we should say *what* something is and then give additional context, what this is part of. This is how most of RS describe the conflict (for example, Israel and Hamas have been waging war since gunmen from the Palestinian militant group in the Gaza Strip stormed into southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023... The Gaza war is the bloodiest episode yet in a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that has rumbled on for more than 75 years and destabilised the Middle East.[16]). It is also what we do in most other articles (for example, Norwegian campaign doesn't say that "it's a part of WW2 that occurred in Norway", it starts with *what* and then says that it was a part of WW2). Thus, both the policy and precedent support the current version. Alaexis_¿question? 08:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Alaexis. The war is part of a conflict stretching back to the 20th century or earlier, but this article's opening sentence should describe what that part is, and then go from there. As a tentative offering of the first two sentences: The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. It is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century, and the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict. GeoffreyA (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The Norwegian campaign starts The Norwegian campaign (8 April – 10 June 1940) involved the attempt by Allied forces to defend northern Norway coupled with the Norwegian military's resistance to the country's invasion by Nazi Germany in World War II. It manages to say that this is a part, right there in the first sentence, with the mention of World War II. If folks had chosen to call it the "Israel–Gaza battle" I suppose the wording for the present article would be easier because it would be clear off the bat that this is a piece, not a whole

What if we change "refers to" to "is"?

The Gaza War is the part of the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict that has been occurring in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history and the subsequent violence has been the deadliest for Palestinians.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't support that opening sentence because it doesn't fully define "the part," or does so from a bird's-eye view. Looking at it a different way, Baldur's Gate 3 is the third instalment of the Baldur's Gate series, but first and foremost a 2023 RPG developed and published by Larian. GeoffreyA (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please say more about doesn't fully define "the part". My sentence gives the time subset and the place subset, and names the larger whole, which is lots about the "part" as I see it. So, what do you mean by that? Or if instead I should be focusing on or does so from a bird's-eye view, what specifically is it under- or overemphasizing? If I understand better what you mean, I can propose new wording.

I don't know much about role-playing video games, so I apologize if I am off the mark here, but the name Baldur's Gate 3 has "3" in it. In my book that's a very strong hint that it isn't the beginning of something. Our work here would be easier if the "Gaza War" were instead named with "battle" or some other part-indicating word; but, to the best of my knowledge, that's not common usage. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Your version gives the place and time, and is correct. "GW is a conflict between X and Y in Place 1 and 2 since Date" is also correct. Therefore, I think it is a matter of what do we emphasise, and from what level of abstraction? Perhaps a compromise could join the two sentences, at the risk of overload. The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in PLACES since DATE, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century. GeoffreyA (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(Good point about the 3 in BG3!) GeoffreyA (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, your version could work, though we need to work out what to put there for between X and Y, or to remove that part. Removal has the advantage of using the Israeli–Palestinian conflict already in the sentence to sidestep having to make those X and Y satisfy a broad host of concerns. That might look like:

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict dating back to the 20th century.

Less important to me, though still worth discussing is dating back to the 20th century. Most would agree that it dates back to 1948 at least, but many would argue that it started decades (or, sometimes, even longer) before then. So, I see value in being a little vague. However in my experience, the presently used language is the sort often used to include just a few years in the 20th century and, thus, to me, is somewhat too vague and/or slightly off the mark. Is it too poetic to say dating back generations? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Should we include something about the fact that this isn't the first "Gaza war" (Gaza War (2008–2009), 2012 Gaza War, 2014 Gaza War)? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Another iteration adding Abo Yemen's suggestion. As for "dating back generations," Quantling, it is too poetic; but I added "early" to address any vagueness. The Gaza War is an armed conflict between X and Y in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century. It is the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict, following those of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we are converging to something that works. I'd eliminate between X and Y because I fear that we'll end up calling Israel's opponent "Hamas" or "Hamas-led militants", which disappear the Gazan civilians. I'd eliminate the last sentence It is the nth war of the Gaza-Israel conflict, following those of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021 because the list of wars appears to be from an Israeli point of view. For example, the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests during which "Israeli forces killed a total of 223 Palestinians" is not being counted as a war. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The war has always been asymmetrical: Palestinian militants were fighting the IDF, but the IDF were fighting those militants and shooting and bombing defenceless civilians (and still are). So I would not support a reading, or omission, suggesting that the civilians of Gaza had a part in the fighting.

Regarding the list of wars, I am not against adding the border protests of 2018-19, since that was a key "bone" in the skeleton of the story. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to leave out between X and Y unless we can agree that it should be between Israel and Gaza or, possibly, between Israel and Palestine. I fear that between Israel and Hamas and between Israel and Hamas-led militants leave out the "shooting and bombing [of] defenceless civilians" of one nationality (among other problems).

I think any listing of wars within this conflict is like any recounting of the history of this conflict: any omission or emphasis is too easily interpreted as a bias. Wikipedia has to deal with this mess, but I strongly suggest that that be in the articles dedicated to that long history and, at the very least, that we don't attempt this arduous task in the lede of this article about one part. Instead, let's wikilink to the articles that have a better chance of doing that well. If the existing wikilink to Israeli–Palestinian conflict doesn't already accomplish this, let's replace it or add to it with another wikilink, but not include this enumeration of subwars. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I find that the Gaza Strip is a mouthful in phrases like Gaza Strip–Israel conflict and, generally, that the Gaza Strip is becoming deprecated in favor of simply Gaza. Can we use the latter? That's all giving me:

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in Gaza and Israel since 7 October 2023, and part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a lot, trying different versions in Notepad. It is simpler to leave out "between X and Y" and sounds better, but one-sentence war definitions tend to answer WHO, WHERE, and WHEN? In addition, I am starting to think that jamming up IP conflict with the first sentence is trying too hard to define it in a certain way. I am backtracking and offer this as a second sentence: It is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, and follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. We don't have to list the wars, but there's nothing controversial or biased about those being the chief conflicts after 2007. The border protests can be added if needed.

On Gaza vs. Gaza Strip, it is merely language but does convey a slightly different sense---to my ears at any rate. "Gaza Strip" fits better when we are stating it for the first time, or emphasising geography; it is more journalistic than colloquial. "Gaza" seems to carry more than just geography; the term also goes back to ancient times. GeoffreyA (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza War is an armed conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel since 7 October 2023. A part of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, it follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021. The war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, along with widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. At the same time, the surrounding region saw heightened instability and fighting. The first day was the deadliest in Israel's history; it is the deadliest war for Palestinians in the entire Israeli–Palestinian conflict. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is definitely a step in the right direction; I would support you making this edit.

If I had my druthers, I'd further change

1. the Gaza Strip to Gaza. I think "Israel" (seemingly inclusive of citizens, government, armed forces, and the geography for those entities) and "the Gaza Strip" (a singling out of geography, more distant from its citizens, etc.) is a mismatch that does the readers a disservice.
2. I'd remove "it follows the Gaza Wars of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and 2021." thus joining two sentences into one: A part of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict dating back to the early 20th century, the war caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and over a thousand Israelis, along with widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
3. I might change occurrences of past tense to a perfect tense, such as The war caused... to The war has caused..., the surrounding region saw to the surrounding region has seen. Maybe those are better for accuracy in that they convey that these are "events so far" rather than being events that are in the past but, by omission, not the present.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quantling. I understand your points. For (1), I would prefer to stick with Gaza Strip because it is convention, sounds better, and ties to geography. For "Israel," there is no alternative term for the whole country's geography. Southern Israel, perhaps? Gaza Envelope?

(2) I'm hesitant to follow that reading; it could be synthesis?

(3) Agreed. We can do that. GeoffreyA (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@GeoffreyA thank you for your continuing efforts.

1. What is convention or sounds better depends upon the audience, context, etc. I don't think that that will serve as a basis for deciding between "the Gaza Strip" and "Gaza". To me, the choice of the Gaza Strip is like indicating that a crime occurred in someone's house rather than in their home. There is a emotional difference between the two framings. Calling it home for one side, but merely a place for the other ... that's my objection. (Yes, I know my example isn't a perfect match to the present discussion, but I hope it gives you a feel for what I am saying.) (Also, going with what you propose is better than doing nothing.)
2. I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that that sentence as I have modified it connects two ideas that are not already connected in many secondary sources?
3. Thank you.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for your efforts as well. I know we've been debating for weeks, but turning these sentences on their head has led to progress and narrowing down the best reading.

(1) We could use, along with GS, southern Israel, and that would be more precise. If I remember correctly, the lead used that at some point; I stand to be corrected. I also understand your argument: GS is too objective or cold, and stirs a certain picture, of war and refugee camps.

(2) I'm not sure. I think it seems temporally-displaced from each other, and disjointed. But I'm not firmly against it.

All I'm aiming for in this paragraph is the definitive, most spot-on reading, the definition of the topic. GeoffreyA (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has distilled down to just the two of us. You might make your edit because it is good, or at least in the spirit of WP:BRD; I am hopeful that there is a decent chance that the edit will stand as is or, at the very least, bring additional editors to this discussion. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. We're the only two, and when we make these edits, they might be reverted straight away. But, as you note, hopefully it will bring more editors to the discussion. Anyhow, we've carefully reasoned through various points. GeoffreyA (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading thru yall's convo and I support those edits dw :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Abo. One more point: I see the lead has a lengthy note on Palestinian fighters along with sources. Do we just get rid of that, if we follow our version without the actors? Or better to keep the actors, folding that into our version? GeoffreyA (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The other factions in this war are as notable as Hamas is, and I think that they should still be kept 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Implemented. GeoffreyA (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry [17] iv made a improvement here. Feel free to revert or make improvements. Just cleaned it up. Cinaroot (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot: Thanks for the contribution. We'll see what's the best course of action. Your version has some good, logical improvements, particularly integrating the last sentence into the fabric. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Here is Cinaroot's version, whose improvements we can try to merge with the other version.

The Gaza war which began on October 7, 2023, is an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel. The war, the 15th in the Gaza–Israel conflict, is part of the broader, unresolved Israeli–Palestinian conflict and has led to heightened instability across the region. Over 1,200 Israelis were killed on the first day of the war, making it the deadliest day in Israel’s history. Since then, more than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed, making it the deadliest conflict for Palestinians. The war has led to widespread destruction across Gaza and triggered a humanitarian crisis. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot (and @GeoffreyA) Thank you for the language to discuss. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of some parts. I don't like having the opponents be "Israel" and "Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups". It's the reverse of "Netanyahu and his militant supporters" vs. "Gaza", which perhaps highlights why I don't like it. I don't like "15th" because, for one, the cited article claims it is the 14th and, two, what is being counted is somewhat Israeli-centric, not counting some of the devastating events that affected only Gazans. (I fear that it is not possible to sum up all that preceded the Gaza War in an unbiased way in a sentence or two, so I aim to give links to the articles on that topic rather than attempt a summary here.) Otherwise, your language is quite similar to what we were already discussing, which I find to be acceptable. If my objections to your text make sense to you and are acceptable then that's great! But if not, let's keep discussing this. Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should hide that it's Hamas in the opening because it's widely reported in the media. Cinaroot (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Despite disagreement on the form, I have tended to support the actors being included because the first sentence of a war article should state who, where, and when. The present one's advantage is its simple prose. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If we're going to explicitly name the actors, I'd like that to be closer to "Israel vs. Gaza" than to "Netanyahu and his militant supporters vs. Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Quantling. You've got a point. We could leave it as is for the time being and see how it stands. GeoffreyA (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as an improvement. Quantling's points are well made. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

References

No date next to the name “Gaza War” for the name of the article

Why is there no date for for this war in name of article? You literally have 3 other wars with the dates in the name respectfully. Gaza War (2008–2009),2012 Gaza War, 2014 Gaza War. Why not also put a date on this name to distinguish them from the others. “Gaza War” is too vague by itself.

BigRed606 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I recommend that you pick a better name and then we can have a formal move request discussion for that name. How about "Gaza War (2023–present)"? Or your idea, whatever that may be. For a move discussion, the name is of course important but it isn't exactly written in stone... though it should be a good starting place. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't participate in the renaming discussion, but the absence of a date is something I'd have raised. Quantling's suggestion is a good one. Coretheapple (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Read Talk:Gaza_war/Archive_48#Requested_move_17_January_2025. It was brought up in the discussion and mentioned by the closing admin. "There is also a consensus that this war is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with no need to disambiguate by adding years," JasonMacker (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be confused by it for the moment. After it ends the name can be changed to one with dates. NadVolum (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather wait. GeoffreyA (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please review the templates at the top of this page. Specifically, the one that says: This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

The two most recent move discussions should provide answers to your questions. The current title was chosen because (1) it is the WP:COMMONNAME and (2) the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JasonMacker (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Lancet Study

The Lancet study, Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024: a capture–recapture analysis, was removed by Davefelmer from the lead [18]. It is mentioned in a WP:Secondary source that can be considered an overview source: The 7 October Atrocities and the Annihilation of Gaza: Causes and Responsibilities.

That's why I believe it is indeed due in the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that the 50+k figure could be an undercount, WP:NPOV is also relevant here. The lead should not only include a figure that is potentially an undercount.

Davefelmer, can you please undo your edit? Why was the fact that the Lancet study was cited in Donald Bloxham's article, which is a WP:Secondary, ignored? Bogazicili (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The Lancet study is the most detailed and authoritative that has been published and has been described as such as it received widespread RS coverage. We also use it when citing casualties for that reason on all the relevant pages, so it is clearly due for inclusion in the lede here too. I have restored it pending consensus for removal. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Lancet study is high quality but it is WP:Primary. So maybe it was undue for the lead when it was first published.

But the fact that it is now used in Donald Bloxham's WP:Secondary article makes it due for the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Add Jaysh al-Ummah to Hamas side on infobox.

Jaysh al-Ummah https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2023/12/al-qaeda-aligned-jaysh-al-ummah-says-it-is-fighting-israeli-troops-in-gaza.php JaxsonR (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Genocide citations in lead

We need to audit these citations. The Alice Speri Guardian article "Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars" doesn't support the cited sentence ("Various experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, and that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza."). This article focuses on two professional communities: Holocaust and genocide studies scholars and (to a lesser extent) international law scholars. Here are some representative quotes: On Holocaust and genocide studies scholars:

But as courts and rights groups tackle the question head on, only some scholars of genocide have done so publicly, with many keeping to the sidelines.

The hesitation signals “a massive crisis in the field”, said Raz Segal, a US-based Israeli historian and one of the first scholars of the Holocaust to call Israel’s actions a “textbook case of genocide”, days after 7 October. The war, Segal told The Guardian, only exacerbated the fundamental fissure that has long divided the community.

The field of Holocaust and genocide studies originated in the aftermath of the genocide of the Jews during the second world war. It expanded in the 1990s in response to more instances of mass violence, including the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides. That expansion was controversial for some, and the disagreement continues to play out.

On international law scholars:

The distinction between Amnesty and Human Rights Watch’s findings – “genocide” versus “acts of genocide”(the latter focusing on the deprivation of water) – has been the crux of the debate among international law scholars. (The former requires evidence of “genocidal intent”.)

It’s a narrower debate than the one among other scholars, and constrained by the strict parameters set by the 1948 genocide convention. Intent is an extremely difficult standard to prove, with legal experts disagreeing about whether it must be explicit or can be established based on a “pattern of conduct”.

The question of intent was also at the heart of the field’s early days, when “functionalist” and “intentionalist” interpretations diverged on whether the mass extermination of Jews had been the result of a clear directive from above or of a lower-level bureaucracy enabling mass violence.

“There was already a controversy in the aftermath of the Holocaust – everybody was like, ‘Where’s Hitler’s order?’ And there was no order,” Hirsch said.

There are “good faith conversations among people who really believe in international law and feel very strongly about it”, she said, “but people who have a more capacious view of the term really look more contextually at what disables life and what makes life unlivable”.

The war in Gaza has also prompted an unprecedented push by dozens of states that have asked the ICJ to apply the genocide convention more liberally so as to make it “more effective” at preventing mass violence, said William Schabas, a professor of international criminal and human rights law.

If I had to summarize this article in one sentence, I would say something like "scholars in the fields of Holocaust and genocide studies and international law hold differing views on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide."

Looking at the rest of these citations: there are two quotes from individual scholars (Michael Dumper/Amneh Badran, Enzo Traverso), one article in Vox that I haven't read yet, an Amnesty International report and a UN report. The last two are most convincing to me. It wouldn't be that hard to find two quotes from comparable scholars saying that it's not genocide, the Guardian article contains quotes like that. If we're trying to summarize expert opinion what we need are media or academic journal sources that try do that, like the Guardian or Vox articles. Maybe there are better sources buried deeper in the article. Prezbo (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the article: "Resumption of Hostilities..." through to "Continued Operations..."

Probably 60-70% of the sentences in these sections are timeline-type descriptions of particular incidents/operations--what was struck when, how many people were killed, what did witnesses say, what did the IDF say...Maybe this is the best Wikipedia can do at this point, but at some point we should try to delete some of sentences and replace them with broader synthetic statements about broader trends in the war between December 2023 and December 2024. Prezbo (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)