Jump to content

Talk:Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Archive 1: April 2005 - October 2006

Warnings about the consequesnes of the Disengagement

[edit]

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/319985/jewish/Gaza-

Cuyckens

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I found this source from Rubin [1] 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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

[edit]

The word 'left' is used twice in first sentence of the third paragraph in the introduction. Sivir21 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Motivation missing citation

[edit]

> The motivation behind the disengagement was described by Sharon's top aide as a means of isolating Gaza and avoiding international pressure on Israel to reach a political settlement with the Palestinians.

This is citation-less. 47.144.2.223 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the lead does not require any citations (it is a summary of the body). The famous haaretz article is this one: https://www.haaretz.com/2004-10-06/ty-article/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process/0000017f-e56c-dea7-adff-f5ff1fc40000 DMH223344 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel has a parliamentary system. It's government's ministers are composed of members of competing political parties who have joined the coalition but who ostensibly oppose selection of the positions that the coalition accepts. So one minister's comments aren't reflective of the intent of the coalition. You can see that very statement discussed in the contemporary, non-paywalled source here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/israel
Saying that one minister said so so it is just isn't the truth in a coalition government. It's the equivalent of saying Ron Paul said end the Fed, so Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign ran on ending the Fed. (From a US perspective). Furthermore this take ignores the multitudes of evidence showing that the goals of the coalition were nominally ones of peace.
It's a poor rewite of history. 47.144.2.223 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]