Talk:Gaza Strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia CD Selection Gaza Strip is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Overcrowding

This small piece of land is perhaps the most crowded piece of real estate on the planet and is home to about a million Palestinians. Most of these people lived in other parts of Palestine prior to the Naqba (the establishment of the state of Israel), when they had to flee. These Palestinians have not been allowed to return to their home villages, in violation of international law, in particular the fourth Geneva convention.
While it is popular to describe the Gaza Strip as crowded, it has about the same population as Manhattan Island on a piece of land that is more than 7 times as large. And Manhattan is filled up with offices, highways, and parks. The daytime population of Manhattan is much larger, of course, as workers come in for the day. Gaza is also about twice the size of Washington DC, which has a population more than twice as large as the Gaza Strip. The above paragraph contains the common myth about Gaza.
Recently, Israel has established settlements (or colonies as Palestinans call them) inside the Gaza strip. Although home to only a few thousand people, large parts of the Gaza strip have been reserved for them. This has worsened the situation of the Palestinians yet further.

The questions of refugees and settlements have been discussed at length in other articles, it is redundant to state them here (as opposed to linking) and have to argue about them again. --Uri

Uriyan -- I have moved some of the points of the above text back in, but have tried to stick to objective facts about the history and demographics of Gaza, and avoided politico-legal issues like the Geneva Conventions. I partly agree with you -- this page is not the place for detailed discussion about the general issue of Palestinan refugees or Israeli settlements. However, it still should mention basic demographic facts, such as how many Palestinians and settlers are there, how much land there is, how much land per capita each uses, how did so many Palestinians end up in such a small area (refugees from 1948 war -- arguments about exactly why they left can be left for elsewhere.) -- SJK

Shouldn't we move the country table to the entry on the Palestinian Authority? Otherwise, we would end up with two different tables for the Palestinian entity (which probably will become an independent nation witin 5 years). I have no objection to the content; I just don't want readers who visit Wikipedia to imagine that Gaza and the West Bank are two different nations. Rather, they are semi-autonomously controlled regions under Israeli administration that soon likely will fuse into one independent nation. RK

Robert, your optimism inspires me! Five years - I would have estimated more like fifty. May it come to pass as you predict! :)
I'm in two minds about your suggestion. I don't have a problem with there being duplicated info in West Bank - after all, only some info would be duplicated - the West Bank has a different area and population density, for example. I think Hong Kong is a good example of a broadly similar situation... Martin
I removed the president and PM, because while in some sense Arafat is the president of the strip, in another sense Sharon is, and in a third sense, nobody is. So it seems misleading to just say President=Sharon. I think the rest of the info can stay... Martin

---

[edit] Palestinian Refugees

Before you proceed to delete my entry again, perhaps you could specify what part of it in your opinion constitutes a POV, and prove that it has no factual basis. What part do you object to? That the majority are refugees, or that they fled voluntarily? Just because certain facts speak in Israel's favour in no way impairs their status as facts which can safely be included in a NPOV article. LoveOfFate 18:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "voluntarily" is a nonsense (but I don't have to prove it's a nonsense, only to note that it is regarded as such by a body of learned opinion). It is also POV to give the war the name used by only one of the sides. --Zero 20:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since you refuse to provide any references to factual evidence that would justify deleting my entry, I have chosen to take the initiative and provide some of my own sources.

According to you, adding the word voluntarily is a [sic] nonsense as decided by a "body of learned opinion." I am curious who exactly these venerable scholars of yours are, but have no way of knowing since you obviously do not feel compelled to list your sources.

As for mine, a plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies.

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

And perhaps most conclusive: In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”

I am prepared to compromise and rename the War of Israeli Independence to the more neutral 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

What you seem to overlook is that Wikipedia is an eliteless, collaborative endeavour and I will not tolerate you deleting my entries simply because the facts don't suit you. The only thing that makes any user's argument more valid than another's is providing facts to support it, at which point the argument is essentially over unless of course, the other party chooses to ignore the facts. So stop ignoring the facts, and bring evidence to support yourself if you seriously believe my entries are factually unsound. LoveOfFate 22:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh not again. Have you actually read any of these sources? The poor quality of your reply indicates that you know very little about this subject. Did you read Morris' new book? Btw, there is a better version of Azm's text in Palestinian Exodus (taken by me directly from the memoirs). Meanwhile, here is a little quotation for you, given you like quotations so much. --Zero 05:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand. The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights. Arabs lived in Jaffa. They didn't leave; they were expelled. We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out. Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument. Zionism takes precedence over everything.
-- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, quoted in Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.

Is there some information about the isaelian wall in the gaza strip available in Wikipedia, I can not find it.

[edit] History of Gaza

I think the history of gaza might be appopriate - but when I say history I mean *history*; at least 2000 years worth. It would help to indicate the jewish and arab links to the area and I was frankly surprised not to find such a history on this page. Maybe I'll add one but I'm concerned by the degree of emotion surrounding articles like this one and perhaps any history I could add would never be considered unbiased by all sides and would probably be promptly deleted. So I'm wondering if some sort of consensus can be reached. There are solid sources concerning Napoleon's march across the gaza strip. Similarly, there are legal documents pertaining to the Ottoman administration of the sanyak/vilayet that could be used; as well as archeological evidence. However, since all these sources would seem to indicate a strong historical Jewish presence in gaza they, of necessity, would attract controversy on this site. Apparently the enlightened neo-liberal post-modernist trend in world affairs is to regard jews in gaza as recent alien "settlers" and to strive to drive them out and seal the borders against their return. In fact, perhaps it would be fair to say that the general historical trend in world affairs is to regard jews anywhere and everywhere as alien "settlers" and to drive them out and seal the borders against their return.. or am I being too extreme? - 84.228.103.146 11:09, 5 July 2005

[edit] One of the most densely populated areas?

From the article - I think this should be removed:

as a result it has one of the highest population densities in the world

Highest population densities of what? It sure isn't denser than many cities in the world. The Gaza strip is roughly the size of Dublin city and its environs (pop. roughly 1 million) and that's one of the least dense cities in the world.

Gaza city itself looks quite dense judging by the map, but I would doubt it even remotely bargains for the position of one of the most dense cities!

zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As no one has provided good proof as to the claim (it seems like bogus propaganda based on the pop and area), I am not removing it, but am reducing it to merely "a high population density". zoney ♣ talk 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It looks like your fix has been undone. "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is a gross overstatement for the third sentence of the article. See List of selected cities by population density and note that Gaza Strip has a density of 3888 per square km, comparable to Berlin and Toronto (which are both larger than the Gaza Strip: 1_E8_m²). Dosai 19:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
List of selected cities by population density is a list of cities, whereas the Gaza Strip is not a city, contains several different towns, and is surrounded by what amount to borders. Berlin and Toronto are not territories in the sense that the Gaza Strip is, though you could certainly argue that West Berlin before the Wall (sorry, anti-fascist protection barrier) came down was one. So the comparison is not really relevant. Palmiro | Talk 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. The word territory is the crucial modifier. Perhaps it should be wikified. The reference is the List of countries by population density.Dosai 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

One should consider the difference between the territory of Gaza and a city of comparable population density (e.g., Berlin or Toronto as noted above). Berlin, Toronto, (and any other city) depend on resource inflows from their environs. Imagine cutting off Berlin or Toronto from their resource rich environments or exchange networks from abroad... After some time you'd probably create a situation similar to Gaza... a situation where a population density of approx 388 per square km becomes a major problem. There are too few resources (and resource producing capacities) in Gaza to support its growing population and that's why people are alarmed by the territory's population density.

With all due respect, 3888/sq.Km. is about half of the density of Tel Aviv (7,015), a piddling fraction of Bnei Brak (19,127) or Givatayim (14,750) or, to choose an even closer neighbor, Bat Yam (16,087). Calling it "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is simply objectively wrong and misleading. A more accurate statement would say "It is often claimed that the Gaza Strip one of the most densely populated territories on earth. However, at fewer than 4,000 people per sq. km., it is comparable to many similar areas, some of which are more crowded, others less."
As for the issue of resources per people, the issue is not one of resource availability, it's the management and proper exploitation of resources. In any case, that's not the point here - the point is that the article currently contains a factual error that should be corrected. It is NOT "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" That mis-statement should be permanently removed and the issues of resource utilization, propaganda about density, etc., dealt with in the appropriate places.Yoshm 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Another note: Per the Municipality of Gaza website [1], Gaza City (the CITY, not the entire Strip) is 45 sq.km. and has 400,000 people - thus the density of Gaza City is approximately 8,900/sq.km. - slightly more than Tel Aviv & less than half that of Bnei Brak. So not even the principal municipality in Gaza can be called "one of the most densely populated ... on earth" Yoshm 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I have also always wondered about that. Highest population density of what? It might depend on the criteria. Compared to Hong Kong, the population density per square meter of land might be lower. However, Hong Kong (or similar) is a high rise city compromising many (very) tall buildings, with lots of public spaces underneath private buildings, in shopping malls,... as well as private space inside the different stories of a high rise building. Most buildings in the Gaza strip however are only one or two stories at the most, not twenty or thirty as in Hong Kong. There are only a few high rise buildings near Omar al Mukhtar Street in Gaza City (definitely less than in Tel Aviv). Therefore, population density per square meter of living space (including above ground and underground space inside buildings, subway stations, underground parking garages, you get the drift...) is definitely very high and might compete with Hong Kong or similar cities.--Soylentyellow 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Photos

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop - I got a 37Kb warning. On a talk page! It blew up my browser! Josh Parris ✉ 04:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A new discussion on the pbase Gaza photos

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop2 - I got a 37Kb warning. Again! Josh Parris ✉ 02:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the pbase Gaza photos continues

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop3 Josh Parris ✉ 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

[edit] Typo - missing word

From the article: "The Israeli settlemnts were built on sand dunes that were not used by the Palestinian residents of Gaza but now use more per capita than the Palestinian population."

Maybe it's just me, but "now use more" what? Water? This seems to be missing a key word.

[edit] Intro

Heraclius, I see you've reverted the intro again. Would you mind discussing your reasons here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's illogical to talk about Egypt capturing the Gaza strip in the second sentence of the article. The fact that the Gaza strip makes up part of the Palestinian territories should be stated first.Heraclius 20:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I disagree about the flow. It's a controversial piece of land, and it makes sense to state up front how it's related to Egypt and Israel. The next paragraph deals with how it relates to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It makes the introduction disjointed and arguably POV to select one of those for the first paragraph. What does "the sites of areas" mean in the version you're reverting to (as opposed to "areas", which you reverted)? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ramellite, what's your reasoning for needing Palestinian territories in the second sentence? The previous version flowed better, and it's provocative to put what many regard as a POV term in the second sentence. Why do you feel it's important that it be placed there? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I was adjusting it from the version I was editing, which was "Together with the West Bank, it is mostly run by the Palestinian Authority, and makes up part of the Palestinian territories." I removed "run by the...", I didn't add anything. There were some reversions going on while I was editing, I guess. However, the previous version flowed horribly. With no mention of who lives there, the intro looked like one was writing about Mubarak's toilet seat. Many editors (and Wikipedia policy) have enlightened me to the fact that, in disputed circumstances, the most generally neutral English language terminology applies, which is why I didn't write "makes up part of a desired Palestinian State" which would be my own POV. It is referred to as "the Palestinian territories" pretty much according to the article on the Palestinian territories, and is common in most influential western media sources. As far as I'm aware, that's more neutral than a POV, especially as I don't think Israel really wants it either. Do you have a better suggestion? What do you think? Ramallite (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the commonest Western media term is probably the Occupied Territories; however, since it doesn't take due heed of Israel's (absurd) position that the territories are in some metaphysical sense not occupied, this would be dismissed as POV. "Palestinian territories", by contrast, is unquestionably factual, and is preferred by such uninvolved parties as Lonely Planet, the British Council, and Oxfam. - Mustafaa 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing provocative about it. In a few months all Israeli settlements in the strip will be disbanded and there will be no dispute about who the Gaza strip belongs to.Heraclius 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly do not see what people's objection to the much improved new version is. Wholesale reverting is not going to help anyone's cause. If there are specific objections, discuss them here (as SlimVirgin is currently doing). - Mustafaa 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose my objection was that it's a political point in the second sentence, a political label, and I felt it would be better in the second paragraph for that reason. I'd also say that more readers would recognize the term Occupied Territories. However, I agree that Ramallite has done a really good job with the writing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought of it more as a recognition label (as it is a mainstream media definition rather than a political statement) - if I could get by writing "occupied territory" I would, but some things are not worth revert wars over if they clearly state enough information for readers to decide for themselves. Thanks again Ramallite (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear what this adds, besides POV. And it's certainly illogical to include information about the West Bank in the first paragraph, before you even explain what the Gaza Strip is. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - what would be an opposing POV in this case? See also Mustafaa's "Actually, the commonest" entry above... Ramallite (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the objection is that it's a political term, and yet it's in the second sentence. It's not the name of that piece of land. Perhaps it could be moved lower down, but not left out, as a compromise? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly; people keep injecting politics into an opening section which should instead give dry facts; what and where it is, who lives there, etc. Political claims don't always have to come first, as much as people like to give them prominence. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes what some people call "political claims" are actually "human claims" to others, particularly to those who live there. It's not fun being demoted to complete and utter human disregard by having even the mention of their identity considered a political statement or a POV. Furthermore, as I mentioned below, there is more to an important place like Gaza than introducing it solely by who's fighting over it. Ramallite (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Humans make politics, and political claims. And it is used precisely for that purpose; it's hard to decry its politicization when it is used in exactly that way. It should be introduced by describing where it is, how big it is, how it came to be, who controlled and controls it, etc.Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay... so are you saying that most descriptions of territories should not start with so-called political statements? Or just Gaza and the West Bank? The Israel article, for example, states that it is a "parliamentary democracy" right there in the first paragraph (and I even helped correct the flow of that paragraph), which as you can tell from the Talk page there is pretty disputed (as is "Palestinian territory" evidently). Should that political statement go as well? I'm trying to follow your logic here, that's all. Ramallite (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, here's a description of the Gaza Strip from the UN. It avoids mention of Palestinian territories or Occupied territories, and sticks to terms that aren't disputed:

The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, lying about 40 miles southeast of the West Bank. It is bordered by Israel on the north and east and Egypt on the south under whose sovereignty it was until the 1967 war. Stretching about 40 miles from north to south and only about 5 miles wide it comprises an area of only 365 KM. With a population numbering 1.25 million it is one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Gaza is highly urbanized with the bulk of the population living in cities, towns and 8 crowded refugee camps, home to approximately 468,071 refugees. From 1967 until 1993 both areas were under complete Israeli occupation. Following the Oslo Peace Accords, some areas of the West Bank were handed over to Palestinian Authority (PA) control, along with 60% of the Gaza Strip. The population of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip is young, with about 47% fourteen years of age or younger and 57% 19 years old or younger. Families are large, averaging between 6 to 7 individuals per household in Gaza and 5-6 persons in the West Bank. The rate of population growth is high, about 4.7% a year in the West Bank and 5.4% in Gaza. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate the UN description is, especially since the two territories are barely 25 miles apart as opposed to 40, and few of the other stats look suspect as well. In any case, the problem we are having is that, as I said above, without mention of who lives there, who the Gaza Strip is "home to", the intro is written like it describes an inert object as opposed to a land with a nation and culture. When people write of Normandy as being French territory, or that it is "in France", it is reasonable to assume that the people living there are French. But stating that it is "Palestinian territory" appears to be POV or political, as is stating that it is "occupied territory". And saying it is "Israeli territory" certainly isn't true either, or else Ariel Sharon wouldn't need bodyguards right now. The result, as is clear even in the UN piece above, is that the uninformed reader who hears about the Strip on the news and comes to Wikipedia to read about it will not get a clear sense of what the territory actually is, but rather who fights over it, and that's an unfair and unencyclopedic description. As long as there is no dehumanization or condescension of Palestinians to the point of insignificance, I guess I'd be ok with anything else that gets this point across but avoids disapproval by the rest of the editors. So have a go at it if you'd like! Ramallite (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The Gaza Strip is a politically defined entity, not a geographically defined one; political claims are inherently highly relevant. However, if for some reason you want an indisputably geographical intro, I suggest "The Gaza Strip forms the westernmost section of the region of Palestine. - Mustafaa 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Most countries are politically (not geographically) defined as well, as are states, provinces, territories, etc.; I daresay almost all "entities" of this sort are defined this way. This seems an entirely arbitrary differentiation. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course most countries are politically defined (exceptions include Australia); that's exactly my point. - Mustafaa 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet, articles start by describing where it is, what its size and shape are etc. See, for example, Egypt. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would compare Nakhichevan or Cabinda, myself, where the territories in question are part of a larger discontinuous entity - which of course gets top billing. That said, note that these articles also frequently start with a description of political status ("republic" of Egypt, "democratic constitutional federal republic of fifty states" of U.S.) even before the geography section. - Mustafaa 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

None of them seem to describe the populations first. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tibet and Nagorno-Karabakh do. - Mustafaa 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, none of the other articles seem to give history the sort of billing it currently has here. - Mustafaa 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg - I still don't understand what is wrong with describing populations in the intro? If most articles don't do that, so what? If it sets a precedent, what is wrong with that? It seems pretty benign to me, and can only add value... Ramallite (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, actually - I think the opening paragraph standards need to be rethought. Opening paragraphs should certainly include the geographical basics, but I'd be a lot happier with some sort of cultural detail. Israel is a good example: unlike most country articles, it starts with cultural and population data, and only then gives the bordering countries. - Mustafaa 00:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the intro to reflect, among other things, Jayjg's points about comparable articles. Interested to hear opinions. - Mustafaa 00:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks quite good to me. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me a major flaw that the current version doesn't point out that the Strip is part of the Palestinian Territories. This leaves out a crucial element of its political geography - perhaps the crucial element. I appreciate that some people don't like the term but this is discussed in considerable detail on the page in question. Palmiro 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you read through the whole talk page? That's exactly what the controversy has been about from the start. As I've pointed out to you in other pages, that is a political claim that only introduces confusion and POV, not clarity. This article is about the Gaza Strip, not the "Palestinian territories", there are plenty of other articles which discuss the various things people claim as Palestine or Palestinian. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I felt the point needed to be made. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it is that so many references to the Gaza Strip (including on Wikipedia) are coupled with a reference to the West Bank? I'm not talking about making a political claim, but about pointing out that the Gaza Strip is part of a wider territory in dispute. As far as political claims go, as I said above, this issue is covered in the PT article.Palmiro 19:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course the connection to the West Bank needs to be made somewhere. "Occupied Territories" and "Palestinian Territories" are simple acknowledgements of normal English usage, no more POV than "British Isles" or "Free French Forces". (Don't even bring up the utterly non-notable term "liberated territories", Jayjg.) However, in light of the fact that a large number of people mistakenly imagine these terms to be POV, I think that placing it within Palestine (region), which consists of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, is sufficient for the introduction's purposes. It's not as if the current article Palestinian territories is worth linking to anyway; it's yet another one of those horrible "list of POV" articles, like so many of the articles on this topic, with no substantive description of the territories or their situation but plentiful rehashes of the opinions of people most of whom don't even live there. - Mustafaa 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the opening sentence???: "The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land not recognized as a de jure part of any sovereign country." So, any part of Antartica that is not part of any country's territory is a "Gaza Strip". An opening paragraph should also tell the reader WHY it is significant (bone of contention in the regional conflict), and the Mediterranean is northeast not merely north of the territory. Come on, forget who is a Palestinian etc. and just give the what, where and why. There's plenty of neutral fact all can agree on. Imagine someone at their computer hearing news again and again about "Gaza Strip" -- he/she wants to know if it is a contraceptive or a nightclub. They dont want to know it's detailed borders or its de jure status up front. General locale, why an area of interest, history of how defined, up front.

This version is boring and I will revert and fix unless it gives up front useful info. -- Anon


Tweaked -- at least it is now mentioned it is in the Middle East in the first sentence. The first paragraph should give enough info that it educates the uninformed by itself.

Ah i see. I thought youy had just reverted to your previous version but you in fact merged both.Heraclius 14:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And it was a very good merge indeed (aside from containing a minor typo that made a link look funny). Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
A new anon has added info that says that the PA controls 90% of Gaza and that it is located in southwest Israel. Is he trying to push opposite POV's?Heraclius 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is 89% not 90%. Check the maps.

Absolutely not, see maps [2], [3]. According to globalsecurity.org, area A in the strip is 69%, area B is 19%, and area C is 12%. Since Area B no longer effectively exists anywhere, this leaves around 69% of the Strip with some measure of effective PA control except when the army moves in and out. Remember that Israel controls all access roads and the areas surrounding the settlements, not just the settlements themselves. Ramallite (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Using the map annexed to the Oslo II accords, I measured 36% in Israeli control including border corridors and Area B. The accuracy would be plus or minus a few percent so I can believe that 31% may be true (i.e. 69% area A). Figures close to 90% are ridiculous. --Zero 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well. It is true that area B no longer exist. It used to be part of Gaza (for example next to karni crossing) were there were Israeli factories. This area no longer exist for 5 years. The result is that today under PA/Hammas control: 69%+19% = 88% and under israel control 12%. ( this is also shown in the maps [4], [5].

Not true - in this conflict, when area B ceases to exist, it becomes area C, not area A. Israel did not evacuate area B, but rather took over area B and even area A in some cases. Your assertions are not based on fact. Please read documents and news carefully. Ramallite (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite: You seem to know everything. In gaza Israelis no longer enter Area B. This is fact. Soon they will be "expeled" from Area A as well.

Well, not everything - but enough about this topic to know - there are other people who posted information above to the effect that 69% sounds right and around 90% is ridiculous, including some people who know the region (Gaza) very well. Of course Israel enters Area B. As for those being "expelled" from Gaza, they are leaving area C, not area A. And if or when they do leave, this article can be revised. So relax and let's wait and see what happens. Ramallite (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Propeganda Vs. Truth: Just look at these maps see maps [6], [7]. According to these maps the area under israel control is about 12%. But all this discussion shows two things: 1. consensus based wikipedia can still be wrong. 2. It 3 weeks the % will be 0. So much for writing an encyclopedia on current events.

BTW, 40% is just a bit under 1/2. Look at the maps : Is this how 1/2 of an area look like ?

Maybe the discrepancy is of whether the security corridors along the border are included. They are quite large, see the official map. The PA Police are supposed to be in charge of them but I think that in practice the IDF is -- I could be wrong about this. --Zero 13:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can not understand why people like "slim vrgin" and "jayjg" who are administrators can not read a map but still they want to be able to administer this article.

The security corridors are at the size of the road and in some places about 100-150 meters on each side of it. Even if you add them you will never get above 12% of the area. You know what lets make it 15% just to be on the safe side. I don't plan to argue with people who are so anti israel that even if there is a map in front of their eyes they refuse to trust it. Later these people who claim to be the guardians of "no original research" post as proof web sites like "kafar kasam. com" and other propeganda sites. You should think hard if you want this encyclopedia to be worth anything or just, like many other web sites, be controlled by propaganda and a desire tio re-write history.

So let us start with the maps. 40% is just under a 1/2 of the area: Does any one (other then ramlite, jayjg and slim version) see 40% ? I don't. Here is another map that include the security corridors: http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3491,00.html

Just to be clear there are 3 israel control corridores: Kisufim to Netzer hazani. karni to Netzarim and the philly corridor (the longest) which is 12 K'm over 50-70 meters. The "sufa - Morag" and other area B areas were abandended at 2002, israeli no longer control these areas.

Ok, first it would be nice if you signed a username so that you will not remain anonymous all the time. Second, the original research that was objected to was the blatant POV entries by another user (I assume it wasn't you), and you reverted this article to the edits of that editor - that is when SlimVirgin reverted your edit. As for the maps, there is a long border strip (see the official map here) along the border with Israel that is supposed to be under Israeli control. If you have evidence that the border corridor is not under Israeli control, or evidence that "Area B" was abandoned as you say, could you please provide a source? Ramallite (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. So wikipedia is becomeing a web site by which we need to argue about things that are in front of our eyes. I do not see 40% but I do not plan to argue about it any more. Israel control now about 12% and in the future it will zero (which is good if I can express my POV here)

There is no area B area in Gaza at all: http://www.mideastweb.org/palestineisraeloslo.htm but even if you include the gaza "yellow area" Israel does not control 40%, not eeven 30% but about 11%-12% of Gaza.

Couldn't you just wait a few months so you wouldn't have to go through this pointless argument? It'll be almost 0%.Heraclius 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "or were expelled"

While some Arabs were certainly expelled, is there evidence that they were expelled to the Gaza Strip in particular? Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick, I barely got my bits back from Wikipedia when you made your comment, and I had to check whether you hadn't made it first! I'm sure Zero or others would know much more on such topics than me, and would probably have references for wartime expulsions at hand but as I noted in the comments, the post-independence expulsions are irrefutable - and not clouded by the fog of war. References like the following appear in standard histories:. "The Expulsion of the Inhabitants of the Town of al-Majdal to Gaza: In the summer of 1950, the remaining 2,700 inhabitants of the southern Arab town of al-Majdal, which on the eve of the war had 10,000 inhabitants (now called Ashkelon), were transported to the border of the Gaza Strip over a period of a few weeks." [8]--John Z 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the refugees of Gaza would say they were expelled. Pro-Israelis would say they "fled". It is accurate to include both words.Heraclius 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference isn't between pro-Israelis and anti-Israelis, but between fleeing and being expelled. The majority of Arabs fled the region, for various reasons. Some were expelled as well. Fleeing a war zone (or potential war zone) is not the same thing as being actively expelled. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Of note, most of those who fled still consider themselves "expelled" because they fully expected to return once hostilities ended but were not permitted to. Most claim to have fled war and shelling of their neighborhoods (doubt many left because some foreign Arab dictator would ask them to, as some have claimed, because most people are not that short on IQ) with their keys and minimal belongings, planning to go back home after the fighting had died down. When they were refused re-entry to their villages and homes, that's how they considered themselves to have been expelled. Many who argue the "fleeing" aspect of the events don't realize that being "actively expelled" and "being forced to flee for fear of one's life and then denied re-entry" both amount to expulsion in the end - in the eyes of those who lived through losing their homes. Ramallite (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, everybody agrees some were expelled, some fled (and some just happened to be away from home and couldn't come back). There's a gray zone where it is hard to say whether a person is fleeing or being expelled, and people would draw the line in different places. The link I gave doesn't absolutely support the present wording, but would if "due to" replaced "during." Especially in wartime, people are usually expelled from, not to a place. The present wording is fine in my opinion and doesn't strictly state that people were expelled to Gaza during the war, just that expelled refugees, which all agree exist, ended up in Gaza, which is another reason I think the anon's cavils are pretty silly. By the way, Ramallite, your percentages sound more sensible than his and perhaps should be in the article.--John Z 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear 85.65.49.249: Did you note my above comments? e.g.: The link I provided concerning a well-known postwar "expulsion to Gaza"? The observation that the present version does not in fact state that there were wartime "expulsions to Gaza" ? - an odd concept in itself? Do you seriously doubt that there are expelled wartime refugees and their descendants in Gaza? You agree that there were expulsions to the West Bank. Do you think that none of these refugees ever moved to or married anyone in Gaza? Doesn't all this imply that at most wording should be changed, not phrases deleted? Ramallite gave reasons for his percentages, do you disagree with them? I would be very happy to see your response. Regards, --John Z 11:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hard to see what the fuss is about. The article does not say that refugees were forcably pushed across the border of the Gaza Strip. It only says that some of the Palestinians who "fled or were expelled from Israel" ended up in the Gaza Strip. Of course that is true, where do you think all the residents of the Gaza Strip refugee camps came from? You can go to the UNRWA site and the details for each camp will tell you roughly were the residents originated. In addition, there really were some expulsions into Gaza in 1950 - residents of Magdal and some bedouin. There were Security Council resolutions about it. --Zero 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interlingua

A page has been added on the interlingua wiki; please add it.

ia:Banda de Gaza

211.202.17.124 04:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] protected

can someone add current please? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this page is protected... It doesn't appear that it was being more heavily vandalized than anything else currently newsworthy. Certainly there are enough benevolent Wikipedians reading this lately that we can unprotect it and rely on them to speedily revert any vandalism. A page so close to such a current event shouldn't be unnecessarily prevented from evolving. Chris 03:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Chris 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Big wave of vandalism today. Twinxor t 04:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] facts or fiction

I wonder what is this article is based of ? We can either use facts or we can use Israeli government statements or Palestinian propaganda. I prefer to use facts. The facts are that currently there is self Palestinian rule over Gaza. Like Every border, gaza border are supposed to be under control of the two neighboring entities. In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world. The borders between Gaza and Israel (which include also a part of that border that goes into the sea) are of course guarded by Israel from it's side of the border for known reasons (to prevent attacks on innocent Israeli civilians) The borders between Gaza and Egypt, (including the maritime part of that border that extend into the sea) were supposed to be guarded by Palestinian police and Egypt border police are AS OF THIS MINUTE wide open and thousand of people cross these open border. An hour ago Hamas people have removed the Egyptian border police soldiers and the Palestinian police from the border and exploded a larger hole in the Border wall. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/624877.html http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/NEWS06/509140479/1012/NEWS06

So now what are you planning to write in your encyclopedia? That Israel control the borders of Gaza ? This is not true. Israel control the Israeli side of these borders but this is normal. That the PA only control the internal part of Gaza ? This is also not true as everyone who is there knows there are multiple armed fractions and the PA has no control over these armed groups. According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen. All previous past suggest that will not be able to do it. To sum up: I suggest that facts will be used in this and other values in this encyclopedia . See also this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AmSz04dHmunK50b.FF07ESFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.43.180 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2005.

So you want facts, here are some:
  • Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians, so it's not "Israeli statements" vs "Palestinian propaganda", propaganda exists on the Israeli side too.
  • There is Palestinian "self-rule" over Gaza, but not "sovereignty". This is an important difference, most notably when it comes to foreign relations.
  • The open border between Gaza and Egypt is temporary, yesterday the Egyptians shot and killed a Palestinian and, if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinians, and it won't be "open" for much longer. Remember, Israelis do not require a visa to go to Egypt, but Palestinians do. Do not think for one moment that the Egyptians care about "humanitarian" gestures towards Palestinians.
  • The "self-rule" is "internal". Why? Israel still controls exit and entry, even with Egypt (except for the current few days). A Palestinian passport must be registered with Israel. A Palestinian must (officially) be checked by an Israeli when coming back from Egypt via the Kerem Shalom checkpoint, after the Rafah border was closed. A Palestinian must have a special Israeli permit to leave the Strip. The Palestinian Authority cannot grant the right of freedom of travel to it's residents, which is why the control is only internal.
  • The Palestinian airport is forbidden from operating by Israel, even if the traveler is going from Gaza to Siberia.
I hope you enjoy these facts, if you want more, I'll be happy to provide you with more Ramallite (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Ramalite I'll just quote your "facts". anmyone who think his POV is "facts" is not suposed to write in wikipedia.

Here is your #1 "fact" : "Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians "

Here is your #2 "fact" (a speculation aboutr the future) : "if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinian"

I can not argue with someone who thinks his POV and specualtion about the future (as well as present) are "facts"

So learn what the english word 'fact' means and come back we will continuwe this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.43.180 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2005.

Funny, you think that "In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world" is a fact, and "According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen" is not speculation about the future? Anyway, are you proposing to give me English lessons now? I wasn't trying to argue with you specifically, but to point out that there are many misconceptions that need to be cleared up. It's the attitude that I'm concerned about, not these "facts" you mentioned. You say that the border is open between Egypt and Gaza like it's a bad thing, when these people in Gaza have lived in desperate conditions for most of their lives and would like to smell some fresh air for once (and yes that is my POV, but if citizens from many countries can freely cross between their borders, why is there a problem here?) So try not to be so confrontational, and rest assured my English is pretty sound. Lastly, everybody at Wikipedia has their own POV, but we (mostly) try not to incorporate them into articles. That is what discussion pages (like these) are for. Salam Ramallite (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as we stick to the facts that is all I want. What "remained to be seen" is just that : Remained to be seen. So far Israel has not stopped a single boat to or from Gaza. The Border between Gaza and Egypt is wide open (so if someone want to smuggle people or merchandise or weapon they can do it freely) Under such conditions Israel would be stupid to try and stop boats while the smuggling will continue on land routes. The Palestinian airport was destroyed in fighting so no one knows now what would Israel do or not do to a Palestinian who want to fly from Gaza to Siberia.

Overall, it seems Palestinians should wake up to the new reality: Israel is out of Gaza. (Personally I am very happy about it - POV). Now, that Israel is out and the gaza-Egypt border is under Palestinian rule (from the Pal side) and Egypt (from the other side) all the talk about "Israel is responsible" should be reconsidered. For 38 Years Israel WAS responsible but the reality is changing in front of our eyes.

These changes in reality are not limited to Gaza:

1.Israel is changing politically.

2. Israel court is telling the government to re-route the wall in places like Kalkilia who were the poster-case for Palestinian to argue against the wall.

3. The Hamas and other fractions are dividing the new land in gaza between them and the PA.

All these changes are now occurring . An encyclopedia should limit itself to facts that are verified, and that will not change in the next 5 minutes or 5 days.

At the same time let's adjust to the new reality: Gaza is now the responsibility of the Palestinian people (not of Israel)

This, is a change that will remain for long time.

Salamt Ramallite, Ya'atikum Afia Signed: Anon [[User:85.65.43.180|85.65.43.180

85.65.43.180 - it would really help if you got a username - (it will cost $5,000,000 in the future, but for now they are free :-) ) - as someone with a similar ip address 85.65.155.150 just extensively vandalized the article, and confusion would be very easy. John Z 09:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a vandalizer and have no responsibility on the tens of thousands who use the same ISP as me.

How does one get a handle ?

and no I did not made any of the recent changes that were made by someone from the same ISP as me 85.65.155.150 is not 85.65.43.180

aparntly I am now 85.64.50.146 (use to be 85.65.43.180)

I didn't really think it was you except for the first minute, it is hard to remember long ips. Here is a help page Wikipedia:How_to_log_in, or just go here Special:Userlogin, it's pretty easy; just remember to have cookies enabled. Welcome to wikipedia!John Z 10:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population statistics

An IP editor has substituted Palestinian Ministry of Health statistics for the CIA factbook ones. They differ, sometimes radically. Which should be used? Both? Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove either is more correct, I believe we should stick to the official Palestinian. --Cybbe 06:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would both be bad? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

a) The Israel article uses the Israeli CBS data only, adding both here would make it seem like the Palestinian stats are not trustworthy (I know I know, to many around here nothing 'Palestinian' is trustworthy, but we're not here to debate that). b) They don't differ 'radically' in most categories. c) The Palestinian MOH probably got it's numbers from the Palestinian CBS, which gives a detailed account of how they gather their numbers (they are professional statisticians), whereas I don't know how the CIA gets their numbers ALTHOUGH (and this brings me to) d) I am almost sure that, prior to the most recent Palestinian CBS update, the numbers on the CIA website matched those on the Pal CBS site! If I'm right, this would mean that the PAL CBS is one of the sources of the CIA site, but the CIA is a few updates behind. Ramallite (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K. Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

According to text in Demographics subsection "The Palestinian population is growing by around 4% a year.", while the Palestinian Ministry of Health states that population growth rate (probably overall) is 2.8%. As non-Palestinians are less than 1% of the population, both figures cannot be correct. I guess first sentence should be omitted, or both figures should be given side by side with cited sources.

[edit] Map

A map showing the evacuated Israeli settlements would be very useful.

We used to argue here about what % of the Gaza strip was under israeli occupation. Some said 35% (based on various sources) some said 12% (based on israeli sources)

Now, the UN map shows it was 10-11%:

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/opt/docs/UN/OCHA/ochaSR_Gz_Acs&Infr150905.pdf

[edit] Current legal status

There are several opinions on the matter, some of them not very surprising. The official Palestinian position is that the Gaza Strip is still occupied territory: [9] I assume the official Israeli position is the opposite: that the occupation has ended. As for the international community, including the EU and the US, no statements seem to be found regarding Gazas legal status. Legal scholars and other commentators produce a bit more nuanced picture than official Palestinian/Israeli statements, see for instance these different links for different viewpoints: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] I suggest we simply write what the two parties official position are (i.e. occupied vs not occupied), just to keep the ambiguity at a minimum. If some statements from other states, the UN, GA resolutions etc, emerge that might clarify the international position on the issue, we should include it, but untill then, we shouldnt be guessing on it, as I guess its a bit too early to tell. --Cybbe 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems an eminently sensible suggestion. Palmiro | Talk 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq's new additions

Better, but still has problems. You really must wish for the Palestinian state to look like Somalia, as you said. The most important three points are:

  1. Since you are relying only on this BBC article, you have not summarized it properly, and you chose the parts that make the Palestinians look bad. You left out a critical opinion of this BBC article which says "there has been very little serious, sustained violence" or "This society has been radicalised and traumatised by its confrontation with the Israelis, who occupied Gaza decades ago and only evacuated their settlers and troops last summer. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, injured or lost their homes during years of violence. There are numerous armed factions that used to channel their violent energies into attacks on the Israelis - but they now have little on which to focus. In this broken, crowded, poverty-stricken place there is an intense struggle for resources that can lead to lawlessness."
  2. This section on post separation anarchy does not belong in the intro which is about the geography and population, it belongs in a separate section.
  3. Your quotation is not from "some Palestinians", it is from ONE Palestinian. Only when a group of people is singing or praying can you quote "some" people!

Ramallite (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq always tell people to use the talk page, but doesn't want to take his own advice and use talk. His entry is clearly POV pushing because he took one article from the BBC, picked the parts of it that show that the Palestinians are ruthless bastards, and refused to respond to my comments here.
The BBC version is (roughly) that: There has been plenty of lawlessness and competition after the Israeli withdrawal, the reasons for which may be related to years of occupation (including killings and house demolition) that has both radicalized and traumatized Gazans, and left the society broken. There have been militants taking over institutions and briefly kidnapping foreign hostages. The editor of a Palestinian daily newspaper has lamented in his editorial that such displays of lawlessness and corruption are worse than occupation, which Palestinians should not blame for this problem as per habit.
"All this has to be kept in context," says the BBC. "Much of the upheaval has been confined to the south, and to the town of Rafah in particular - and much of the turmoil has about it an element of show. There have been few casualties, and very little serious, sustained violence. Protesting gunmen who occupy government buildings often leave as soon as they have made their point."
Zeq's version is that: After the Israeli disengagement, Gaza has descended into "complete chaos" with kidnappings and takeovers of buildings, and "many" Palestinians say that the occupation is better. " Zeq also introduces his POV in his own edit summary where he states "This is what a Palestinian state will look like: Somalia".
This is very dishonest of Zeq. Ramallite (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are more quotes. To ckaim that anatchy in Gaza is my POV is a joke. don't make fun of yourselfs.

"Militias battle police, police battle other police, gangs brawl with other gangs; there are revenge killings, aimless killings, kidnappings, bombings, clubbings, mutilations, some pointless, some unmistakably pointed. Chaos rules in Gaza, utter mayhem. "It appears as if Gaza has degenerated into anarchy," explains CNN. There has been a steady outflow of pro-Palestinian NGO personnel from the Strip, some out of panic, some from a realization that the Palestinian revolution, so called, is animated by bloodlust. According to The Times of London, one British aid worker who was recently held hostage by gunmen for three days told her kidnappers, "I came to work with these people and I feel like I've been stabbed in the back." Is this the future of Palestine? [18]

I can find gazilion quotes like this, to claim that the events are limited to the south is dishonest. just few days ago teachers in gaza city were kidnaped. theree month ago Araffat was shot to death in gaza city. There is a problem in Gaza and everyone know it (unless they relay on wikipedia) Zeq 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the very pro palestinian pro hammas um-yousof [19] is angry about kidnapping NORTH of gaza city. so much for the "confined to the south".... 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First, get your section NPOV, then we can move on to the rest your Palestine-bashing. Everybody is angry about Gaza, but you have to clearly represent what it is people are angry about, not make up your own interpretation. In other words, there is clearly a problem in Gaza, but you have to describe the problem fairly, ACCURATELY, and NPOV. As for "confined to the south", as usual you are attacking a source that YOU YOURSELF provided. This is too funny. Also, you used to do this original research about "you and I know better what is going on" in October (it's like you telling me "call your friends in Qalqilya and they will tell you"), and back then you were new here. But now you have been here long enough to know that you must rely on credible verifiable sources, not on your personal interpretation. Do one or two events in north Gaza mean that the "complete chaos" has spread to the north? In any event, it's disappointing that you still have no clue how to follow WP rules after all this time. Your problem is that your primary objective is Palestine-bashing, and your secondary objective is trying to enforce rules that you don't seem capable of understanding. Ramallite (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I nebver engage in "palestinian bashing". In gaza there are Palestinians who do do worth things to each other. You don't want this mentioned in Wikipedia. That is fine. that is your POV and let's all just go along with it. Zeq 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You just reverted yourself in a manner that is weird. I suggest you start a new section entitled "The Gaza Strip after September 2005" or something like that and start working on that. I'll help you if you get started. As for your sentence above, what I "want" is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy says that if something is RELEVANT, it has to be mentioned FAIRLY, ACCURATELY, and from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I know you understand these words, so just do it. Ramallite (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, as for BBC let me explain it once and forall (it will apply for future as well): BBC is a biased source. it is strongly pro-palestinian. so when BBC publish something that does not look good for Palestinian propeganda officer, this means that the reality is so grave that even BBC could not ignore it . So yes I am "bashing" the source that I use but I trust them on facts (such as quotes) but not on analysis ("confined to south") which I know is false (by reading other sources). Zeq 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But... but.... YOU are the one who introduced this source..... !!!!!!! Ramallite (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
And I explained that I indeed trust the facts but not the interpretation they give them. "Confined to the south" is clearly false. If you don't understand me, never mind. I tried to explain but if you don't want to understand that is fine as well. Have a happy Id. Zeq 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
So are you going to start a new section? Ramallite (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent news

[20] !!! 203.214.133.79 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position of government of Israel

The opening paragraph says "The Israeli government disputes this, especially after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005". It is not clear what Israel is disputing or the reasoning behind it - are they saying that the current situation does not consititute an occupation, because Gazans have attained their liberty, or are they saying that there's no occupation because the Gaza Strip still really belongs to the Jewish people (as they argued [21] before the disengagement). An official statement of the current Israeli position would be helpful. Sanguinalis 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/z/Talk%7EGaza_Strip_9aa2.html"