Talk:List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war

This article is a joke

Does anyone seriously believe that Hamas has won every battle since the invasion? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This very dedicated and hardworking sockmaster might. Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NormalguyfromUK Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if you know the difference between defeating an enemy on the battlefield and massacring/taking revenge on civilians to pretend to have some military victory The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They have defeated hamas on the battlefield, and severely weakaned them. Also what you are saying is disputed by Israel and therefore should habe no effect on the article EJS14 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Israel on several occasions has labelled civilians as militants, their claims of “defeating” Hamas when they have not even fought Hamas in their main stronghold in any meaningful way (the tunnels) should be treated at the very least as questionable The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Israel has destroyed 80% of Gaza's tunnels, and what strongholdd has Israel not fought Hamas in? They have fought them almost everywhere. EJS14 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you tell me more about the “80% of the tunnels destroyed”. Israel has not entered the tunnels beyond a few surface ones The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This article has false info

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In every single battle Israel has won and withdrawn only to let the palastine citizens to move there so that they can attack other territories NIX0ic (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC) @NIX0ic: If you have a secondary reliable source to say Israel won a battle currently marked as a Palestinian victory, please link it here so it may be corrected. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) @WeatherWriter:The objective of the defender is to repel the offender. In each and every battle, Hamas has failed, lost many fighters and assets, and IDF gained control of the territory. Therefore, Hamas lost in each and every battle. IDF withdrawals were part of the tactics, of destroying infrastructure and then move on to the next area of interest. צחי (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Assessments of Israel's objectives during a battle must come from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia editors cannot make that determination ourselves. Another source must say what we write. For example, this March 2024 article from the Institute for the Study of War states the following regarding the Battle of Beit Hanoun, "The IDF said on December 18, 2023, that it had destroyed Hamas’ Beit Hanoun Battalion after conducting a nearly two-month-long clearing operation in the area. Hamas exploited Israeli withdrawals in late December 2023 to infiltrate areas that Israeli forces had previously cleared and reconstitute some of its militia units. CTP-ISW has observed Palestinian fighters active in Beit Hanoun four times in March." As described above, if you have a source directly related to one of the battles which says Israel won it and/or completed their objectives in that battle, then please link it here so the article can be changed. Until a secondary reliable source is linked, any discussion regarding "false info" is considered original research and cannot be used to change what sources say ("verifiability, not truth"). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Hi weatherman, Hamas was ran over in each and every battle. The fact that some remains were left and reinfiltrated the area after IDF left does not make it a Hamas win. If any, it makes you a Hamas supporter. צחי (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) You and every crooked editor who perpetuates these falsehoods should be ashamed. So Israel is apparently committing genocide, yet according to you it essentially loses every battle with Hamas? Which is it? Is Israel losing or is it committing genocide? Clydey2Times (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC) As stated, please provide a source that Israel won a battle. I don't mean in general, I mean in specific battles. Please just list a source URL that supports an Israeli victory any of the battles. If you can provide a source, then I can change it. If not, then it cannot be changed based on your original research/own opinions. It is not that hard. Just list a source. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) The claim that there are numerous 'specific battles' is the completely unsourced premise of this entire page. Isak Rubin (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC) The issue isn't so much as whether Israel won as opposed to whether it lost. Saying "Palestinian victory" or "Hamas victory" implies that they militarily defeated the IDF, or at least achieved some objective. In reality, what happens is that the IDF goes in, clears out a town and essentially obliterates the enemy for comparatively light casualties, then withdraws, after which the shattered remnants of Hamas and other militias gradually rebuild their presence. Maybe you don't want to call it an Israeli victory but I struggle to see how it's an Israeli defeat. RM (Be my friend) 22:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Hamas still has control over all of Gaza’s major cities. In many cases Israeli forces leave the area after a heavy ambush (like zana ambush of khan yunis or the Beit Hanoun ambush of May). The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC) They have control because they reconstitute after the IDF clears a city and then leaves. The IDF isn't going to waste manpower holding cities after the mission has been completed. Typically the Hamas battalions present will be shattered, and then their shattered remnants will reconstiture, typically with the recruitment of fresh members (cannon fodder, let's be real). So after a while Hamas again has a strong presence and then the IDF goes back in. I think you could make a case for saying "Israeli victory" as the IDF typically withdrew after completing the mission, but I understand why many people might not want to do that as the enemy forces destroyed quickly rebuild. Nevertheless, calling it a Hamas victory or Palestinian victory is nonsense. Presenting a long list battles in this particular war, which is probably the most one-sided drubbing in any major conflict since Operation Desert Storm, as "Palestinian victories" isn't just misleading, it discredits Wikipedia. It makes this site look ridiculous. RM (Be my friend) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC) “Obliterates Hamas” is pretty much made up. The only source for these “17000 teghoghists” number is Israel, which has repeatedly accused journalists, children, doctors, mayors, and people who were killed days before “targeted attacks” of being Hamas. Hamas’ combat strategy, which can be seen in both IDF and Hamas media do not show a conventional battle but instead ambushes and infiltrations by small groups which is why they are able to sustain long battles (such as khan yunis which lasted 4 months). In many cases, Israeli forces leave after a particularly heavy ambush or booby trap attack The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) You might not believe any particular figure but I don't think anyone can seriously deny that Hamas has suffered enormous losses. Hamas does indeed try hit and run attacks, except that it seems the IDF goes in and kills tons of their fighters, destroys tunnels and other infrastructure, and confiscates arms, inflicting huge material damage to the organization to the point that the group's forces in an area where the IDF operates are reduced to skeltal remnants and only reconstitute after the IDF leaves. RM (Be my friend) 07:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) You can see both the combat footage by Hamas and Israel. “Destroys tunnels” Israeli operations in the tunnels, which are Hamas’s strongholds are largely limited and superficial, not really lasting long because the tunnels are booby trapped or the soldiers end up falling into another ambush most of the IDF footage, either officially or from soldiers shows absolutely no target being hit by airstrikes or clearly marked civilians (for example the IDF footage that labeled the bicycle of a civilian as an “RPG” before killing him. “Tons of their fighters” is made up, it’s almost as if people are forgetting that Hamas doesn’t confront the Israeli advance with their might but instead relies on a deep underground network that has barely been scratched by Israel and is constantly re supplying itself from captured vehicles and unexploded bombs. If anything, Hamas has shown more evidence of their fighting in areas Israel deems “cleared” or “dismantled” than Israel has shown “defeating Hamas” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) There has been but one battle since October 7 Isak Rubin (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC) [1][2] Thank you for saying something that was false and had no backing. Since you have claimed that now, I would like you to dispute those sources. Please provide a source that directly claims the “battle of Jabalia” is part of the battle of Gaza. I will wait. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) <- Non-extended confirmed accounts may only post edit requests. They therefore cannot participate in consensus forming discussions. Editors who engage with them rather than enforce the rules facilitate ARBECR violations. This is counterproductive in my view. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove "Results" column from tables

Many of the sources list factual descriptions "Israeli military withdrew after X" or "experts believe that not all tunnels cannot be destroyed" rather than actual determinations of a Hamas or Israeli victory. Some of these determinations are unsourced or are misleading to readers. Right now, I believe the best solution is to remove the "results" section from the tables or replace it with actual information from the sources instead of the "victory"/"loss" binary. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would not necessarily be opposed to removing it. I do see a lot of the “victories” (both sides) are listed as failed verifications. How about changing any of the fail verification “victories” to be the N/A template (“—“)? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The “Israeli withdrawal” isnt really a result for battle policy. If Wikipedia cannot really agree if it’s X victory or Y victory I think it’s best to remove it until further discussion or better analysis is available The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think the template itself will just lead to unproductive debate and WP:SYNTH and should be removed until at least majority of list items are verifiable. Also, because it's a list to other pages, I imagine readers can find whatever information they're looking for on the hyperlinked pages, so I don't believe removing it would hurt readers. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be too opposed to that, especially given the non-conventional nature of these battles. Maybe compare them to the Iraqi insurgency analysis perhaps? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I made this change since I thought this was an OK scenario to be WP:BOLD, but please feel free to revert if you want to have some more discussion! _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you wait until those who added the content had their say. You can ping them if you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have removed the "Results" section. There was way too many failed verification claims for both Israeli victories and Palestinian/Hamas victories. It seems clear a results section is not needed at this time per this discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Don't be surprised if your bold edit is reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you remove my constructive post to this talk page just providing a literal quote from a linked source and arguing that the source did not support the article text LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The End Date column got mixed up for the Battle of Netzarim and Siege of Gaza City צחי (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed DancingOwl (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No source for the division of battles anywhere

What is the source for claiming that there is anything but one single battle, the battle of Gaza, parallel e.g. the Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) or Battle of Raqqa (2017) ? Isak Rubin (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isak Rubin That would be in each every individul page for those battels Genabab (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned on Twitter

Here's a link to one of the mentions.

New readers/editors coming in: you aren't allowed to directly edit the page or discuss it here unless you have a month-old account with over 500 edits. (This applies to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) If you do, it'll just be deleted. What you can do is make an edit request. These have to be simple and specific. Pick one event on the list and go find a reliable source saying who won that engagement. Some events which received a lot of attention may have many sources talking about them, which may say different things. Bringing more than one source to back up your request will make it more likely to succeed.

At the top of this page, there are links to policies and guidelines that you should check out. There's also links to archived discussions which may provide context to questions you have. Welcome to Wikipedia! Safrolic (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for re-adding the first section

@Vbbanaz05 I have re-added the small part you removed and I wanted to clarify why here. Basically, though there is controversy over the main battles section, there is no such controversy for the first part. This is ecause it either says ongoing (which is uncontroversil obviously). Furthermore, the section saying Hamas won Oct.7th is:

1. Is supported by the provided reliable source

2. Was the result (iirc) of a big RFC a few months back, and as such should be respected unless further discussion decides otherwise. For the time, we should treat this separately. Genabab (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth revisiting the discussion from the RFC. As it stands, this phrasing is irresponsible and unfair to readers. First of all, the Washington Post source only discusses the attack on one place Be'eri, but it is used to make a claim about the whole of the 10/07 attacks—so it is incorrectly applied to the whole of the attacks. Also, the supplied source does not say "victory" or "defeat" either which makes this claim a synthesized one. (As an aside, the source must straightforwardly make this claim—admitting a military failure does not straightforwardly imply that the other belligerents "won", e.g., a pyrrhic victory can still be the result of a military failure). As it stands, this claim of a Hamas victory is patently misleading to readers. Can you please supply verifiable sources supporting this claim of a Hamas "victory"? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just looked and the result of an RFC last year was to omit and it is currently (1-1-2025) listed as "Israeli defensive failure" on the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel page. We can change this to say "Israeli defensive failure" and be in line with others if you'd like, but I don't see a reason to include a results section since this information can be obtained from the relevant page, but I'm going to remove the column. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity Would you object if I re-added it as Israeli Defensive Failure? Genabab (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I still think it's best to omit the column since I don't think it adds much, but I won't object to that compromise, so feel free to add it :)

But, I do object to the color coding since it would still effectively categorize it as a Hamas victory. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity I wont add it with Hamas Victorry but wouldnt you say that an Israeli defeat implies a PJOR victory? Genabab (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"Israeli defensive failure" is not a defeat and certainly does not imply a PJOR victory. "Israeli defensive failure" is a relative term--it means that the state did not live up to its expectations when it comes to defending its population and fending off combatants.

I think we need to omit any similar claims of victory/defeat given past RFCs. My issue with defining it as a PJOR victory is that no verifiable sources have been provided that define the event as a PJOR victory. Calling it a PJOR victory is WP:SYNTH consensus emerges among experts that it was a PJOR victory. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Toomuchcuriosity there are sources that call it a Hamas victory, or at least tactical victory:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-772919

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/18/hamas-success-israel-gaza-war-achievements-cost/

"On Oct. 7, Hamas militants surprised Israel and slaughtered 1,200 people while taking more than 200 as prisoners. It was an impressive tactical success for the group.... Israelis whom Hamas captured on Oct. 7—a clear victory for Hamas..."

https://www.wpr.org/news/israel-fights-destroy-hamas-groups-popularity-surges-among-palestinians

"To many Palestinians, that deal represented another victory for Hamas, another sign of strength." the usage of the term "another" suggests that October 7th is considered a victory.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/05/14/the-horrible-unspoken-truth-about-october-7-terrorism-works/

"...the actions of Hamas on October 7th worked.... Further, it is clear that there is now more pressure on Israel from the US and the international community for a two-state solution than there has been for decades. This would also qualify as a major victory for Hamas, were it not for the fact that Hamas opposes a two-state solution. Still, if history is a guide, the pressure will all be directed at Israel to make concessions, not at the Palestinians, so in that sense, it very much is a Hamas victory..."

https://www.habtoorresearch.com/programmes/a-year-of-war-on-gaza/

"Additionally, Hamas has succeeded, at least temporarily, in halting the normalisation of regional relations with Israel. Tactically, Hamas achieved notable success, resulting in heavy Israeli civilian and military casualties and the capture of numerous hostages"

https://qpol.qub.ac.uk/hamas-the-efficacy-of-terrorism/

"In terms of tactical-operational success, the 7 October atrocity represented a surprise attack which did succeed in inflicting death and damage upon enemies."

I think this justifies calling it a tactical victory for the PJOR Genabab (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

furthermore, other academic sources call it a victory for Hama too. I'm looking for more but I already found one such passage in the book "Deluge : Gaza and Israel from Crisis to Cataclysm" namely in the chapter "Nothing Fails Like Success: Hamas and the Gaza Explosion" which calls Oct.7th a 'short term success' Genabab (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Case for re-adding the results of the battles

Ok, so this will be a long one. But requests were made for why each result is what it is, so someone has to do it. @The Great Mule of Eupatoria, @WeatherWriter, @Toomuchcuriosity I am pinging you all because you seem to be the most involved in this edit dispute. I wanted to make this talk page section to give why I think each battle should have their results restored. Focusing primarily on the Invasion of Gaza section:

1. Beit Hanoun

2. Netzarim: says ongoing, uncontroversial

3. siege of Gaza: Ditto

4. Al-shifa siege: This one's tricky. I think we should make this one be "inconclusive" or 'Withdraw" Because Israel did withdraw, but it did also destroy the hospital. What we call this depends in part on the military value of Al-shifa, which is dubious to say the least as the lede makes very clear. saying Israeli victory would imply there is truth to Israel's claim tht al-shifa was used as a Hamas outpost. This should be discussed further

5. Tel al-Hawa: OK maybe this one should be removed? It doesn't even go to a page for the battle. Or we could keep it until someone makes a page for it.

6. Battle of Jabalia: Palestinian Victory: Institute for the study of war reported on May that "...Hamas and other Palestinian militias remain combat effective in and around Jabalia..." saying that, as the info-section for the Battle of Jabalia states, militants retained control over the city. Another source, Palestine Chronicle, also reffered to the battle as an Israeli defeat (https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israels-defeat-in-jabaliya-resistance-roundup-day-238/)

7.2nd Battle of Jabalia: Ongoing, uncontroversial

8. Battle of shuja'iyya: Israeli Withdrawal. The info-section for this battle states Israeli Withdrawal. Furthermore, the source that was used for the page previously was from al-Jazeera https://www.aljazeeramubasher.net/amp/news/politics/2023/12/26/%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B3%D9%83%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B5%D8%AF which features images of Palestinian militants continuing to occupy the city after the IDF had withdrawn.

9. shuja'iyya ambush: Palestinian victory. This is what the info-section on the ambush itself states, and there's no reason I can think of why a successfull ambush attck shouldn't be called that. Do feel free to discuss however.

10. 2nd shuja'iyya: One of Israeli withdrawal to Palestinian victory. As the info-section for the 2nd shuja'iyya states, Palestinian militants retained control over the city following the battle: https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/7/11/%d8%b4%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%85%d8%b9%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%83-%d9%85%d9%84%d8%ad%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d9%84%d9%84%d9%82%d8%b3%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d8%ac%d8%a7%d8%b9%d9%8a%d8%a9. similar points were made in the previous cited source here, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/israeli-army-withdraws-from-gaza-citys-shejaiya-neighbourhood-after-weeks-of-fighting-watch/videoshow/111648358.cms

11. siege of Khan Yunis: Withdrawal to Palestinian victory. The page for the siege does say withdrawl, but also does say that Hamas remained combat effective in Khan Yunis, which indicates an Israeli failure. The other sieges of Khan Yunis should just say Israeli withdrawal for similar reasons.

12: Zana Ambush: same reasoning as shuja'iyya ambush

13. siege of Al-Qarara: Palestinian Victory. This is what the page refers to the siege as. Calls it a Palestinian victory, that Israel was forced to retreat, and that it failed to meet its objectives in the city.

14. Tal al-sultan: same reasoning as shuja'iyya ambush

15: Rafah: Ongoing, uncontroversial

sorry again for being so long. but you have to be thorough when sorting this type of debate out Genabab (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are the ambushes broken out of the battles they're part of? E.g. the Shuja'iyya ambush (December 13, 10 IDF deaths to 0 Hamas/PIJ deaths) is listed separately from the Battle of Shuja'iyya (Dec 4-Dec 26, 16 IDF deaths to >900 Hamas/PIJ deaths). And why are "Israeli withdrawals" colored as Hamas/Palestinian victories, when Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation? It seems as though the criteria, not just for results, but even inclusion in the table itself are designed to produce orange boxes.

That's not getting into the sources themselves, which include the Palestinian Chronicle's "Resistance Round-Up" and Arabic-language Al Jazeera, and which in other cases don't match the content. This is the source for a "Palestinian victory". The Battle of Beit Hanoun's Palestinian victory result (for an operation listed as ending in May) is sourced to two ISW links from January and March, both of which only mention Hamas reconstituting their forces in an area after Israel cleared it and left. This isn't an exhaustive search, these are the first sources I looked at just now. Some editor, I haven't gone back through the history to see exactly who, seems to have been doing some serious misrepresentation and POV pushing in here. Safrolic (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the disagreements here, I am currently opposed to re-adding the results section to the battles. Likewise, the sources need to clearly state (not explain) X (Israel or Hamas/Palestinian = “X”) victory. An additional note, per WP:ALJAZEERA, while it is a reliable source, it is also RFC consensus to be extremely biased. As such, any X victories listed by only an Al Jazeera article are ones I do not back adding. For any X victory with an Al Jazeera source, I would only support those listed if and only if there was another source (listed at WP:RSP) saying the same thing.

All of that to say, (1) no, at the present moment, I am completely opposed to re-adding it and (2) too many Al Jazeera references here and borderline original research thoughts. Find me a handful of sources directly saying one sides “lost” or was “defeated” OR that one sides “won” or was “victory”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Safrolic You'd have to ask whoever made the ambush pages. I didn't. I only included them because they were already there. Perhaps we could snap off another section for just ambushes?

> when Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation?

Is there a source for that?

> which include the Palestinian Chronicle's "Resistance Round-Up"

Could be biased. But bias isn't per se a reason to not cite something (I was surprised to find out this is wikipedia policy after RFA was listed as a reliable source for this reason). I don't believe Palestinian Chronicle is considered a deprecated source either, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Genabab (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, no, I don't have a source to prove a negative. You would have to look at the several sources already within this article which feature, immediately before "is now withdrawing", "Israel says it has completed its military objectives and".

Regarding source bias and its impact on reliability, I quote the complete PC article (besides three included press statements from Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah):

The Israeli army has finally left Jabaliya, in fact, the entirety of northern Gaza. Not only did Israel fail to find any military victory in the mostly destroyed area, they were squarely defeated at the hands of the revitalized and powerful Palestinian Resistance. Israel’s military course of action remains unclear, though most likely, the Israeli army’s focus will remain situated in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Below are the latest statements by the two main Resistance forces in Gaza, and the Lebanese Resistance Movement Hezbollah. The statements were communicated via their Telegram channels and are published here in their original form.

Would you like to change the result box to "revitalized and powerful Palestinian victory?" Safrolic (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

> I don't have a source to prove a negative

Then where did you get "Israel doesn't go into these battles with a stated goal of holding the territory indefinitely or completely/permanently eradicating Hamas from the area of operation" from? It's a very specific statement. so it should have some evidence behind it.

> You would have to look at the several sources already within this article which feature, immediately before "is now withdrawing", "Israel says it has completed its military objectives and".

Issue is:

1. These sources are only saying "Israel said this" and not that it actually did it.

2. In many of these battles, the sources then list cases of Hamas or other members of the JOR continuing to be active in the city, which directly contradicts whatever the IDF has to say on the matter.

> Would you like to change the result box to "revitalized and powerful Palestinian victory?

This is meant to say its unreliable, how? Genabab (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing! These conclusions, however, are still WP:SYNTH at the very least and may be not be neutral since they clearly favor one side without much evidence. We need secondary sources that explicitly say "victory" or "defeat" in order to include that phrasing, otherwise it is WP:SYNTH since they're conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources that are not at all obvious. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2025

In light of the "alleged massacres" list you included on this page, "Hamas-led <attack> on Israel" should also be changed into the "October 7 Massacre". There's plenty footage to prove that is more accurate (I'd be happy to provide links of the massacre of civilians Hamas filmed if necessary). אטלס (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done - This is based off the name of the article itself, which was recently moved and is currently at October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. That article was at one point titled '2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel', but has never been titled as a massacre. Individual massacres during the Oct 7th attacks are listed according to their article titles further down the page. I will change the listed name to match the new article title, though. Safrolic (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"Attack" section is dysfunctional

The "attack" section makes no sense, and I think it is just an artefact at this point of how the page was originally structured. Most of all the engagements in the other sections involve some sort of "attack". Of the two "long-range attacks", one is the rocket barrage on 7 October and should be hosted in the related section, and the other is just an aggregation of engagements, not a single engagement. The "Israeli attacks" are meanwhile just a continuation of the pattern of civilian massacres and mass killings, and should simply be grouped with the four mass killings already dubbed massacres since, regardless of the descriptive language, there is little to no qualitative difference between most of these attacks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The whole article needs reworking. Before it surfaced on the Twitter pages it was already obscure and recieving few edits The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC on Articles' Scope

There have been several discussions opened in the past regarding this article's content and overall scope. Several wars have a list of military engagements and battles. Examples include: World War I ("Military engagements"), World War II ("Battles"), Russian invasion of Ukraine ("Military engagements"), Sudanese civil war ("Engagements").

The Israel–Hamas war is no different with this article. However, unlike all the other list of military engagement articles, this article has a ton of clean-up templates including lack of sourcing, MOS, and scope issues.

So, with all that background, let's have a discussion on what the scope of this article should include, or more specifically, what is a "military engagement" during the Israel-Hamas war? Are "Battle of ...." engagements? Are airstrikes engagements? Should the article's scope be redefined away from "military engagements" to just "engagements"? Ect... The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• I honestly do not have a clear clue on what is a "military engagement" during the war. In my view, any article that is titled "battle of ...." is a clear engagement for the scope. However, something like the Flour massacre is not a true "military engagement" and should not be in the article or under the current scope in my opinion. Under the current scope of "military engagement", I support the removal of any event where the two sides, Israel and Hamas/Palestinian did not actually shoot at each other, as those are not true "military engagements", definition wise. I may support a scope change to include the current non-military engagements listed in the article, but unless the community decides for a scope change, I would support the removal of any non-military engagement listed here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Question: Is this a RfC or a RFCBEFORE? M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC is to get the communities input. There is no options as this is specifically to get widespread input. RFCBefore is covered by the tons of discussions that were started in the past on this article and subsequent parent article (Israel-Hamas war talk page itself). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of a RfC is to settle a content dispute that has been thoroughly discussed. Being time consuming, RfCs cannot be used simply to attract input to a WP:RFCBEFORE. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not sure. I couldn't find a similar list elsewhere, so I don't think it should be removed without putting it somewhere else. Not sure whether expanding the scope or splitting is better, but I'll likely change my comment after seeing what others have to say. I imagine having a separate page such as "List of massacres in the Israel-Hamas war" would make it easier for readers find the info they're looking for.
•  Comment. It is important to see history of this list. After it has been merged with a list of massacres early in the war, it has been speedily renamed to 'List of engagements' with 'military' omitted. After it has been significantly modified by now-blockd Irtapil, with a lot of misleading info and stub entries added to the list (all the 'Alleged massacres', 'Long distance attacks against Israel' etc, many of those were then removed), it almost stopped getting updates. Another speedy RM, where major contributors to the topic barely participated, resulted in returning the word 'military', and then it entered its current condition. Here is where I'm getting at. Unless the airstrikes, massacres, assassinations, etc. are included in this list, it will perhaps comply with other articles of the kind, but it will not represent the scope of the conflict accurately. The battles here generally revolve around Israel striking cities to eliminate Hamas forces and achieve their 'goals', and then retreats. With a tremendous media bias (the reason for RMs on the main page) it may not be defined whether Israel achieves those or not. However, other aspects of the conflict may make a better understanding of how it goes. I tried to restructure this page in my sandbox, but before I continue with other elements, we need to decide whether we should return the points that are not directly concerning this part of the war. There is also a completely abandoned List of military engagements during the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) which should be merged here, IMO. Then we could consider renaming it to "... during the Middle Eastern crisis", but now it's important to focus on the battle articles as well. Lots of them stopped getting updates in January-March 2024, so updatingthem should bring better clarity of what should we reach here.Eagowl | talk | 10:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)