Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Jordan should be removed from Allies infobox, and Iraq as well

To attribute Jordan or Iraq as Hamas allies on an inference from two episodes where people from Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel is ridiculous Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable sentiment. David A (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2024

• What I think should be changed:

Remove 5 Merkavas destroyed and 50 Merkavas damaged by December 2023.

−

5 Merkavas destroyed by December 2023 50 Merkavas damaged by December 2023

+

• Why it should be changed:

These are incorrect numbers. The numbers are for 2006 Lebanon War (Per Israel) and not for this war.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The reference itself (currently number 118) - Business Insider Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Add America as an Israeli ally, like Iran is for Hamas

Copying the following from the Israel-hamas War talk page

It was one thing when America was sending military and economic aid to Israel. But very recently as much as 100 American soldiers have been deployed in Israel alongside a THAAD missile system meant to plug up the low-running supplies of anti-air missiles for Iron Dome. If America is placing boots on the ground, I think that is good enough reason to add America under an Allies category, in much the same way Iran is now. Reliable sources have also reported on the significance of this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1

"Around 100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13961393/israel-iron-dome-hezbollah-iran-missile-strike-tehran-air-defence.html

"It comes as the White House declared the US military had dispatched a state-of-the-art Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system to Israel along with some 100 troops. [...] 'It projects the message to Iran that (Israel's expected retaliation for a recent missile strike) is likely to be significant yet restrained... it also suggests that a continued tit-for-tat will only be further devastating to Iran, with the US willing to back its allies with boots-on-the-ground deployment.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/us/politics/us-missile-defense-iran-israel.html

"It is the first deployment of U.S. forces to Israel since the Hamas-led attacks there on Oct. 7, 2023." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/israel-iran-antimissile-system-us-troops/index.html

"But the deployment of additional US troops to Israel is notable amid the heightened tensions between Israel and Iran, and as the region braces for a potential Israeli attack on Iran that could continue to escalate hostilities. Approximately 100 US troops are deploying to Israel to operate the THAAD battery, according to a US defense official. It is rare for US troops to deploy inside Israel, but this is a typical number of troops to operate the anti-missile defense system."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-sending-100-troops-and-missile-defence-system-israel

"The presence of these US troops also possibly places them in the direct line of fire if another Iranian strike on Israel similar to the strike earlier this month were to happen." Genabab (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think that your reasoning seems to make sense here. David A (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to add it here as technically this proposal will only apply here on the infoboks Genabab (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. David A (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand from reading the sources, the US troop deployment has little, if anything, to do with Hamas. Instead, it was a response to a possible Iranian strike as part of the broader 2024 Iran–Israel conflict. Unless reliable sources explicitly state that the US is a belligerent in the Israel–Hamas war, adding the US to the list would be like adding Japan to the infobox at Western Front (World War II). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually it would be like adding Iran to "Allies in other theatres" for Hamas.

Which is currently the case.

Because Iran bombed Israel in reaction to:

1. Israel attacking Hezbollah

2. Israel bombing their embassy in syria.

so neither of these involve Hamas. But its still there. If so, why not America? Genabab (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps the US should be included in an "Allies in other theaters" section like Iran rather than just "Allies". - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be a better idea then, yes. David A (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the US has taken belligerent and support actions in multiple theaters. In addition to shooting down Iranian missiles, it has flown reconnaissance drones over Gaza, provided intelligence support to Israeli's hostage rescue operation in Nuseirat, and bombed Yemen. The UK has also flown over Gaza and participated in Operation Prosperity Guardian. This is not to mention that, as @Lf8u2 and I discussed in a previous topic, the military aid provided to Israel by its Western allies has been essential to the continuation of the war. The simplest and most accurate way to put it is that the countries currently in the infobox are Israel's allies. They've been described as such throughout the literature on the war. Unbandito (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then, I stand corrected. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for the editors involved in the other discussion that haven't participated here: (@Hu741f4 and PhotogenicScientist:)... let's try to keep it in one place.

The US is actively giving intel to Israel (xxxxxxxxxxx), was involved in shooting down Iran missiles (xxxxxxxx) and planning Sinwar's assassination (xxx) and are bombing countries on behalf of Israel like Yemen (xxxxxxx) and Syria (xxxx). They also have people and drones on the ground (xxxxxxx). And adding on what Genabab mentioned, Iran's retaliation was in response to the bombing of the embassy complex and the assassination of Nasrallah (xxx). Iran was also considered an ally long before they sent those missiles because they support Hamas financially and logistically. Is that not the case for the US and Israel? On top of everything else, the well documented provision of weapons and billion of dollars from the US that make it possible for Israel to keep doing what they do don't count? At this point it is ridiculous to not consider the US an active participant. What else do we need? - Ïvana (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

These references are more than enough to prove why the US should be listed as an active participant in the infobox. Iran's retaliation is unrelated to the "active part" of the war between Israel and Hamas or war between Israel and Hezbollah. The retaliation wasn't done to directly support any Hamas combat, assault, operation, or defense against Israel. They were fighting their own war. In the case of the US, you can clearly see that all these are being done to directly support the offensive of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. Hu741f4 (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. David A (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is one large interrelated conflict with the Axis of Resisting (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran, Syria and others) on one side and Israel on the other. The "conflicts" are all one and the same, the Houthis and Hezobllah attacked Israel to open up other fronts in the conflict and take pressure off Gaza. They have admitted this themselves. Iran attacked Israel as part of the same conflict. There are a host of reliable sources which confirm same. See [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]]. Given its participation in combat in both Israel and the Red Sea, America is certainly a belligerent in said conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not mistake the way we have broken down this conflict on Wikipedia (largely for pragmatic reasons) for a sort of empirical truth about it. Sources are increasingly acknowledging the multi-front conflict as a singular war (see: CNN's liveblog, titled Live updates on the war in the Middle East, Times of Israel's "Israel at War" banner, Al Jazeera's liveblog, which has long included reports from Lebanon, Yemen and Iran if they are related to the war in Gaza, and Foreign Affairs.) and unless it ends very soon, I find it highly likely that future historians will increasingly view this as a singular conflict with multiple theaters. Earlier in the thread, someone said that including Israel's allies in other theaters would be like including Japan as a belligerent on the Western Front, and I think this exemplifies the problem with the way these pages are arranged. This page is the closest thing we have for this conflict to an overarching World War 2 page, but editors can't agree as to whether it should serve as the parent page for all articles about the rest of the theaters in the war or as just another one of them. Imo, the decentralized nature of the pages about this conflict can't end soon enough. We should centralize information about the entire multi-front war on this page (and by extension, in this infobox) as soon as the sources permit us to do so. Unbandito (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it highly likely that future historians will increasingly view this as a singular conflict with multiple theaters. WP:CRYSTALBALL. For now, what we have to work with here is an article about "an armed conflict between Israel and Hamas-led Palestinian militant groups." And we have other articles, like Red Sea crisis, which cover other aspects of this Middle east conflict (wouldn't you know it - the US is already listed as a Belligerent in the infobox at that article, presumably for their actions in Yemen linked above.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to content in articles. It's perfectly reasonable to take note of trends and anticipate their future trajectories in talk page discussions. Given the trend I have noted and the many historical examples of conflicts being grouped together in hindsight, we should monitor developments around the categorization of the war(s) and, keeping WP:CRYSTALBALL in mind, We should centralize information about the entire multi-front war on this page (and by extension, in this infobox) as soon as the sources permit us to do so. Unbandito (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A draft page at Draft:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) is being made to replace the Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war page, and should be able to serve this function once it enters mainspace. I do believe there is merit in having a separate page for the Israel–Hamas theater of the war. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. No need to force everything about this conflict into this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This parameter of the infobox is for "combatants", and I don't see the US' participation rising to the level of being listed as a combatant. The only combat action referred to above that they've initiated is bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen - which was done because they keep shooting missiles at international shipping lanes. Setting up troops in defensive positions and shooting down incoming missiles (especially in the context of Israel, which sees missiles being fired into its territory from various directions quite regularly) is not what I would call engaging in combat.

As to the support they provide to Israel, there's been consensus to generally leave out "Supporters of combatants" from conflict infoboxes, when the support in question are things like supplying weapons or providing intel. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Engaging in warfare with missiles and drones is combat. The US Navy has in fact issued combat action ribbons to sailors who participated in combat operations where said drones and missiles were shot down. See here [4].XavierGreen (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, ribbons for "sailors who have battled Iran-backed Houthi rebels off Yemen since the fall", intercepting "attack drones and rockets fired at military and commercial vessels in the region." The very conflict I addressed above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Attacks on the Houthis in Yemen have involved Australia, Canada, Bahrain, the UK and the Netherlands. [5][6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Guess we should add those 5 countries as Allies with Israel as well, eh? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Not just for action with the Houthis, but also for actions against the Iranians as well. See here [7]. All said actions are part of the same conflict. As the US is engaged in combat operations as part of the war, it is a belligerent and not a mere "supporter".XavierGreen (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean "helping to shoot down Iran's April 14 attack on Israel." I addressed that already as well. Do you have anything new to ask me? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As much as I love the use of an info-box I have to agree with the consensus. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I must not agree with the consensus. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We should note that the precise function of a combatant does not (in most cases) determine whether or not they are one. The US has armed individuals - in uniform - contributing to the conflict. Per the International Committee of the Red Cross:

Contemporary terminology however does not make any distinction according to the primary role of the members of the armed forces, and consequently virtually all members are combatants. Only military medical and religious personnel are members of armed forces but not combatants and they do not become prisoners-of-war if they fall into the power of the enemy.

(From here)

Because members of the armed forces of the United States are involved, as @Ïvana extensively explained, there is more than enough of a case to make that they are combatants. As @PhotogenicScientist notes, we might as well also include Australia, Canada, Bahrain, the UK and the Netherlands here, because they have members of their military involved in the conflict. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The portion of the Red Cross definition you cite is primarily focused on determining "combatant vs noncombatant" individuals in active war zones. More applicable to this case here, is whether an armed forces is a combatant party in the conflict. From that same site, "combatants are members of the armed forces of a party. The main feature of their status is that they have the right to directly participate in hostilities." As I've said, defending an ally and shooting down incoming attacks doesn't strike me as a hostile action. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well:

Hostilities: The term refers the physical, armed clashes between conflict parties. A detailed set of rules regulates the way in which parties can use force against their enemies: the rules on the conduct of hostilities.

The US and etc are participating in physical, armed clashes between conflict parties. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Against the Houthis in the Red Sea crisis, sure.

In this war in Gaza? Haven't seen any examples yet. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Here as discussed elsewhere, plus this for the UK and UK/US. I would also argue that since the Houthis are listed as "allies in other theatres", that itself is more than enough justification for saying that the US and etc are participating. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You cannot submit "flying spy planes" as evidence of "physical, armed clashes between conflict parties."

And this isn't an article about every military action in the Middle east against any of the parties to this war in Gaza - if you're looking for that, we've got Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Ïvana @Genabab and others that at least the US, and also other Western nations that meet the requisite criteria should be listed as their allies. Their support extends from mere weapons supplies and funding to intelligence and active military engagements on their behalf. However to avoid ending up with too long a list, I think it is best to view it as a set of criteria that need to be met in conjunction with one another. So one factor by itself does not suffice. From what I can tell based on RS only the US and United Kingdom fully meet all the criteria, namely 1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance, 4) Direct military involvement. If others meet the same criteria that can be established through RS and then they can be added too. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance are all irrelevant to being called a "combatant" - there's been consensus found on this before, and plenty of others here have re-affirmed the sentiment of that consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientistThe problem is America now, by its own admission, has boots on the ground in what reliable sources are calling a combat role. That is more than enough reason to merit their inclusion Genabab (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Which reliable sources would those be? Because from the ones Ivana linked above in support of "people and drones on the ground", I'm not seeing much mention of "engaging in combat" [8] [9] [10]

And we have plenty of editors here of the mind that the manning of the THAAD battery doesn't rise to the level of "combatant." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist

It's listed on the infobocs:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/15/israel-iran-war-hezbollah-lebanon-latest-news1/

"100 American military personnel in total will be sent to operate the system - the first time US troops have been deployed in combat in Israel during the current crisis" Genabab (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, previous editors have listed cases of armed attacks in Yemen and Iraq by America. You have argued (I think?) that this isn't specifically against Hamas so it doesn't count.

I'll remind you however, this argument I made regarding that viewpoint:

"Because Iran bombed Israel in reaction to:

1. Israel attacking Hezbollah

2. Israel bombing their embassy in syria.

so neither of these involve Hamas. But its still there. If so, why not America? " Genabab (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, a single RS using the word "combat" doesn't mean we must call the US a combatant in this conflict. Especially in light of the coverage from other RS that don't use such language [11] [12] [13].

Regarding Iran, they've launched 2 massive belligerent strikes on Israel, each consisting of hundreds of aerial munitions. So yeah, I'd consider them a combatant against Israel here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"1) Weapons supplies, 2) Funding, 3) Intelligence assistance are all irrelevant to being called a "combatant" - there's been consensus found on this before, and plenty of others here have re-affirmed the sentiment of that consensus."

I agree, which is why I stipulated the fourth condition, 4) Direct military involvement. The US and UK have been actively involved in combat on behalf of Israel, bombing targets in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and also participating in the shooting down of Iranian and other missiles.

This is again why all four conditions should be met, as any one by themselves leads to inclusion of actors that are not fitting. If you only have the fourth, then you can include Jordan and Saudi Arabia in it (although they only participated in the anti-missile actions). However, they don't meet the first, second or third condition, so that means they're out. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree [the first 3 criteria are are all irrelevant]

they don't meet the first, second or third condition, so that means they're out

Seriously? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I mean here.

Each of the four criteria are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient for inclusion of a particular actor as being counted as an ally, including per consensus as you noted (the fourth condition has to be met). You are solely interested in the fourth condition, which is fine and as I and others have noted that is also met for the US and UK, but I don't believe that that by itself is a good demarcation point, as it would mean that a case can be made for Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others to be included as well.

So we need better, more accurate criteria, and that's where the first three are important. They too are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient conditions for inclusion. The US and UK meet all four for inclusion, and hence ought to be included. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of people that disagree the first 3 criteria make a country a combatant. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I also do not believe that the first 3 criteria are by themselves sufficient, but they are necessary. All four together meet the necessary and sufficient threshold, and the US and UK meet all four of them, whereas Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and others do not (as of yet).

The US meets the first three conditions for Ukraine as of now, but not the fourth, even though it comes very close, with RS reporting that US intelligence and military is actively involved guiding Ukrainian missiles and providing strike coordinates. But it's not yet over that line.

When US military personnel start shooting down Russian missiles, and then send air-defenses to Ukraine with US personnel with the explicit mission to shoot them down, will that pass the threshold for you and will you consider them to be a combatant in the war?

Would Israel or the United States consider that to be case if let's say Turkey started shooting down Israeli missiles over Lebanon, and then moved anti-air batteries to Lebanon with Turkish personnel with the mission of shooting them down while also providing military, funding and intelligence support to Hamas and Hezbollah?

I don't think it is at all controversial that Turkey would then be considered an active combatant in the war.

I don't see why the same standard should not also apply to the US and UK. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raskolnikov.RevDoes this mean consensus has been reached? Genabab (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hardly. Since the mention of the prior consensus not to include supporting countries as combatants, I haven't seen any serious challenges to it. And I've seen plenty of people affirming it.

There's been some discussion of the US' belligerent actions against the Houthis, but this is captured at the article for Red Sea crisis. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

> Since the mention of the prior consensus not to include supporting countries as combatants

Honestly? Kind of irrelevant. After all, America is now in combat in Israel. Has 100 soldiers there operating a THAAD system and has engaged in combat before in Yemen, and against Iranian missiles to defend Israel. This, objectively speaking, has long since passed the threshold of "support". Putting boots on the ground is the smoking gun here.

> I haven't seen any serious challenges to it.

Well, see above for one. And I know you listed some sources that don't use that phrasing, they never contradict it. They never go against the framing of American soldiers in combat.

Furthermore, I think @Ïvana's comment is quite a serious challenge, wouldn't you say? It provides many sources for the following issues:

1. America shot down Iranian missiles directly

2. Planned sinwar's assassination along with Israel

3. Have boots on the ground as well as drones operating *inside of Gaza*.

> And I've seen plenty of people affirming it.

This ignores the fact that there are more people doing the opposite... something like 8-9 to the 3-4 who disagree. That should count for something.

> There's been some discussion of the US' belligerent actions against the Houthis, but this is captured at the article for Red Sea crisis.

This argument fails as the same can be said for Iran being listed as an ally to the P-JOR. No one is suggesting Iran be removed. But, what did Iran do to be included? It launched missiles at Israel.

Why did it launch missiles at Israel? Because Israel bombed their embassy in Syria, and the because they invaded Lebanon. None of these have to do with gaza. None of these are related to Hamas. But Iran is still included.

Here is where the comparison kicks in. America has (for the most part, will touch on this in a second), not militarily interfered in Gaza. But it has done so in Yemen, in syria, in Iraq, and against Iran through shooting down its missiles. The deployment of 100 soldiers makes this even more the case. If Iran engaging in activities unrelated to Gaza is enough to warrant them being included in allies to Hamas. There is no consistennt reason why the events I just stated are not enough for America to be included. It's a double standard.

This is strengthened even more when you consider that American drones have been operating in Gaza too. At this point, America's role in Gaza (from the perspective of actions related specifically to Gaza) is more direct than Iran! so, I repeat, why not include America?

Apologies for writing something so long. But I just feel its important to make sure no argument goes forgotten, otherwise everyone's working with incomplete information. Genabab (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've said my piece about plenty of that stuff already - the arguments you raise have absolutely not been forgotten. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientistI don't believe you have? If you can I can't seem to find it.... Certainly nothing about sinwar or Iran or really even most of what I say here. You did respond to points about provisioning weaponry and stuff but... Genabab (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)