Talk:Blockade of the Gaza Strip

Opening sentence

@Makeandtoss My recent change was reverted [[[1]] This article is not only about Blockade since hammas took over in 2007. Gaza has been under varying level of bloackde since 1990's. It is explained in other parts. The opening para should reflect it. It should not tell user's that the blockade was implemented after 2007, which is misleading. Please tell me your objections so that it can be corrected Astropulse (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the restructuring of the sentence to start with the Hamas takeover instead of the Israeli blockade was misleading; although I do not object to indicating the existence of an older blockade. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the aim of the 1990s blockade? This is missing from the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course also on the basis of security despite security officials openly recognizing the limited value of closure for security purposes. More importantly, it was motivated by the policy of separation (to be become explicit public israeli policy in 2006): Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Separation_of_the_Gaza_Strip DMH223344 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that Israel and Egypt are currently blocking exit from the Gaza Strip. This should be in the first paragraph - possibly in the first sentence. Why? Because some people have the impression that it is only Israel that is responsible for the blockade. If it is true that also Egypt blocks (or restricts) this should be made clear.

However, a recent articl says:

  • Israel Retains Control of Rafah Border Crossing Between Gaza and Egypt

Does this mean that Israel and Egypt both are blocking passage across the Gaza-Egypt border? Please advise. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is the principal actor due to its control over the majority of Gaza’s borders, and it blocks Gaza’s access to the West Bank. Israel also restricts imports, exports, electricity, water, etc. Egypt's closure of the Rafah crossing is mentioned in the lead. So, the article is really about the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not Egypt's. Egypt only controls the crossing into Egypt. As a sovereign country, it is allowed to do so, but what Israel has done is far more extensive. Astropulse (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article on the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip (2023–present).
I also wonder if it can be clarified that most (or nearly all) of the blockade is being imposed by Israel, while Egypt is only blocking Gaza's southern border.
--Uncle Ed (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 1 September 2025

Description of suggested change: In the "Legality of the blockade" section, it currently says: "Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted after the September 11 attacks on the United States..."

That is incorrect — the correct resolution is Security Council Resolution 1373 (adopted on 28 September 2001 in response to those attacks). Source: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373.

Diff:

−
[[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 |Security Council Resolution 1973]], adopted after the September 11 attacks on the United States, obliges all member states to prohibit making resources available to militant organizations.
+
[[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373|Security Council Resolution 1373]], adopted on 28 September 2001 after the September 11 attacks on the United States, obliges all member states to prohibit making resources available to militant organizations.

41.44.9.98 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ICRC moved to talk

The article's section on the "legality of the Blockade" contained an entire paragraph concerning itself with the International Commitee of the Red Cross and it arguable special authority as "THE guardian of international humanitarian law":

... is the guardian of international humanitarian law, the law applicable in situations of armed conflict. This special role of the ICRC is now formally recognized in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which have been adopted both by the components of the Movement and by the States party to the Geneva Conventions, that is, practically all the world's States. Article 5 of the Statutes states that the role of the ICRC is "to undertake the tasks incumbent upon it under the Geneva Conventions, to work for the faithful application of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to take cognizance of any complaints based on alleged breaches of that law" (Article 5.2c), and also "to work for the understanding and dissemination of knowledge of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts and to prepare any development thereof" (Article 5.2g).[1]

Regardless of whether all this is accurate (and I'd seriously question at least the claim that the ICRC is THE - i.e. the unique - guardian of international humanitarian law), it is a violation of NPOV to provide one organisation cited with such a bolstering statement, as this automatically also bolsters the opinion - and that's what it is - ascribed to it. One could equally add such paragraphs to other organisation quoted, even negative ones, e.g. regarding UNRWA's involvement in the events leading to the current hostilities. But we don't. Because this section is about reporting various opinions on the Blockade. Str1977 (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Deletion or new citation

This line's "The restrictions on movement and goods in Gaza imposed by Israel date to the early 1990s." citation is not a valid link. Please delete or supply a valid reference for such a claim. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 10 October 2025

Description of suggested change: Next to "cause" the page says: "Isolate Hamas after its takeover, prevent weapons smuggling and attacks, and exert political pressure" Which is very misleading. Hamas won fair elections as stated by third parties according to wikipedia's own sources after clicking the "takeover" link. I would suggest something more along the lines of: "Isolate Hamas after its electoral victory, and collectively punish the Gazan population"


Diff: red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
138.51.49.117 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I think that would skew POV too much from what it is now, so you would want consensus for a change like that. Nubzor [T][C] 20:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 2 January 2026

Description of suggested change: Incorrect reference in _Legality of the Blockade_ section.

Hello, WikiFriends.

There is a long block quote citation in the Legality of the Blockade section that is incorrect. The current citation incorrectly points to the "Protected Person Status in Occupied Iraq Under the Fourth Geneva Convention" OLC opinion.

Rather, the block quote came from Bisharat's Denver Journal of International Law & Policy article, which is cited in the next paragraph.

Additionally, the next (non-quoted) paragraph is also directly from the article:

"...Israel instituted the blockade against the Gaza Strip not in response to a violent attack, but rather in response to Hamas's ascension to exclusive authority in the Gaza Strip, and earlier in response to the Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Israel, in short, engaged in an act of war against an occupied people, and violated its legal obligations to them long before..."

Also, while Bisharat was a professor at UC Hastings when the Denver Journal article was published, I don't think it was an official finding of the University.

Therefore, I suggest dropping the bracket-heavy block quote and just summarizing the relevant bits that refer to the Fourth Geneva Convention, as below.

It also kind of gets lost in the block quote that Bisharat was talking about 2007's actions, rather than the current state of the blockade, so while many of these arguments are still live, if we're quoting Bisharat we should say which blockade he's talking about.

Diff:

−
These views are supported by further legal analyses. A multi-referenced [[University of California, Hastings College of the Law]] analysis in 2009 recorded: <blockquote class="templatequote " >Under [[customary international law]], a blockade is an act of war. It is employed to cut off communications and supplies of an enemy. While the modern concept extends beyond its original and exclusive maritime roots to include both land and technological blockades, the consistent feature is that a blockade's purpose has been to deprive a military adversary of necessary supplies. A belligerent imposing a blockade upon a region consisting of a civilian population must allow the free passage of relief consignments to the civilian population. In fact, the legality of a blockade under customary international law hinges on the requirement that aid for the civilian population be met with free passage. The reasons cited for Israel's refusal to allow passage of basic necessities are untenable. Israel claimed that its restrictions were necessary to put pressure on Hamas officials to halt or substantially hinder the firing of rockets into Southern Israel. However, there is no reasonable relationship between depriving Gazan civilians of subsistence items and the suppression of Hamas' rocket launchings against Israeli towns. Israel's duties to "[[protected persons]]" as an occupier of the Gaza Strip under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention require that it allow the passage of all aid, foodstuffs, and water given the severity of the humanitarian crisis. The blockade appears to have clearly violated this provision of the law of occupation. Israel's blockade, which by the launching of Operation Cast Lead had persisted for eighteen months, violated international law in another respect. Under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism . . . against protected persons and their property are prohibited." This article prohibits the use of collective punishment of protected persons, the breach of which constitutes war crimes. "Protected persons" [include] civilian individuals who find themselves, in case of an armed conflict or occupation, in the hands of a power of which they are not nationals[, not citizens of a [[neutral country]] in the territory of a belligerent nation, and not nationals of a [[Co-belligerence|co-belligerent]] state.]</blockquote> George Bisharat highlighted that Israel instituted the blockade against the Gaza Strip not in response to a violent attack, but rather in response to Hamas's ascension to exclusive authority in the Gaza Strip, and earlier in response to the Hamas victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections. According to Bisharat, Israel engaged in an act of war and violated its legal obligations long before launching Operation Cast Lead in 2008.
+
In 2009, George Bisharat argued that when the embargo was tightened in 2007, Israel constituted an occupying power under customary international law. As such, Israel had an affirmative duty to provide food and medical supplies under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He further argued that the tightening constituted a collective punishment on the population of Gaza for Hamas' 2006 electoral victory, violating Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Reve (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Protected Person Status in Occupied Iraq Under the Fourth Geneva Convention". Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. 28. Office of Legal Counsel: 42–47. March 18, 2004.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bisharat 2009 p59 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip