This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Post-Cold War task force Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Israel Palestine Collaboration This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please remove United States from the infobox next to Planned by. It is sourced to a BBC live reporting article^[1] which quite simply doesn't support what it is cited for. It doesn't say anything about the US planning the attacks. It says that Israel gave the US notice before the attacks and a government spokesman said the return to fighting was "fully coordinated with Washington" but this doesn't imply the US planned this operation so it should be removed. And if there was any planning we need an source that is unambiguous about US involvement in planning this operation. 78.146.9.186 (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Moved from archive Justjourney (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Of the universe (say hello) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is inaccurate to describe the exchange of living and dead hostages with Palestinian prisoners, including hundreds of murderers, as a "prisoner exchange." This is not a term used by standard news agencies (e.g. ^[2][3][4]), since the hostages were kidnapped.

Diff:

אקעגן (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wanna be even more partial ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources that avoid using the term "prisoner exchange":

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-hostages-prisoner-release.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-hamas-hostage-prisoner-exchange-feb8-1.7454394

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9vyz747eo

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250131-three-israeli-hostages-set-for-release-in-exchange-for-183-palestinian-prisoners אקעגן (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is also a Wikipedia section referring to this as a prisoner-hostage exchange:

2025 Gaza war ceasefire#Ceasefire and hostage/prisoner exchanges

Note moved from archive Justjourney (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I made a couple changes to your proposed text: from what I understand from the cited sources, the second phase was supposed to include freeing Israeli hostages, but not necessarily in exchange for more prisoners. Also, I changed "1,900" to "at least 1,500," since that's what the NYT says. —Of the universe (say hello) 15:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Description of suggested change: Hezbollah is not the lebanese government and should be considered a NGO under the international reactions section, or at least be differntiated from lebanon.

The reaction labeled "lebanon" should be changed to "Hezbollah" and the flag should be changed to the hezbollah flag, along with being moved to the NGO section

(flag of lebanon) Lebanon: Hezbollah condemned the continuation of Israel's "war of termination" and reaffirms its support for Gaza

to

(flag of hezbollah) Hezbollah: Hezbollah condemned the continuation of Israel's "war of termination" and reaffirms its support for Gaza

And moved under the Non governmental organization section (or not changed if the definition for hezbollah is as a government)

Normalman101 (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note moved from archive Justjourney (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Of the universe (say hello) 15:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article describes the target of these bombings as being "indiscriminate," citing B'Tselem and charges of Spain and Colombia. The infobox lists this as the primary target. However, no evidence is given for these accusations. On the contrary, the fact that al-Da'alis and other high-ranking militants were killed, suggests the airstrikes were not indiscriminate.

As such, I believe that the accusation that this attack was primarily indiscriminate should be qualified accordingly until more evidence is made public. אקעגן (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So they killed hundreds of civilians for a few militants. I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of indiscriminate killing. Qazxwsecd (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was no distinguishing between civilians and militants among the dead. We have no idea what the militant-civilian ratio is, though we do know many high-level militants, presumably under high security, were killed. That they were targeted intentionally seems very likely. אקעגן (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

were the children that made third of the casualties also targeted intentionally? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 10:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas has been accused of both recruiting child soldiers and of using human shields as defence.

None of the cited sources have presented evidence for the claim that Israel's attack was indiscriminate. These claims should be therefore described as allegations without evidence and should not be given priority. אקעגן (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Hamas actually uses child soldiers is a whole other topic probably not suited to here. What has been reported is that dozens of innocent civilians have been killed in the attacks in addition to military targets. That sounds rather indiscriminate to me. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths of dozens of innocent civilians does not imply indiscriminatation. You may not like it, but collateral damage is a real and important concept, especially in dense urban conflict zones such as this. We currently have no clear sense of the civilian casualty ratio for these airstrikes, which is a critical factor.

The claim that the target of the airstrikes was "indiscriminate" has seemingly been based on a general feeling, without any actual evidence. אקעגן (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Israel's missile and artillery attack killed more than 400 Palestinians, including 263 women and children”. When you include the men who are civilians, it numbers over 300 civilian deaths. They targeted houses and tents, which are not military targets. You can’t just call all infrastructure that you suspect a Hamas fighter is in a military target. Qazxwsecd (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An attack with a high amount of collateral damage is likely to creep into indiscriminate territory. GarethBaloney (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose it is 300 civilian deaths. This article as it stands reports some 600 total deaths. A 1:1 civilian:militant rate is not beyond the pale. Given the complexities of Gaza and Hamas proclivities, a much higher civilian casualty rate may even be reasonable. It has certainly been much higher in other wars; most of these wars would not be considered to have "indiscriminate" targets. This is a question for military ethicists and experts, not for editors on Wikipedia.

Hamas is also known for embedding itself into civilian areas. If there is a legitimate military asset situated in a residential area, that changes the nature of the target.

If we want to argue that Israel is bombing without discrimination, we need actual evidence. אקעגן (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“ If there is a legitimate military asset situated in a residential area, that changes the nature of the target.” That is not what international law says. Also, when I talked about the amount of civilian deaths, it was for when the deaths overall numbered more than 400. That means more than 75% of the deaths were of civilians. That is not a war ratio. For comparison, even when Russia targets civilians, there are still multiple times more deaths of Ukrainian soldiers. Qazxwsecd (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to somewhere in international law that says that there can be no legitimate military objective in a civilian area?

Russia Ukraine is not a good example, since they are not fighting ununifomed soldiers in dense civilian areas like Gaza.

The the US-led coalition fighting in the Battle of Mosul resulted in 9,000-11,000 dead civilians (AP), compared to some 3,000-5,000 ISIS fighters (NPR), about 70% civilians.

But to be clear: your contentions are all personal interpretations of conjectural statistics, none of which come from the sources cited in this article. This is why we need to rely on actual evidence. אקעגן (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Conventions Protocol I: Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food sources, water, and other materials needed for survival. This include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technologies whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime. Qazxwsecd (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this says "there can be no legitimate military objective in a civilian area." Your claim that this strike was done intentionally to target civilians was without evidence, which is my whole point. The argument is becoming circular. אקעגן (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said directly. Also you can infer it from when it says, “and other materials needed for survival”. That includes shelter. They used bombs which have an uncontrollable scope. And they did not distinguish between Hamas and civilians. Qazxwsecd (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your suggestion is that any time a house is hit by a bomb it is necessarily a violation of the Geneva conventions, you are wrong. It's hard to imagine any war that wouldn't be violating this principle. We also need to take into account the military objectives and the intent (e.g. "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population [...] for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value...").

I will repeat myself here: The point of this topic is to point out that none of the sources cited in this article provide evidence that Israel was indiscriminate—and there is some evidence to the contrary. Simply repeating the claim, again without evidence, that Israel "did not distinguish between Hamas and civilians"—does not make the case. אקעגן (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which wars (or battles) have higher civilian casualty ratios? How can a battle with more innocent deaths than combatant deaths be considered not indiscriminate? GarethBaloney (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Mosul as an example of one with a similar civilian ratio to the (conjectural) one presented above. I've never heard of the norm you suggest, though I'm open to seeing citations to such an interpretation. In any event, this is not a reason cited by the B'Tselem or anyone else I see. אקעגן (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscriminate"?   How is Israel supposed to target terrorists and militants who are intermingled with the civilian population without any collateral damage? And how many of those so called "civilians" are giving aid, support and refuge to Hamas? Hamas has to know full well that they are endangering the overall Palestinian population by their very presence and activity and by using them as human shields, and their neighborhoods as a base of operation.   Or are we to assume that Hamas has made concerted efforts to stay clear of the civilians?  BS!   Mean while they still have hostages. Yes, a "circular argument" indeed . i.e. A POV war. At this rate it looks doubtful that this article is ever going to get the account right. Good luck guys. I'm done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the above discussion, I think people are mistaken as to what an indiscriminate attack is. Under Article 51 of Additional Protocol I an indiscriminate attack includes those which "employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol". Luigi Daniele explains in this peer-reviewed paper (emphasis added):

attackers can claim that their aim was to strike the lawful targets, and that they did not intend to shell the protected persons or objects. Importantly, IHL does not admit this claim, because each of the three types of attacks is considered ‘of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction’. The nature of the means or methods employed, or of their effects, therefore, is enough to render irrelevant that attackers only had the primary purpose of striking lawful objectives, so long as they also accepted, by using those means or methods, to strike protected persons and objects alongside the lawful targets, indistinctly...This prohibition of area bombardments confirms that even when several lawful targets are the objective of the attack, it remains absolutely prohibited to target them through means or methods that involve the shelling of densely populated areas or areas with a similar concentration of protected objects or persons interspersed among the lawful targets.

Daniele applies this to Israeli attacks on Gaza, and Russian attacks on Ukraine. He further expands on how the Israeli bombing of Gaza was indiscriminate in this blog post. However, both those pieces were written before March 18. In our current case, B'Tselem has called the March 18 attacks indiscriminate, and that organization (based in Israel btw) is a widely quoted authority when it comes to Israeli war crimes and Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we don't know the extent and composition of the civilian casualties in the strike. The calculus for determining how significant of a military objective these high-ranking Hamas and PIJ leaders were is a complicated one. No such analysis is performed on this recent strike, at least not in the cited sources. Should we rely on a brief B'Tselem press release from the 18th of March, which does not contain any analysis, to conclude that there was no military target in the strikes? I would argue as well that the opinions of Spain and Colombia are irrelevant, and likely based on political calculations. אקעגן (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I see no consensus for changing the wording. Two have said they are opposed to it, and several others (I count four; make that five when you add me) have said they support it.

For the sake of avoiding a protracted debate, perhaps it would be more constructive for the OP to suggest what they think the wording should be, and people can weigh in on that instead? If it's reasonable, it may not matter whether individual editors think it is indiscriminate or not, as they may support the new wording regardless. Lewisguile (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@אקעגן once again "indiscriminate" doesn't mean there weren't military targets. It means both military and civilians were attacked without distinction.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the article itself provides enough context and nuance when it comes to using the word "indiscriminate", I do feel that saying the Target was the "Indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza strip" is somewhat out of place.

While the attack may or may not have resulted in an indiscriminate bombing, the provided sources simply do not back the claim that that was the "aim of the attack". Roffaduft (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the statement in the info-box is far from neutral, and the three sources used for that line are clearly biased. Aljazzera? Colombia? As for B'Tselem, their sole purpose is to report human rights violation in Gaza and are acutely biased against Netanyahu. Take a look at the nature of B'Tselem's activities and their relationship as it concerns Netanyahu and the IDF. This is not the first time I've seen questionable sources use to cite a clearly biased and less than neutral statement. The statement in the info-box needs to be changed, and better sources are clearly called for here. Btw, B'Tselem had nothing to say about the clear human rights violations that were committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 when they targeted civilians in Israel, having no military objective in mind. Colombia ceased diplomatic relations with Israel in 2024 over the Gaza conflict - i.e. hardly an unbiased source. This article needs to be tagged for serious NPOV issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article also lacks important context. There in nothing that explains the Hamas-Palestinian relationship. Are members of Hamas Palestinians themselves, or are we to assume that they came from another country? There is nothing that explains how Hamas is operating within the Palestinian neighborhoods and are surrounded by civilians, including women and children. There is nothing that explains whether Hamas is welcomed by the Palestinians. If Hamas presents such a danger to the civilians, why haven't they insisted that Hamas leave the country? How many "civilians" are giving direct aid and comfort to Hamas, supplying them with food, shelter and moral support? — All these things are important since the article is advancing an opinion that the bombings have been "indiscriminate". Last, there is next to nothing in this article that articulates the Israeli point of view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this is an incredibly gross take good lord. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not involved here but I'd like to clarify a few things. Responding to your first comment, bias in a source does not indicate unreliability. It takes a whole discussion of its own to determine whether a source is unreliable. In response to your second comment, firstly, Hamas is a powerful organization that cannot easily be publicly opposed, either ideologically or materialistically, by residents of the Gaza Strip. Any attempts to do so would likely be suppressed by Hamas to an extent. So the answer to "why haven't they insisted that Hamas leave the country?" seems rather obvious. Not many people would be able to engage in such an activity. Secondly, I'm not sure it matters how many ""civilians" are giving direct aid and comfort to Hamas, supplying them with food, shelter and moral support?". When a civilian provides an armed combatant with food or shelter, they don't necessarily lose their status as a "civilian." A Ukrainian civilian providing aid to a Ukrainian soldier in the form of food doesn't suddenly become a killable belligerent. And providing "moral support" is very likely not a good reason to kill a civilian. While these two conflicts differ in many ways, there would have to be a good explanation as to why it is justifiable to kill Gazan civilians in this context before the argument can be made that bombing them doesn't constitute "indiscriminate bombing." Although at this point we'd be diving far too deeply into original research waters, and I'd rather not discuss this topic anyway. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nythar — Thanx for your reply. Re: your comments:

• bias in a source does not indicate unreliability. It takes a whole discussion of its own to determine whether a source is unreliable.

Bias in a contested and controversial subject brings reliability into question. And given the sources used in the statement in the info-box, we have a case for extreme bias. Better sources are needed. This is not to say we can't use any source that uses the adjective "indiscriminate", so long as this idea is presented in a realistic context.

• Hamas is a powerful organization that cannot easily be publicly opposed, either ideologically or materialistically, by residents of the Gaza Strip. Any attempts to do so would likely be suppressed by Hamas to an extent.

Hamas is a terrorist organization of the worst sort. You're suggesting that the Palestinians really don't want them there, contrary to the cheering crowds of Palestinians surrounding Hamas as they parade down the street armed to the teeth. The fact remains, Hamas is smack in the middle of the Palestinian infrastructure, so when Israel strikes at military targets, civilians are bound to get killed, unfortunately. This is the context that is missing in the article. This is not OR, the situation with Hamas occupying the same space as the civilians is a glaring fact.

• I'm not sure it matters how many "civilians" are giving direct aid and comfort to Hamas, supplying them with food, shelter and moral support".. When a civilian provides an armed combatant with food or shelter, they don't necessarily lose their status as a "civilian".

Very true, but let's remember that civilians are often part of how Hamas is able to operate with complete immunity, with ease and assistance, among the Palestinians. So in those cases we are not talking about innocent civilians., but part of the Hamas terrorist effort, regardless if they are actually pulling the proverbial trigger.

• ... there would have to be a good explanation as to why it is justifiable to kill Gazan civilians in this context before the argument can be made that bombing them doesn't constitute "indiscriminate bombing."

it would only be justifiable as it concerned those civilians who are giving Hamas direct support and shelter. Of course, the killing of innocent women and children, etc, is not justifiable, morally speaking, but everyone is mixed in altogether in the midst of a violent war, all the while Hamas is stockpiling weapons in civilian structures and using civilians as human shields, and has not even hinted at the idea that they intend to stop. The ceasefire went south and both Israel and Hamas are blaming each other, so here we are today.. If we are going to use the highly opinionated adjective of "indiscriminate" it should be done so in that context, as Israel is targeting Hamas leaders and their stores of weapons, and they still have all sorts of sophisticated and deadly weapons and high explosives, mainly from Iran. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR territory and is verging on WP:NOTAFORUM, too. This isn't the place to debate whether civilians are civilians or whether they lose that status because of their relationship with terrorist groups. It ultimately comes down to what the RSes say or not. Lewisguile (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to say civilians are not civilians, only that this idea needs to be presented in its proper context. There is no OR involved anywhere. Currently we have an obtuse out of context statement in the info-box, under 'Target': "Indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza Strip " is not a target. This is cited by three acutely biased sources i.e. B'Tselem, Aljazeera, Colombia. Also, your use of NOTAFORUM is inappropriate, as a controversial point is being discussed. The info-box statement needs to be removed or edited. The idea of "indiscriminate" can be dealt with fairly in the body of the text, where it can be explained that Israel has been widely accused of indiscriminate bombing because of collateral damage, for the simple reason that their objective was to remove military targets, not to 'indiscriminately' bomb the entire Gaza strip.. Hamas is the only one who resorted to indiscriminate killing on Oct. 7. That is the context this article is lacking.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have a section entitled "Forced displacement", briefly describing that "The IDF ordered all civilians in the areas of eastern Gaza to leave and move towards its center." Two Wikipedia articles are linked for further information: Gaza Strip evacuations and Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war § Forced evacuation.

The verbiage of the cited AP article is "Residents in these areas warned to flee to shelters in [...]". Likewise, "evacuation orders" are used by the NYT, Reuters, even Al Jazeera (though they call them "forced evacuation orders").

It therefore appears to me that "evacuation order" is a term preferable to the politically-charged "forced displacement." I propose we should use the formulation "evacuation order" in this article. אקעגן (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Evacuation order" seems to be "politically-charged". Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I cited numerous articles by respected media sources who prefer this term. אקעגן (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording should presumably be based on a decent amount of source sampling. I agree that "Evacuation order" could be seen as "politically-charged" because it presumably adopts the language of one of the belligerents. We don't normally adopt the language of the belligerents, either the IDF or Hamas etc. I'm guessing that a more diverse source sample set would produce more diversity of terminology e.g. UN Human Rights Office uses forced-displacement and many NGOs have been using that terminology for quite a while now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Evacuation order" is not how a diversity of sources describe this. Lewisguile (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the AP, Reuters, New York Times and Al Jazeera articles above, here are ones describing the recent events as "evacuation orders" or the like:

Watan: "Israel Renews Evacuation Warnings for Palestinians in Northern and Southern Gaza"

AFP: "the military issued fresh calls to evacuate parts of Gaza's north"

The Guardian: "The Israeli army has issued evacuation orders covering the northernmost and eastern parts of Gaza"

Jerusalem Post: "the IDF ordered a broad evacuation of Palestinians from northern Gaza, including portions of Zeitoun, Rimal, Tel al-Hawa, and two other areas."

CNN: "the military saying earlier on Sunday that it had encircled an entire district and ordered evacuations."

Times of Israel: "IDF issues evacuation warning for Gaza City area"

Le Monde: "Israel orders new evacuations in northern Gaza"

NPR: "the Israeli military ordered Palestinian residents from several neighborhoods to evacuate immediately"

Wafa: "The Israeli occupation issued new evacuation orders on Friday, instructing civilians in northern Gaza to immediately relocate to the southern part of the Strip."

Haaretz: "IDF calls for evacuations of several Gaza neighborhoods"

Washington Post: "The Israeli military placed an evacuation order on Beit Lahia on Monday"

I have included above also media sources which are generally hostile to Israel.

Calling these orders "forced displacements" implies that the evacuations were carried out for no good reason, instead of them being methods to have civilian leave from harm's way. This itself seems like a politically-charged claim, not a neutral statement of fact.

It is certainly noteworthy that neither of the news sources cited in the section of this Wikipedia article refer to "forced displacements," meaning that a Wikipedia editor introduced the term to our article on their own volition. אקעגן talk) 22:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@אקעגן, the two things aren't synonymous, though. That sources describe Israel as issuing "evacuation orders" doesn't mean there isn't forced displacement—in reality, the issuing of such orders supports the case that this is forced displacement, since the orders are themselves a means of coercion that have, along with the attacks themselves, resulted in internal displacement. Evacuation orders are the equivalent of a court summons—while the summons may lead to a conviction, it is not, in itself, a conviction. It is an instrument not an outcome.

Forced displacement can occur through a variety of means. According to the UN definition, internally displaced persons (a subcategory of people who have experienced forced displacement) include "persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights, or natural or human-made disasters and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border."[1]Lewisguile (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the displacements (which may be due to all sorts of reasons) are all the results of evacuation orders, why use the less precise term? My suggestion is that the term "forced displacement" is used because the implication of misdeed is stronger. I don't think I've ever seen Israelis who were displaced from regions around Gaza or in the North described as being a "forced displacement" often, for instance, despite them satisfying the presented definition. אקעגן (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the displacements (which may be due to all sorts of reasons) are all the results of evacuation orders, why use the less precise term? It's not the less precise term. "Evacuation orders" are not a grammatically or syntactically sound substitute for "forced displacement". Comparisons with displaced Israelis are irrelevant here. Also, there aren't "all sorts of reasons" for the displacement—people are fleeing their places of residence because of the attacks. Lewisguile (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there aren't "all sorts of reasons" for the displacement—people are fleeing their places of residence because of the attacks.

In fact, this Wikipedia article does not make that claim. It states immediately: "The IDF ordered all civilians in the areas of eastern Gaza to leave and move towards its center. Evacuation orders were issued ...." It is not because of attacks, but because of "evacuation orders," presumably before impending attacks. Changing the title of the section to "Evacuation orders" would be entirely consistent and precise. I argue, as I have before, that the term is meant as a political one, trying to paint the evacuations as being spurious. אקעגן (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Evacuation orders" is "politically-charged". Lewisguile is correct. This may be something native speakers are better able to understand. Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, "ordered evacuation" would be the equivalent phrase, not "evacuation order". But that would be a WP:EUPHEMISM, since it's not a commonly used phrase and "forced displacement" is. Lewisguile (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]