# Talk:History of Gaza

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

I've reverted edits by Al Ameer son (talk) that are not only POV but also dubious historically.  These include, but are not limited to: (1) attribution of Egyptian motivation for attacking state of Israel, (2) use of term "occupation" to refer to Israeli administration of territories and "administration" to refer to Israeli period, (3) unsourced statements about political freedom in Gaza after suez crisis.--Sjsilverman (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Addressing your concerns in order:
(1) The Egyptian motivation for attacking Israel in 1948 is a well-known one, however, I could see the language is touchy when the article reads "to prevent Palestine's partition". That is POV and I certainly have a pro-Palestinian POV, but I am adamant about keeping it out of my editing. This is certainly a mistake on my part. However, there is absolutely no justification for removing important background information such as "In the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan, Gaza was assigned to the Arab state." I will reinstate this immediately since this is indeed fact and not controversial. We could certainly reword things like Egypt's motivation which doesn't even have to be mentioned I guess, but the word "obtained" is not the best substitute. I think captured would be more suitable.
(2) Egypt's rule over Gaza is referred to as "administration" because the people there certainly welcomed the Egyptian army presence than the alternative. The source also refers to it as "administration" since the Egyptian government dealt with day-to-day affairs and the Gaza Strip was no different than any part of Egypt at the time like the West Bank was no different to any part of Jordan at the time governance-wise. Israeli rule was vehemently opposed obviously and the Israeli government itself laid out a policy to "govern not administrate", as the reference used entails. There's no way around the fact that Israel occupied Gaza as it was certainly against the will of the population there and Israel maintained military rule there. Before you edited the article there was one section titled "Egyptian and Israeli occupation". That is acceptable since Egypt technically ruled by (not through though) force. I think that should be restored.
(3) The entire paragraph that deals with Egyptian rule is backed by a reliable source at the end of the paragraph-Feldman, Ilana (2008), Governing Gaza: Bureaucracy, Authority, and the Work of Rule, 1917-1967.
Also no matter what the title changes should be, dates should be removed from the headings i.e. 1947-1967, 1967-1994. It's just unnecessary, and I think it goes MoS. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while so I'm not a 100% about the particular MoS for headings. Please reply to my replies one by one so we could sort any issues out specifically. Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing these issues in a constructive manner.  I'm only going to address your first issue now, as I haven't had time to really think about #2 and #3.
(1)I agree that there is no controversy about the gaza strip being in the arab portion of the UN partition plan.  There is quite a bit of controversy, however, about the legal significance of the partition plan, which was just a plan, never accepted by the parties (in particular never accepted by the Arab states at the time).  My real problem with including this in the article however, is that it is either (a) POV in that it suggests a connection between the partition plan and the Egyptian attack and occupation of the gaza strip, or (b)a non-sequitor.  I would ask you to ask yourself why you think this fact is relevant to this section of the article and then state the answer here. I think you'll find it is difficult to answer the question in a way that does not convey a POV about a controversial topic.  Parenthetically, I find, in my wikipedia editing, this to be one of the most difficult problems to address -- the inclusion of single accurate facts by themselves can give undue importance to those facts.  Coincidentally, I was recently trying (unsuccessfully) this issue with someone who appears to be on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum from you on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  He insists on including a reference to a poll which, in his view, shows that Egyptians hate Israelis.  Existence of poll appears to be true, and may or may not be accurate, but including it (from his POV) appears to be designed to show that Egyptians, and not Israelis are at fault for the "cold" peace between the two countries.
Again, not addressing #2 and #4 now, but, for what it's worth, my belief, based on my reading of secondary sources, is that Egypt's position with respect to many issues relating to Palestine in the postwar period were primarily driven by Egypt's interest in countering Jordan, who it viewed as a threat and rival.  Both Egypt and Jordan hijacked the Palestinian cause for their own perceived national interests.  Egypt did little or nothing to promote economic growth during its occupation, and actively suppressed any sort of genuine democratic political activity.--Sjsilverman (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The source Trudy Ring p. 289 states "... when Muslim armies descended on the city to battle Christian Byzantine forces in 635, Gaza was spared destruction. At that time there were already Muslim converts living among the Christian inhabitants, who were largely Greek-speaking. The coming of Islam to Gaza brought radical changes in its wake: churches were converted into mosques, the population in and around Gaza, swiftly abandoned its Christian faith for Islam, and in time, Arabic became the language of Palestine." --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, he cited reference is to 1994 book, while this one is 1996. Secondly, and most importantly, the writer is an economy journalist, it is not a reliable source for history.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thirdly, i warn you not to remove "citation needed" and "not in source" templates before the discussion is complete - this violates WP guidelines.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to warn me, because if something is indeed cited then the citation-needed tag doesn't belong and should be removed. Also, the book discusses the histories and characteristics of the various major cities of the Middle East, not economics, and I don't at all see how this is not reliable source. If you want to contest its reliability for history, open a query at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As for the ref year, that's my mistake and I'll go ahead and sort it out. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gaza City and the Gaza Strip are two different things. Shouldn't they have two different history articles? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding, this article is only about Gaza, the city, not the Gaza Strip. As such it does not discuss the histories of the Strip's other cities and towns. The "content split" tag should be removed since there is nothing to split. I noticed that History of the Gaza Strip has been redirected here, but it's technically inaccurate. A new article on the History of the Gaza Strip could be created however, if you're interested. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feelings about the template, removing it wouldn't ruffle my feathers. None of the other histories of Cities in the Gaza Strip have such a good history of the GS, but Gaza is the only GS city with it's own history article. The other GS city history's are sections of the city article. If we create a "History of the Gaza Strip" article, we should probably limit it's scope and\or this article scope to prevent them from becoming duplicates of each other. Maybe "History of the Gaza Strip" could be primely mid-20th century to present.  Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal. The Gaza Strip is a new entity, resulting from the 1948 War. However, its history from then until the present day is extensive enough without including the pre-1948 history of the area. Of all the cities in Strip, Gaza City is the most historic of course. The only reason this article exists is because I was asked to split the information from the Gaza article during its GA nomination since it was getting too large. The histories of other Strip cities aren't big enough to warrant separate articles. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing to split, agree with Al Ameer. You may create a new article on "History of the Gaza Strip" with post-1948 history of the entire strip. End of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] is cited in our article and closely resembles our text.  It doesn't look like a top-notch source.  Someone who is feeling energetic ought to figure out if this is merely a plagiarized source, which we can rewrite and use with ... some ... confidence, or if it's an actual circular reference in which case it doesn't prove anything but that's what we used to have.  Or find new sources for it.  I mean, the text is interesting and I don't want the data lost, but needs a fix. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The description under "Hamas administration" regarding the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is unbalanced. It was added around two months ago. It was not clear as this says that it was Hamas who escalated with rocket attacks and then Israel responded with an operation. As can be seen in the main article, there had been an escalation of rockets attacks but Israel had also before that attacked Hamas in a tunnel, according to several sources stated there.--IRISZOOM (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it to a better description now, one that resembles the main article. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So Tuylrnicracker666 have now reverted me. First of all, it only says they were killed and not more (though it could be added) and secondly, it's not Hamas' version but rather several sources stating that, as described many times in the main article. Any way, reverting to the version which says Hamas escalated it and Israel just responded is what is NPOV. Your own assertion that Israel usually takes responsibility if they are behind an attack is irrelevant. Furthermore, there was a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank before that, which also could be added but this current version is extremely one-sided. So we have several sources stating something which Israel refutes and again, just presenting the Israeli view is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Gaza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229125329/http://www.counterpunch.org/roy10042006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/roy10042006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow I intend to clean up the mish-mash.  I won't change content, but as a historian, this sort of sloppy talk irks. :-) . 104.169.41.8 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Change "After the killing, by a grenade thrown at their car, of one Jewish family, Sharon conducted a year long operation..."
to
"After the killing of one Jewish family by a grenade thrown at their car, Sharon conducted a year long operation..."
Original wording is awkward and stilted. Jcalton (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

wouldn't it be helpful, useful, appropriate to have an etymology section near the top? 🧐🙏 ~ Johnfreez (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Change 
“On 7 October 2023, the 2023 Israel–Hamas war started, and on 2 November, Israel started the siege of Gaza City.” 
to 
“On 7 October 2023, Israel declared war on Hamas in response to militants from Gaza breaching the security barrier and attacking, killing and kidnapping hundreds of Israelis. On 2 November, Israel started the siege of Gaza City.” Myster262 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The “Israeli-Hamas” war is an Israeli-Palestinian war that began in 1948 with Israeli occupation of the Palestinian state. Hamas did not create the occupation, Israel did. 
Hamas is a terrible organization born out of the need for Israel to establish a two-state country where Israel does not have more power & resources than the Palestinian people. I wish you Wikipedia editors weren’t racist pieces of shit, because we all see you trying to rewrite history but WE’RE NOT FALLING FOR IT. 100.37.244.216 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to say that Gaza is under “Palestinian control” in the last paragraph without mentioning the siege and other constraints on effective control set by Israel. The graph also is similarly misleading in suggesting that Hamas has sovereignty over Gaza.  Catofminerva (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed about the blockade as well as the graph. It would be a serious stretch to call the current situation "hamas sovereignty"; I'm not aware of any source (or Israeli official) who would call it that. DMH43 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no source for the claimed note that Israel attacked Gaza in response to rocket attacks. 
I feel this is inflammatory gossip unless substantiated with a source. 74.3.141.153 (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Several important figures in Gazan history have been left out of this quickly-politicized page, including ones that have existing wikipedia entries that can be linked to:
- Nathan of Gaza (chief disciple of Shabbetai Tzvi, moved to Gaza from Jerusalem in 1663)
- Israel ben Moses Najara (16th century rabbi of Gaza)
- His son, Moses Najara, who succeeded him as rabbi of Gaza
Also, the entry on the disengagement has no context, since Gush Katif isn't mentioned at all. The wikipedia entry for Gush Katif can also be linked to. Onkelus Translations (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph, Gaza is described as having first been controlled by Canaanites, then Ancient Egyptians, then Philistines, then Assyrians (around 730 BC). But the actual body of the article says it was controlled by the Kingdom of Israel for several hundred years prior to the Assyrians claiming it. That seems like a pretty serious omission. Can it be corrected? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring the graphic up for discussion. Many entries in it are problematic.

(1) I don’t understand what is meant to be substantiated by Netanyahu's speech. The footnoted statement is not backed by it, and in any case, it is not historiographically relevant.
(2) Why are the Hyksos included here? The upper section (and its source) only mentions their dominance over Egypt.
(3) I don’t understand the logic behind the use of gray and red markings:
(a) Nothing is mentioned about Canaan being dependent on another power. Shouldn’t that be red?
(b) Why isn’t the Philistine bar red?– Between 3300 and 1000 BC, I only understand the gray shading for the two Egyptian bars.
(4) The Kingdom of Israel passage is not history, but biblical history; modern historians largely agree that the biblical narratives are mythical and not historical. This shouldn't be included in this graphic. (Actually, it could instead be that, during the relevant time, the Gaza region was dominated by the Egyptians after Sheshonq’s conquest, but this is not mentioned in the article, and it is very unclear whether Sheshonq’s conquest of Palestine was historical and what happened afterward.)
(5) If the criterion for red shading is "limited self-rule," then the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Romans, Mamluks, and Ottomans should also be shaded red:
(a) Under the Neo-Babylonians, Gaza had a king (even though he was tributary to the Babylonians);
(b) under the Persians, Gaza minted its own coins, meaning it was definitely at least semi-autonomous;
(c) under the Romans, Gaza was a polis and therefore, by definition, exercised limited self-rule;
(d) for both the Mamluks and Ottomans, limited self-rule was the standard political system, and more specifically, under the Ottomans, Gaza was ruled for half the time by the Ridwan dynasty, which, although initially appointed from outside, eventually integrated into the local dynastic system through intermarriage with the Turabay and Farrukh dynasties. This was hardly "foreign rule".
It seems to me: Either we remove the word "limited," in which case only the two Canaan bars and the Philistine bar should be shaded red, and the Hyksos and Kingdom of Israel should be removed. If "limited" is kept, then the colouring of nearly 3,000 of the 5,300 years is misleading. DaWalda (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

... and later, around 520 BCE, the Greeks established a trading post in Gaza.
This is most certainly wrong. I have read extensively about the Philistines (the German article on the history of the Philistines was written by me), but I have never encountered such a claim. Even after a few hours of targeted research yesterday, the closest thing I found is this: In the neighboring Anthedon - a different city! -, there was a trading post in the 6th century that traded extensively with the Greeks starting by 520 at the latest; however, even with this trading post in Anthedon, it is unclear whether it was actually operated by Greeks (cf. Humbert, Jean-Baptiste (2019). "Gaza deserta (ou délaissée): la concurrence d'Anthédon". In Capet, Emmanuelle (ed.). Reconstruire les villes. Modes, motifs et récits. Turnhout: Brepols. p. 170.).
If no one responds here within the next week, I would remove this sentence. DaWalda (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Change: "Historians today largely believe that these stories about Israelite/Judean rule over Philistia are not historical, but rather mythical.[13][14][15]" to "Some historians today believe these stories about Israelite/Judean rule over Philistia are not historical, but rather mythical.[13][14][15]".  The emphasis on "largely" is inaccurate and only supported by a few articles.  The historical accounts do not suggest this though the issue is debated.  Perhaps this language from the "History Of Ancient Israel and Judah" Wikipedia article would be more appropriate:  "The historicity of the United Monarchy is debated—as there are no archaeological remains of it that are accepted as consensus—but historians and archaeologists agree that Israel and Judah existed as separate kingdoms by c. 900 BCE[2]: 169–195 [3] and c. 850 BCE,[4] respectively." TsukiKnight (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The consensus comes from the already published information on Wikipedia in the article "History of Ancient Israel and Judah" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah.  This directly contradicts the claim ""Historians today largely believe" and justifies changing it to "Some historians today believe".  It is a slight but important change. TsukiKnight (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
 Done Ultraodan (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Description of suggested change:
The source cited indicates Northern Gaza has 300,000 people remained, altough current article may be misleading to think Gaza has 300,000 people left. The claim is contradictory with reported deaths and nose counts suggest otherwise.
Diff:

 Thatllfindyou (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done Thank you for spotting this! Lova Falk (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)