Talk:Israeli disengagement from Gaza/Archive 1

message: This article looks like it has been abandoned in the last 11 months, and reads liake any other article elucidating a current events. However, after that period of time, the article should have less information on poll/public reaction, details, etc. And have more information and links to background, aftermath, etc. This article barely mentions the relationship to diengagement and operation Summer Rains. --Arithmomaniac38 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update article

message: Stevertigo, why did you move this page? Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the page move? 

message: Removed specualtions about what israel do or will not do.
Nither Bush, nor Sharon know what israel will do and how the control over gaza will look like.
An Encyclopedia is NOT the place for such specualtion
:: Well Sharon for sure doesn't... not the way he is now.. Mtoussieh 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the "disengagement plan." The info you blanked was about that plan, and it need not be pertinent to what will actually happen. In general, you should try to find consensus on the talk page before making major changes to an article. P.S. You can sign your user name/IP address by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). That way, people don't have to look into the page history to find out who you are. Thanks, HKT talk</font> 17:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Speculation about the future

message: Consequences of Hitnatkut
I am favorous of the article portraying the consequences the hitnatkut brought us deeper.  you know... the war in Lebanon, the rupture of society, the Hamas going up in power, even violence in Amona... it should be done in an objective way as fitting the encyclopedia but with no freight!  AM HANETSAJ LO MEFAJED! Mtoussieh 07:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_unilateral_disengagement_plan_of_2004&diff=20485639&oldid=20480171 :
:  'The poll results show that it is manifestly a Jewish opposition, not a US opposition. This information is biased or the poll sampling is made upon a particular group. Since this is one of the web's unbiased sourcebook, this should be kindly revised.'
:  'Another thing is, The Jewish should have known better how it feels like living without a citizen identity. Thus, objecting to one's desire to set up his own state would not be a decent attitute.'
Don't think they belong to en encyclopedic article. -- 199.71.174.100 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  These statements by [[User:68.38.199.57]] were removed. 

message: Article states "Recent polls on support for the plan have varied widely, though consistently showing support for the plan in the 50-60% range, and opposition in the 30-40% range."  What are the actual figures, are they wide apart or consistent? DM Andy 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli opinion polls 

message: I am reverting the discription of the pro-disengagement caravan to "widely publicized" based on the following links:
Just because someone lives in Israel and may have not heard of the ads promoting the caravan dubbed "Leaving Gaza - Returning to Zionism" does not mean that it was not widely publicized.Cinemeth 00:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely publicized 

message: I think we should get some photos from CNN and other networks of the pull-out.- B-101 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: B-101

message: Jayjg the abusive admin deleted these edits and protected the page to prevent further editing because he doesn't want to face the anti-semitic behavior of Jewish settlers despite evidence provided in the link provided by Uncle Bungle and any Google news search will show. For instance:    --4.154.11.251 03:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted that edit, but I concede, given the references above. Jayjg was probably trying to calm things down given the edit battle that was going on. Abusive? what about your choice of words in the edit summary?. - Ezeu 04:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I was in the process of deleting too, even though I was quite aware of the truth of the report.  The use of Holocaust symbolism started long ago, soon after the disengagement was announced.  Certain groups of Gaza settlers started to wear yellow stars.  The phenomenon died down after a massively negative response from the Israeli public.  Now during the actual evacuations, there have been lots of cases of Nazi epithets, graffiti, yellow stars, etc etc.  This could be mentioned in the article, but just a single incident doesn't pass the threshold.  As for the pop-analysis about whether it is anti-semitic or not -- save us!!  --Zero 09:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either equating Jews with Nazis is anti-Semitic or it isn't. New anti-Semitism says it does, but apparently an incident of comparing the modern state of Israel with Nazi Germany doesn't belong there. Since it has to do with the pullout, I put it here, and again it is chased away. The fact is this event happened, and you can not simply chase it down the memory hole. If I have to I'll start the article equating Jews with Nazis qualify it as anti-Semitic and list the incident there, but it will be on wikipedia. --Uncle Bungle 11:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  Whenever there is a serious issue in Israel that inflames the passions, someone will call someone else a Nazi.  I don't see why this is surprising; it's just that someone who wants to hurl the worst insult possible can choose "Nazi" with a minimum of imagination.  About the least interesting thing about it is of which canned labels apply to it.  --Zero 12:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: A major distinction is to be made between comparing the State of Israel inherently to Nazis and comparing certain elements of the current government and police force to Nazis. The latter is targeted specifically, and can in no way be called anti-Semitism (not to say that it can't be called other things). HKT talk</font> 02:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you use the accusation as a blanket insult, its anti-Semitism. If you say the IDF is behaving like a bunch of storm troopers because... and qualify it, you're being ignorant and rude but its not hate speech? Jon Stewart actually spoke very eloquently on the subject, I don't have the complete quote any more, but it was to the effect of: "Don't compare poeple to Hitler. You're insulting me, you're insulting yourself, and frankly you're insulting Hitler. That guy worked hard to be that evil". Stewart said it was ok to compare (American) politicians to Nazis, but not specificially Hitler. The segment was called "A slightly closer look" I can't remember the airdate. --Uncle Bungle 05:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Everyone knows that neither the State of Israel nor those irritated settlers are Nazis. It nothing but an attempt to hoodwink history for equivocal purposes. Have we seen that before? --Ezeu 05:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  Article on this topic:   --Zero 10:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitic use of Stars of David  

message: I transferred an item from the caption of the Gaza/WB settlements picture into Chronology as follows:
:On 31 August 2005, the Knesset voted to transfer control of Gaza's coastline and airspace to Egypt, revising the previously-stated intent to maintain Israeli control of Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace. 
However I can't find a source for this - can anyone help? Joffan 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt to control coast & airspace? 

message: Would someone be able to help fix up the last section please? ("Escalation in the West Bank post Disengagement plan") It looks like it's been written by someone with a less-than-perfect grasp of English. I've been through it quickly and fixed the most glaring errors (spelling, punctuation etc.), although i realise that i've missed a few. But the entire section to me feels incomplete. I would be grateful for more able hands than mine to tidy things up a bit. Kelmaon 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that entire section, in my opinion, does not belong here. The title does not suit the content, which describes two incidents that happened on a single day, and the whole thing reads like a CNN news article, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If there really is an "escalation", it would not be in one day. Lastly, the title, by implying that the events are an "escalation" and that they occurred "post disengagement" as if they are tied to the "disengagement", are the editor's original research. That may also be why the section feels "incomplete". Ramallite (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Section

message: Are there any changes in the list of evacuated settlements? An anon edited Kochav HaShachar to declare it removed. Please verify. mikka (t) 00:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evacuated settlements 

message: The section "Positions of foreign governments" has been reproduced almost directly from this Al Jazeera article. The article "Israeli unilateral disengagement plan" is copyrighted by Al Jazeera Publishing 1999-2006. Agreed that it is copyright infringement? Also see Wikipedia:Copyrights. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 03:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom in subdued grey script is a reference to WP. It seems that they plagirized from wp, word for word. --Shuki 20:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification, Shuki — I didn't see the gray text, but it seems that Al Jazeera's reference is not sufficient enough to allow them to copy an entire section from a Wikipedia article. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions of foreign governments 

message: Someone (not me) put text in this section saying "This section is problematic from a neutrality perspective; it chooses not to document the large-scale pro-disengagement rallies throughout Israel on other occasions."
I've removed this text, and put in a POV tag instead. --Apeloverage 09:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag on 'Israeli opinion' section 

message: This disengagement is alrady completed. I propose it be changed to: Israel's 2005 unilateral disengagement or Israel's unilateral disengagement of 2005. --Shamir1 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name 

message: There were two instances, I believe, in which anti-disengagement Israeli protesters murdered some Palestinianians hoping it would stop Sharon from going through with it. I was trying to find news stories about the murders, but it's tough. I'm still looking, but if anyone could find them, I think they belong on this page. A student of history 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tali Hatuel and her daughters were murdered and some Israelis protested against the disengagement because of it. That is what you might be confusing it with. I dont see how the scenario described above makes sense.. Israelis killed Palestinians as well. I think it was a protest against his plan, an exteme, ugly, and digusting form of protest. I dont know how it was done in hope it would stop Sharon, but it was a protest. --Shamir1 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the two incidents I was referring to. I will add them here later. A student of history 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you listened to my point. It was not done in hope that it would stop Sharon, it was done as a form of protest. --Shamir1 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it was done as a form of protest, I will insert that. You are right. A student of history 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-disengagement murders 

message: I removed the "Current status" section, since it seems to refer to the Realignment plan. It contained the following:
:After the Israel Lebanon conflict of 2006, Olmert announced to his cabinet that disengagement from the West Bank was no longer a high priority .
This info already appears in the Realignment Plan article, and the reference link is broken. 88.155.130.178 19:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current status" 

message: I'm not keen about having news updates posted in articles. On the other hand, there should be a way to concisely have follow-up information included as well. The recent posts seem too much though. --Shuki 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent status of diplomacy 

message: This article is too pro-disengagement. Its not neutral.AniChai 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not neutral

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Yad La'ahim content has been merged here from Operation Yad La'ahim. The history of that content, for GFDL attribution purposes can be found here. DES (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=407447&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 11:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting ref 

message: The quote for source #10 is to this site - www.palestine-info.co.uk - which is the english language website of Hamas.  Hardly a legitimate source on the matter...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.131.167 (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source problem 

message: * merge POV fork, but otherwise 'evacuation' was/is either a poor translation of 'lefanot לפנות' or an attempt to beautify the real, laconic and accurate legal term for removing people from their domiciles: eviction. In itself, 'evacuation' is widely used in describing rescuing people from emergency or medical danger. In that sense, using the term evacuation, is POV as in the Israeli government 'rescued' the Jews from Gush Katif when in essence, a political decision was made, the people were evicted from their homes, the land appropriated, and then abandoned. The people were not evacuated to safety. (In fact, they were made homeless). I do not ignore that the misleading POV term became widely used, but it certainly does not justify a separate article. --Shuki (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion of [[Evacuation (Israeli politics)]] 

message: The link for source 27 does not go to the article. I do not know how to correct this. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.56.243 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're talking about since the article is intertwined with proper references and URL hard-links. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 27 Link Does Not Work 

message: I found this map and on it a small town called irit, which lies about halfway between Jenin and Nabulus and just west of Tubas, and I found that it no longer exists. I looked on google maps and I am sure something used to be at its location because there is a road and a clear area of forest at the end of the road the exact location of the supposed town. Was it evacuated maybe along with the disengagement plan? It lies in the area where the disengagement in the northern west bank was happening. Bezuidenhout (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irit 

message: I think article (at the intro) omits a vital little detail: Why? It doesn't mention the reason for this whole thing. Just a sentence would do. 75.4.148.177 (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason 

message: "Israel's unilateral disengagement" from where? And "Israel's disengagement" implies there was some sort of 'plan', so you don't need that word. Or, should we change the following titles: "Occupation of Japan Plan," "Invasion of Poland Plan" and a whole bunch of others?Haberstr (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was also in the northern West-Bank, so why not "Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza strip and the northern West Bank occupied territories", bit long, but oh well. :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but 'disengagement' is not as universal a term as the specific occupation and invasion terms your compared it too. The two examples you brought up were actually more important than the invasion plans themselves, but in our case, after five years, it is still too soon to say that the 'disengagement' has superseded the controversial plan itself. Another reason is that there was never any disengagement planned (from the outset, the plan was merely to expel the Jews but keep ties with the Arabs there including improving its economy and infrastructure) and certainly never carried out since many in the world still claim that Israel occupies the Gaza area, as well as many pro-Israel supporters wishing it retake the area and return the expelled to their land. As for the northern Samaria area, Israelis have unofficially, and against the Israeli Army's wishes, returned to at least one of the sites (Homesh) and the army still essentially has control over this area, at least much more than Gaza. The outcome of the plan still has not been finalized. --Shuki (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to reluctantly oppose. Israel disengaged from the Northern West Bank as well, and we can't fit "Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and Northern West Bank" into an intro. For now, leave as is, but consider future names, as Israel may decide to one day unilaterally disengage from large parts of the West Bank.--RM (Be my friend) 02:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should be "Israel's disengagement from Gaza" 

message: There are three full-fledged towns for Gaza evacuees in Israel now: someone needs to create new articles about them and incorporate them into the pages on the districts in which they are located. The towns are: 
* Netzer Hazani: Built for evacuees from the original Netzer Hazani. Someone also should change the original page to Netzer Hazani (settlement) or (village). Established on land owned originally by Yesodot. Read more here.
* Bnei Dekalim: Built for Neve Dekalim evacuees, the name in Hebrew means "Sons of Dekalim". The community started with a synagogue, and is expanding to become a community of approximately 500 families, numerous educational institutions, and a commercial area. Read more here.
* Ganei Tal: Built for evacuees from the original Ganei Tal. Established on land owned originally by Hafetz Haim. Read more here.
Any user who can pinpoint their precise location for an infobox, gather additional information, or get images, please do.--RM (Be my friend) 02:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three new articles needed 

message: The term eviction presupposes that the people were legally living there or legally owned property on that land. As much of the I/P conflict is with regards to the legality of the settlements, I feel like we should use a more neutral word to describe it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "Eviction" 

message: It's already a bit strange that there is a section devoted to American opinions on the pullout, but more concerning is that it discusses two polls with clearly loaded wording, commissioned by organisations which have strong points of view on the matter.  I don't think that the section in its current form adds to the article, but I don't know enough about the topic to be bold enough to just remove it, and I don't really have any further information to improve it. --Slashme (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  American opinions section seems strange 

message: The two opinion polls listed in this article meant to represent American opinion are from pro-Israel or Jewish agencies, and their clearly loaded wording implies as a precondition for participation that each participant take a decidedly pro-Israel stance. Not only is this a skewed sample from sources that don't represent Americans in general, but in the ADL poll does not even ask the question, "Do you support Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza"; and the ZOA poll uses deliberately weighted language to coerce the participant into answering "no (I do not approve)."
The inclusion of this section itself is warranted, but both of these sources need to be scrapped and replaced with something more serious and credible.68.112.148.213 (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "American opinions" section completely wrong 

message: There are 2 problems with the greenhouse section, one that I fixed and one that I didn't.
First, regarding the minor edit I made.  I added "by Palestinians" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. 
"The remaining settlements' greenhouses were looted for 2 days by Palestinians for irrigation pipes, water pumps, plastic sheeting and glass, but the greenhouses themselves remained structurally intact, until order was restored"
Without that clarification, the sentence can easily be misunderstood to be referring to Israelis looting the irrigation pipes, water pumps, etc of the remaining greenhouses (after the initial dismantling of some by Israel), which is incorrect (according to the sources cited, specifically the mondoweiss source).  On my first read-through, I personally misunderstood it as such due to the context and point of the greenhouse section (which is about Israel dismantling some of the greenhouses), and only realized that this particular instance of looting was not by Israel, but by Palestinian looters. when reading up on the sources.  Please feel free to reword in a different way than I have done if needed.  Perhaps "Palestinian looters" instead of  "Palestinians" would be more accurate (I didn't do it this way because the verb "looted" was already in the sentence, seemed redundant).  As long as there is clarification in that sentence as to the identity of the looters, just as it is made abundantly clear in previous sentences that Israelis dismantled some greenhouses.
The second problem I did not fix, as I'm not sure of the best way to do so.  The end of the first paragraph in the Greenhouse section reads, "An agreement was reached with Israel under international law to destroy the settlers' houses and shift the rubble to Egypt. The disposal of asbestos presented a particular problem: some 60,000 truckloads of rubble required passage to Egypt.[46]" The problem is that the "houses" here are not actually greenhouses, but the domestic homes of settlers, which conveys an entirely different point from that of this section.  Since this sentence is in the greenhouse section, and the sentences previous to it are all about greenhouses, this sentence can easily be misunderstood to be referring to Israel destroying greenhouses and shipping the rubble to Egypt.  This sentence about Israeli settler homes doesn't belong in the greenhouse section - it only serves to cause confusion.  I suggest placing these sentences in a more relevant section, or adding sufficient clarification, or removing them entirely.
Ezmode (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the previous paragraph, which makes it clear who did the looting.The Israelis 'dismantled' and Palestinians 'looted'. (b) 'destroy houses and shift the rubble to Egypt' is unambiguous. The rubble refers to houses. There is again no ambiguity. If you have ever worked in a greenhouse on a moshav or settlement, or anywhere in the world, you would know that they are not constructed in cement and stone, which makes 'rubble'.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the greenhouse section 

message: "Post-disengagement, Israel continued to exercise control over the external perimeter of Gaza, including seaports, air space, and the passage of people and goods"
Israel doesn't control Gaza border with Egypt.
שמילק (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt

message: The lede has nothing explaining why the disengagement took place. Now that this has been filled out in the body of the article, does anyone disagree that it would be helpful to summarize this topic in the lede? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale in lede 

message: This is missing the most important reason the 2005 disengagement got passed: People believed it would bring peace. This was the reasoning behind Labour support of the pullout, and Sharon said in his address the security risks which would disappear there would get rid of conflict. The Klorg (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Arguments 

message: Change
to 
The original sentence is ambiguous. Hb2007 (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: bop34 • talk • contribs 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2021 

message: Unilateral it's a weird word to be used in this context.
Recommended removing the word from the page. AK (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral 

message: The article contains two redlinks to Aryeh Yitzhaki. I suggest either replacing both with , or replacing the first link and removing the other.
Relatedly, at Shirat HaYam there's also a redlink that should be replaced. WallAdhesion (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: SWinxy (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage links for Aryeh Yitzhaki 

message: The text "A widespread opinion has it that Israel left Gazans with a generous endowment consisting of a rich infrastructure of greenhouses to assist their economic regrowth, and that this was immediately destroyed by the Palestinians. " is very misleading as the consensus view is that it was the Israeli settlers that dismantled about 50% of the greenhouses and then minor looting occurred by the Palestinians. the text should be "A widespread but unsupported opinion has it that Israel left Gazans with a generous endowment consisting of a rich infrastructure of greenhouses to assist their economic regrowth, and that this was immediately destroyed by the Palestinians. 216.209.181.111 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, it just reads rather ironically given the subsequent decades of systematic carpet bombing of infrastructure in the territory. In inspecting this, I noticed that two of the supporting sources were opinion pieces, and that more generally, the sourcing for this page is not in a good state weak to unreliable in places, entirely absent in others. Plenty to be done beyond the greenhouse blurb. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I've chucked out all the opinion attached to that and gone back to the actual RS news reports. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouse claims 

message: change (in reference 15) "https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ariel-sharons-dark-greatness'Ariel" (links to page not found) to "https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ariel-sharons-dark-greatness" (links to article referenced). TheGalach (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023 

message: This entire article reads like a conspiratorial, left wing funded take on the rationale for the israeli pullout. Theres no doubt in my mind that there were undercurrents and talks of demography. But the stated rationale was that Israel was busy babysitting 8,000 Jewish settlers amongst a million Palestinians and it wasn't worthwhile absent a negotiated peace. 2601:147:C102:DDA0:A02D:F4A8:6365:6D87 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiratorial 

message: change "Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory;[12][13][14][15][16] Israel rejects this characterization.[17]"
to 
"Although Israel claims to have disengaged from the Gaza strip, "it continues to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.[5][7]""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza#cite_note-occ-5
B'tselem, Israel's largest human rights organization, explained, in its comprehensive Jan 2021 report, that only one regime has control of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank and that is Israel. 
https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
On October 8, 2023, Israel unilaterally turned off water and food supplies to the entire population of Gaza. Over the next week, a humanitarian crisis developed. Over one million Palestinian children were cut off from water, food, electricity and medical supplies in punishment for the crimes committed by a terrorist organization on October 7th.
https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2023-who-pleads-for-immediate-reversal-of-gaza-evacuation-order-to-protect-health-and-reduce-suffering Lrimawi (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 04:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 

message: Change spelling mistake “enivisaged” to “envisaged”. Eva1una77 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023 

message: "Israel and Egypt have concluded an agreement under which Egypt can increase the number of police on its side of the border, while the IDF evacuates the Gazan side. The text of the agreement is not yet public."
Can this be updated?  It's not clear when this occurred, and there's no citation or source. 130.179.243.152 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage was added in September 2005, here. The Yahoo news item mentioned is archived here. I do my best to avoid editing pages on controversial subjects, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide how to proceed. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and undated claim