Talk:Second Intifada

The name in Arabic

Al-Intifāḍat aṯ-Ṯāniyya is incorrect: the t at the end of the first word is not pronounced, and the second word does not have a double yy. It should be Al-Intifāḍa al-Ṯāniya (according to the Strict Transliteration at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic, ISO 233) or Al-Intifāḍah al-Thāniyah (ALA-LC romanization, approved at the same Wikipedia Manual of Style page). Linguistatlunch (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“As anticipated”

The first paragraph contain "as anticipated", but doesn't include a source for this claim as well as anticipated by who. In general I think this is not neutral language, but at the very least this kind of claim needs to be backed by a source. Asafg8 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

From the cited source page:

The outbreak of the Second Intifada is also intertwined with the story of another Israeli hero-soldier: Ariel Sharon. Palestinians loathed Sharon as the sword-bearer of Israel's reprisal strategy in the 1950s, as a father of Israel's settlement policy, and as the butcher of Palestinians in Lebanon after Israel's 1982 invasion. So when Sharon planned to visit the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000, to emphasize Jewish claims to the site, it spelled trouble. The Temple Mount, controlled by Israel since the 1967 War, is the most contested real estate in the world. It is the site of the first and second temples, the latter destroyed by the Romans in 70 C as pun ishment for a Jewish revolt. Indeed Jews gather to pray at one of the retaining walls for the second temple, the Western or "Wailing" Wall, because of its proximity to this holiness. Built on top of the Mount, how ever, are two mosques, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, the latter of which is supposedly built over the "holy of holies," the inner sanctum of the ancient Jewish temple. For Muslims around the world, the mosques' antiquity and the holiness of Jerusalem in the Islamic tradi- tion make the Temple Mount's status a source of constant concern. Jewish control of the Mount is particularly galling. Months before Sharon's visit, as Barak and Arafat negotiated the Mount's status at Camp David, the fate of the site dominated the news. Radicals, and even moderates, on each side feared their leaders would make unforgivable concessions to clinch a deal. Sharon's visit was his way of dramatically demonstrating his opposition to any concessions. Palestinian officials, Israeli police, and Israeli intelligence all predicted that blood would flow if Sharon went forward with his visit. Dennis Ross, the U.S. envoy to the peace talks, warned the Israeli interior minister Shlomo Ben-Ami about the visit, "I can think of a lot of bad ideas, but I can't think of a worse one."4 Before Sharon's visit Arafat and Barak had dinner together at Barak's home in Kochav Yair. As Arafat left he warned Barak about the risks of Sharon's planned visit. Barak, however, felt he could not block Sharon; it was his right as an Israeli to visit the site, and any interference would be seen as politically motivated.

I think this justifies "as anticipated", although maybe we should say by who. DMH223344 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede buries notable content?

It seems to me that one of, if not the most notable aspect of, the second intifada are the myriad of suicide bombings, and attacks aimed at civilians.

At the moment, the lede states that it's a time of "heightened violence", as well as the IDF's replies - but literally nothing about mass civilian Israeli casualties, or quantifying the number of attacks the same way the IDFs response is - (e.g. "A million round fired").

I would submit that's a relatively unbalanced Lede in this case. 2001:569:5084:2400:5C9E:3365:D6AD:ED9B (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For example:

"characterized by a period of heightened violence in the Palestinian territories and Israel between 2000 and 2005.[11] The general triggers for the unrest are speculated to have been centered on the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit, which was expected to reach a final agreement on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process in July 2000.[12] An uptick in violent incidents started in September 2000, after Israeli politician Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa compound, which is situated atop the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem;[13][12] the visit itself was peaceful, but, as anticipated, sparked protests and riots that Israeli police put down with rubber bullets, live ammunition, and tear gas.[14] Within the first few days of the uprising, the IDF had fired one million rounds of ammunition.[15]"

Includes NO MENTION of

"Palestinian tactics focused on Israeli civilians, soldiers, police and other security forces, and methods of attack included suicide bombings,[209][18] launching rockets and mortars into Israel,[210][211] kidnapping of both soldiers[212][213] and civilians, including children,[82][214] shootings,[215] assassination,[216] stabbings,[82][217] and lynchings.[218]".

I also don't understand why "Firing a million round of ammunition" matters?

Is a million a lot? A little? An average amount? Is it based on incident? I have no scale for this, and it seems a strange inclusion to me. 2001:569:5084:2400:5C9E:3365:D6AD:ED9B (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The next sentence in the lead says "High numbers of casualties were caused among civilians as well as combatants. Israeli security forces engaged in gunfights, targeted killings, tank attacks, and airstrikes; Palestinians engaged in gunfights, suicide bombings (the first of which occurred in March 2001), stone-throwing, and rocket attacks."

The second intifada is of course notable for the suicide bombings, but also notable for the severe repression. Here is Shlomo Ben-Ami's description:

Israel’s disproportionate response to what had started as a popular uprising with young, unarmed men confronting Israeli soldiers armed with lethal weapons fuelled the Intifada beyond control and turned it into an all-out war. This was one more case in Israel’s history where the overreaction of the military ended up defining the national agenda in terms that the politicians never planned. Nevertheless, the Intifada's resort to armed struggle and suicide terrorism was to have fatal consequences for the peace process.

DMH223344 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

See also from Baconi:

In its first few days, the uprising was reminiscent of the First Intifada. Palestinians took to the streets with stones, light arms, and Molotov cocktails to face the Israeli army with its full range of weaponry. Rapidly, however, the Second Intifada (referred to as the al-Aqsa Intifada given its birthplace) militarized. The Israeli army fired between twenty-eight and thirty-three thousand bullets per day against Palestinian stones and light arms throughout October, strategically using disproportionate force to break up protests.

which also cites a similar rounds fired statistic to capture the disproportionate response. DMH223344 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I found it odd that the number of bullets fired is mentioned in the lead. It's unusual to see such a statistic highlighted at the beginning of a conflict description, regardless of its significance. Ben Ami is a politician, and Baconi is just one source. By the way, I also agree that suicide attacks were one of the defining aspects of the Second Intifada. ABHammad (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Ben Ami is also a historian. And he is an Israeli politician, so if anything that supports the inclusion of this point. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

<- The IP is limited to making edit requests. Statements like "I would submit that's a relatively unbalanced Lede in this case" are not edit requests. IP, if you want a specific change, make an edit request with specificity per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have undone a recent revert which removed references to references which include glossaries defining key terms.

The revert also includes other edits which include:

• use of the term "terrorist" when it is not used by the source.
• awkward/unusually proIDF phrasing ("thwarting")
• representing a source more precisely (comment on radio station attack)

DMH223344 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ABHammad has reverted my revert without engaging on the talk page. Please respond here before reverting blindly. DMH223344 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:Edit warring happening, especially as this article is WP:1RR. would it be worth going thru the process of warning and if edit war continues, putting in a request to admin to adjudicate? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

And the edit warring continues (Note that the lead of Sabra and Shatila massacre says "It was perpetrated by the Lebanese Forces, one of the main Christian militias in Lebanon, and supported by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that had surrounded Beirut's Sabra neighbourhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp.[3][4][5][6]") so the revert appears to make no sense either. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Also why was a source with a quote about antisemitism in Europe stuffed into the opening sentence of an article about an event in Palestine? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Number of suicide bombings

In the second paragraph of the article, there is the following sentence: "The suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the First Intifada, which took place between 1987 and 1993."

I think this should be:

"The 146 suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the First Intifada, which took place between 1987 and 1993."

The number of suicide bombings is mentioned in sources that are already on that sentence.

See:

"Since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000 until today, there were approximately 146 suicide attacks, and more than 389 suicide attacks have been foiled" in Schweitzer, Y. (2010). "The rise and fall of suicide bombings in the second Intifada". Strategic Assessment. 13 (3): 39–48.

Similar figures are also quoted in other reputable sources. The number of attempted suicide attacks may also be relevant, but that number is likely more open to debate. The sources I have checked generally show approximately 140-50 suicide bombings and approximately 350-450 attempts. It depends a bit on whether you count each sucide bomber separately or each attack separately since some attacks had more than. 1 bomber. But the numbers in the existing sources conform to this range.

In any case, I think putting a number such as 146 or range such as 140-150 is necessary to describe the frequency of these attacks during this time period which was a major feature of the intifada and characterized the Israeli POV of the period.

See also:

Sela-Shayovitz, R. (2007). "Suicide bombers in Israel: Their motivations, characteristics, and prior activity in terrorist organizations". International Journal of Conflict and Violence. 1 (2): 163.

Brym, R. J.; Araj, B. (1 June 2006). "Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada". Social Forces. 84 (4): 1969. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0081. ISSN 0037-7732. S2CID 146180585. AskYourselfWhy (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@PeleYoetz: Kindly explain these reverts and why, exactly, they are not improvements (any of them). Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@PeleYoetz: Not sure how reducing and summarizing the lede into genuinely four-well composed paragraphs, and improving the chronology of the lede is not an improvement? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you make another revert before discussing these reverts, or make further reverts on other pages without discussion I will topic ban you from ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: PeleYoetz has continued editing while avoiding this talk page despite your warnings. Important to note that their revert that they are seemingly refusing to discuss is disruptive as it had indiscriminately mass reverted dozens of good faith edits and improvements made to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

The use of the term "Combatant" is frequently used in the article and it should read "terrorist". A Combatant is a members of an armed force who operate according to the laws and customs of war. Combatants are commanded by a person in charge of their subordinates, wear a distinctive sign, and carry their arms openly.

"Suicide bombers" the main characteristic of the 2nd intifada is not in accordance with any law or custom of war. Its savagery and terrorism. Please correct. 159.250.158.135 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)