Talk:Second Intifada

Where is the pictures from the Intifada ?

This was a Palestinian uprising. Yet most of the photos are from an Israeli perspective. It's even worse on Commons. Ezzex (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have other photos that are allowed by Wikipedia's copyright policies, feel free to add them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

grammar error

in section 2002 of the timeline talking about the Arab peace deal the final line states "...endorsed by Arafat, but virtually ignoring by Israel" this should be "ignored by Israel" or "virtually ignoring Israel" 185.108.171.62 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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)