Talk:Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels

Top

This article is incorrectly named. It is obviously not about smuggling tunnels in general, it is about smuggling tunnels in Gaza Strip, hence should be named Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels or something similar. Any objections? -- Viajero 07:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. Though the article deals mainly with Rafah's tunnel, information about other tunnels can be added.
2. This name is the most natural, and when one wants to find\link to Rafah's smuggling tunnels, it is straight foward to type smuggling tunnels whether than anything else.
3. I don't think change is neccessery since there are no disambig or too much text in this article.

MathKnight 16:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although I concur that this article is (a good and solid one) about the smuggling tunnels in Gaza, it might be expanded anytime with info on other tunnels. However, I must disagree it being listed in the category: Israel-Palestine Geography, as it hardly belongs to any class of geographical features. leandros 21:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tunnels as pretext for demolitions

The respected international organization Human Rights Watch has just released a major report on house demolitions in Rafah. The report devotes extensive space to analyzing the tunnel issue and concludes that they are a pretext for demolitions in Rafah, for several reasons:

-The Israeli military has apparently failed to explore less destructive tunnel detection and neutralization methods that could be used on the Gaza/Egypt border. Such techniques would obviate destructive incursions into the camp.

-Until 2003, the Israeli military did not attempt to collapse tunnels but merely bulldozed homes covering tunnel entrances. According to tunnel experts interviewed by HRW, this technique is so patently ineffective that it raises questions as to the seriousness of the Israeli military.

-The Israeli military has claimed to have found 100 tunnels in Rafah since 2000. When questioned further, they admitted to finding 100 tunnel entrances, many of which connect to the same tunnels.

-HRW also documents several cases where the IDF destroys groups of homes around tunnels that were already sealed by the PNA or were otherwise inoperative.

Instead, the evidence suggests that Israel is destroying homes in order to create a "buffer zone" in the area to ensure its long-term control over Gaza, even after disengagement. High-level Israeli officials have made public statements to this effect. Aware that a one-off mass demolition would provoke international outrage, the Israelis instead are working towards this goal piecemeal.

The report, which is based on interviews with Rafah residents, the IDF, independent tunnel experts, foreign diplomats and international officials, as well as extensive satellite imagery, can be found at: www.hrw.org/campaigns/gaza

Update In April 2005, Ha'aretz reported that as early as 1990, Israeli scientists proposed creating a "seismic fence" consisting of sensors planted in the ground that would detect tunnels where they crossed the border and obviate demolitions -- confirming the analysis of tunnel experts interviewed by HRW. The article describes how the IDF has, for unclear reasons, consistently dragged its feet on this issue. The article quotes Amiram Levine, former head of the IDF northern command: "I find it extremely peculiar ... How is that so much time has passed, and an operational solution hasn't yet been found? We're talking about Zionism here, not money. I'm certain the problem could have been solved through technology, at reasonable cost, and on a much tighter timetable. This isn't the Ron Arad mystery."

ps

Moussa Arafat is listed as newphew and cousin. this should be either corrected or explained.

He's also (recently) deceased. This has been noted.

Berlin Wall

Some escaped from East Berlin via smuggling tunnels. Socafan 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Link

the first link is to an article that no longer exists or is in the archive....

Renaming article and use of word "smuggling"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi guys, can we change the title of the article to "Gaza Strip tunnels" ?

Using the word "smuggling" (and, throughout the article, "smuggle" and other variants) seems to be POV. The implication is that the transporting is illegal. However, this is but one viewpoint. There is nothing clear or self-evident that this is so. Many maintain, and with the aid of ample documentation (citing, e.g., Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I) that the Israeli blockade is illegal. If the Israeli blockade is indeed illegal, then transporting materials cannot be illegal.

I would say the same thing if the Wiki entry on the Gaza blockade was titled "illegal blockade," or something of that sort.

Further, unlike in the case of the Israeli blockade, there is no known source in international law which indicates or even suggests that the transport of materials across a blockade to be illegal. Hence the use of a word like smuggling is inappropriate, given the implication that the transports are in some way illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.2.147 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the word "smuggling" is a bit loaded, and carries a criminal connotation. On the other hand, google reports many more hits for "Gaza smuggling tunnels" than "Gaza tunnels" (by a factor of about 10x). Generally, WP should go with the terminology that the outside world predominantly uses. The phrase "Gaza transportation tunnels" is very rare, so probably not a good candidate for the article title. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a NPOV source, and Wikipedia should not simply be a reflection of the Israeli PR machine's power in shaping discussion about the region. How about the article title Gaza "smuggling" tunnels, with smuggling in quotes. The article could include a brief note discussing how the use of the word "smuggling" in association with the tunnels suggests the illegality of the transport occurring therein, even though without clear foundation in fact.Razorback216 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The tunnel existed even before Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2005, then Israel ruled the Gaza Strip border with accordance to the Oslo Accords, and hence the tunnels were illegal. Moreover, most of the tunnels connect between Egypt and Rafah, and Egypt defines the tunnels as illegal (irrelevant to the Israeli blockade) since the tunnels used to smuggle people, weapons and goods without permissions or control from Egyptian authorities and Egypt's border police. Transerfing stuff throught closed border without permission is illegal. Even trying to pass goods through the airport without passing them through the custom and pay a tax is illegal. MathKnight 15:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should follow the sources, which do seem to use "smuggling" quite a lot (I did a quick search). I don't feel that's a problem, e.g. the Warsaw Ghetto article also refers to smuggling and it hasn't been seen as an issue according to the talkpage there. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels → Gaza–Egypt tunnels – Use of neutral title. I have no problem with the term "smuggling tunnels" as an alternative name, but it is definitely non-neutral. The tunnels are used with the approval of Gaza authorities, to import essential goods into Gaza, which are illegally blocked by Israel and Egypt. The frequent use of the non-neutral term by the media does not justify the use of a non-neutral title if an acceptable alternative is available. Wickey-nl (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Using the naming conventions, the title wil be: Egypt–Gaza tunnels (alphabetic order). --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Using google news, gaza smuggling tunnels -wikipedia produced 1,590 hits[1] and gaza tunnels -wikipedia -smuggling produces 841 hits[2]. Just because the Gaza Strip is OK by it doesn't mean they aren't smuggling tunnels. I personally don't see an NPOV issue here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• While "gaza tunnels" (without the word smuggling) is a very common term → [3], my proposal meets the recognizability criterium.
• However, the current title contravenes the criterium of neutrality. smuggling tunnels is a colloquialism where a far more encyclopedic alternatives is obvious WP:POVTITLE. You know very well what the NPOV issue is. The term smuggling is deliberately used by anti-Hamas people, notably Israeli and Egyptian military and officials, to give the subject a negative connotation, read weapons and terrorism. Media often cite sources that use the term. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• How is "tunnels" more encyclopaedic than "smuggling tunnels"? In my view the opposite is true as the current title is far clearer, for the same reason it’s better to call a subway tunnel its full name. I don't know what basis you are making the claim that "smuggling tunnels" is anti-Hamas or denote a negative connotation. I would agree with you if the title was Gaza Strip terrorist smuggling tunnels but the current title is simply stating that they are tunnels used for the illegal transportation of objects across an international border, which is true (e.g. Blockade of the Gaza Strip). The word smuggling is not POV as it has both legitimate and nefarious connotations (ex: human smuggling vs. human trafficking). Smuggling tunnels can be used just as easily for food, medical supplies and fuel as it can for weapons.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Labattblueboy's reasoning. The sources do favor "smuggling", but they're mostly Western (i.e. pro-Israel biased) journalistic ones, and the negative connotations of "smuggling" outweigh the positive ones in general usage of the word. That said, I see anything suggesting an interpretation like "Gaza Strip terrorist smuggling tunnels" indicating a real NPOV problem here. The titles "Egypt–Gaza tunnels" and "Gaza Strip tunnels" makes me think of traffic and utility tunnels, and wonder why they would have an article unless they're on the order of the Holland Tunnel or the Chunnel. :-) I.e., without "smuggling" it has a recognizability problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, they are a kind of (privatized) traffic tunnels like the Chunnel. They are even quite similar in nature and construction (apart from used technics). --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Whatever the intent, this comes across as an attempt to impose one POV under the pretext of removing a different one. First, “smuggling” is not necessarily a negative term — smuggling a persecuted political prisoner out of a totalitarian country may be quite a positive action, for example. (Other contributors, above, suggest historic events of admirable smuggling involving East Berlin and the Warsaw Ghetto.) Second, since Egypt certainly has the right to manage its own borders, if Egypt says that the covert movement of goods through these tunnels is illegal, then it really is smuggling. (Don't confuse “illegal” with “immoral”.) The current title of the article is clear, unambiguous, and factual. We should keep it. 50.181.30.121 (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response to discussion/Merge request

• Support with Merge Request This article and Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip have very specific names but both deal with "Gazan tunnels." The two articles should be merged under the title "Gazan tunnels." The subject material isn't that great that would warrant a seperate article on Gaza-Egypt tunnels and Gaza-Israel tunnels. Basically, it's a fork. We can solve the title issue by setting up a merge discussion and include a title that covers both. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Child labor: Source text

I'm posting here the relevant sections of Gaza's Tunnel Phenomenon for reference as the issue of child labor is described on the page. (Another source is here.)

on page 11: In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, the Interior Ministry established the Tunnel Affairs Commission (TAC) to act as the regulatory authority for commercial activities. Among its first acts was to issue a list of blacklisted imports, including weapons, alcohol, and tramadol, a painkiller much used in Gaza.19 In response to public concern at a rising toll of tunnel casualties, particularly of child workers, the TAC issued guidelines intended to ensure safe working conditions. Over time, it fenced off the site and stationed some three hundred black-clad internal-security personnel at entry points to spotcheck the documentation of persons entering and leaving the zone.

on page 23: A similarly cavalier approach to child labor and tunnel fatalities damaged the movement’s standing with human-rights groups, despite government assurances dating back to 2008 that it was considering curbs.84 During a police patrol that the author was permitted to accompany in December 2011, nothing was done to impede the use of children in the tunnels, where, much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble bodies. At least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials.85 Safety controls on imports appear similarly lax, although the TAC insists that a sixteen-man contingent carries out sporadic spot-checks.86

in the notes: 84. The Rafah municipality repeatedly floated introduction of work permits for tunnel laborers, and collection of income tax from which workers are exempt.

85. Maan News, 9 November 2011. Of sixty-four Palestinians reportedly killed in tunnel-related incidents in 2009 alone, thirty-three died as a result of tunnel collapse. Al Dameer Centre for Human Rights, 2 September 2010. 86. Interview, TAC official, Rafah, July 2010.

There's no suggestion in the article that most or all of the child workers were building the tunnels rather than running goods through them (as is clear from reading all of Pelham's piece or the other link). I'm changing the text as follows. From this:

According to a report by the Institute for Palestine Studies, child labor was employed in building the tunnels with the justification that children more "nimble", and with the result that, “at least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials”

to this:

According to an article by Nicolas Pelham in the Journal of Palestine Studies, child labor is employed in the smuggling tunnels with the justification that children more "nimble." Despite a public outcry and calls from human rights groups for the Gaza government to stop the practice, regulations of child labor is lax. Pelham reports that “at least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials;” most of the deaths in 2009 occurred in tunnels that collapsed.

Obviously, this is still dreadful, but at least more accurate.--Carwil (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Pelham's article that suggests that there was a "public outcry" over the practice of child labor. Pelham discusses "public concern" regarding worker casualties, not public concern over the use of children as laborers.GabrielF (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels. 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/20140814225238/http://www.jspacenews.com/israel-tests-new-terror-tunnel-detection-system/ to http://www.jspacenews.com/israel-tests-new-terror-tunnel-detection-system/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167283321&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of child labor: Inaccuracies in the text in its current form

In its current form there are two parts of the article which seems to not represent fairly the quoted source When reading the first paragraph:

According to an article by Nicolas Pelham in the IPS Journal of Palestine Studies, child labor is employed in the smuggling tunnels with the justification that children are more "nimble." Despite calls from human rights groups for the Gaza government to stop the practice, regulations of child labor is lax. Pelham reported that “at least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials“.

1. The "nimble" justification

It seems that, the Gaza government or a similar authority, is openly admitting the use of child labor and trying to justify it by the fact that the children are more nimble. Where in the actual article the meaning is totally different:

On page 23 : During a police patrol that the author was permitted to accompany in December 2011, nothing was done to impede the use of children in the tunnels, where, much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble bodies.

Basically the author is giving a possible explanation on the reason why children would be used in the tunnels, and definitely not trying to justify anything.

2. The 160 children killed

Right now when someone reads the article, it is said in the first 4 lines that there is an article in the IPS which says that 160 children were killed and attached to it is the source right after. Only after going through the entire second paragraph and reading 10 other lines will he be notified that:

There had not least 160 children been killed in the tunnels

It would seem much clearer if the claim of the 160 children death toll, was addressed right away, and taken from the end of the article, and if the "nimble" bodies justification matched the actual meaning of the source. To me, something like this would probably be better:

According to an article by Nicolas Pelham in the IPS Journal of Palestine Studies, child labor is employed in the smuggling tunnels because of the children smaller bodies. Despite calls from human rights groups for the Gaza government to stop the practice, regulations of child labor is lax. An erroneous claim, since then corrected, was also made that “at least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials“.. The Institute admitted an error in the article: There had not least 160 children been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials, but rather 160 persons as of 2012. Benjamin Netanyahu used the IPS publication to document his claim that "Hamas puts children to work in terror tunnels, sending them to their death." The claim was widely used by numerous pro-Israeli media outlets.

In a response to Netanyahu, Institute for Palestine Studies recalled that the tunnels were regulated by but largely not owned or operated by Hamas, and were a "response to Israel’s imposition of a draconian blockade that drastically controls and at times has banned almost all goods entering the territory, from construction materials, and gasoline, Gaza, did not implement its own directives to prevent the use of child labor". IPS noted that more than 541 were children and some 3084 wounded by the Israeli bombing in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict that was ongoing at the time.

Ozymandiasm267 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: It looks like this needs to be digested a little bit and discussed before the edit request can be implemented. Dolotta (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for a discussion to be had on this topic, but this has been a month now that I have highlighted some issues with the current article, and no one has offered a solution, no one has even offered any input (even a constructive negative one would be appreciated). I am afraid that waiting for a discussion at this point is just delaying indefinitely a problem that no one seems willing to address. What should be done to make progress now ?--Ozymandiasm267 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Went ahead and marked this as answered since another user has already responded and no other discussion has taken place since. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain how the edit request has been addressed? To me, the first remark sounds like stonewalling and the second does not even pretend to have read the request. To consider this request answered someone should explain what's wrong with the request.

 Note: I'm closing the request while it's under discussion, per the template's instructions. Remember to change the answered no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. If another editor has responded and the edits were not made, it may just be there is not consensus for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Was the Morsi presidency a "pro-Hamas government"?

In 'Measures taken by Egypt' it says:

In 2013, following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état that ousted the pro-Hamas government,

I don't think it's fair to characterize the Morsi presidency as pro-Hamas. Not only did Morsi negotiate a Hamas-Israel ceasefire in 2012, but Morsi never sent weapons to Hamas during his term. Maybe it would be more accurate to say pro-Muslim Brotherhood Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A smuggling outlets for an Israeli POV?

Despite Wikipedia forever banging on about the need for balance and a NPOV, this is a most one-sided of articles. Then again, instead of using the loaded term "smuggling tunnels", might not the title of this article be changed to the Gaza Strip Freedom Tunnels? For why does much of text read as it was a press release from the Israeli Government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.151 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

== Irresponsible =In April of 2023 Ex Prime Minister of Israel, Bennet, gave an interview to Amna Nawaz on the News Hour indicating he was proud that Israel recognizes Palestinian "democracy" by working well with the Hamas State. Israel, now, uses the word Hamas as if it has only one context. This article similarly elides the uses and meaning gs of the word "Hamas." As well, this article has no truth to it.

It his only a pro-Israeli rhetorical set piece. IIt offers no evidence to back up its likely outrageous assertions.  It is nonsense and I believe any wiki reader can see that. 208.126.44.104 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)