Talk:Use of human shields by Hamas

POV scope

This page has been created with an intentionally POV scope, selectively copying material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a clearly one-sided manner, presenting only Palestinian and not Israeli usage of human shields. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Presumably that would be because the article is not about use of human shields by Israel? Why should an article about the price of tea in China focus on the price of tea in Iran? --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear. This page has been created from exactly one-side of a two-sided and balanced section at the parent page, making this page no longer two-sided and balanced, but POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The part that was unclear to me was "and not Israeli usage of human shields." I agree that it should balance out all POVs (i.e., IDF alleges, Hamas denies, HRW says x, WHO says y, and so forth). But suggesting that we should be saying "Oh, and by the way, Israel also uses human shields" seems off topic. Are you saying this article is a POV fork? --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, it is rather. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. Are you going to nominate it for deletion? --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Does having rocket launching sites near schools and playgrounds not count as human shields. They haven't got babies strapped to their chests but the goal/outcome is the same. There is videos of these sites in close proximity to civilian locations. Hamas' use of human shields is systematic and apart of there doctrine. This is why there is a whole article dedicated to just this topic. When one side is systematically using human shields I think you are creating false balance with the attempt to assert that both sides use human shields. IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the original article that suffers from WP:FALSEBALANCE. The sections about Israel and Palestine are of similar size, and only you read it carefully you will realise that since 2009 there were about 20 cases of supposed Israeli use of human shields (even if we consider all the sources there equally reliable), whereas in case of Hamas it's been systematic. Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Is 20 cases not "systematic"? If a workplace had 20 incidents of sexual harassment or 20 health code violations in 14 years would these not be "systematic" problems? Or at least "systemic" ones? This article is a POV fork and should probably be nominated for deletion, or renamed "Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to allow for a more honest and complete picture. WillowCity^(talk) 01:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the size of the organisation. In the best-run organisation with thousands of people there will be instances of sexual harassment from time to time. Alaexis_¿question? 07:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Systematic - "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical". Hamas has been proven to fire rockets from civilian areas. places like schools, apartments, hospitals. This is systematic, its time and time again. 20 cases over 14 years is not systematic, "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical." IdontreadonlyLEAD (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade me that 20 instances of the same war crime in 14 years is not systematic, or, at the very least, systemic.

And, really, the "last 14 years" thing is a bit of a red herring, considering the duration of the conflict. Israel's human shield practices were so systematic that it employed a grotesque euphemism for them: the "Neighbor Procedure". This "fixed plan or system" was an entrenched historical reality. WillowCity^(talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a notable topic that merits its own article. It is balanced and presents important information. Dovidroth (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. With gratitude for a civil discussion, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations of use of human shields by Hamas – Per WP:NDESC "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)" Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same reasons as discussed at length at Talk:Israeli_war_crimes#Requested_move_11_October_2023 --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  . . . where, notably, Selfstudier's comment was This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:WHATABOUTX Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  There, it was two sides, here it is only one, that's why we avoid whataboutism, the two cases are not the same. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  To me they appear to be exactly the same. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I refer you to my previous comment. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  And I you to mine. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mine gives a reason why they are not the same, yours is mere assertion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty clear WP:TENDENTIOUS editing [1] by Selfstudier. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  How so? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Orgullomoore and WP:CONSISTENT. Marokwitz (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Consistent with Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, assuming the article scope is not changed to be more balanced. Above, I suggested Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is broad enough to encompass human shield allegations against both parties. Until such a time as there's consensus for a change of scope, though, this title is far preferable. NDESC, cited above, is pretty clear on this point. We're not the ICC or ICJ, it's not for us to make legal conclusions. Or, if it is appropriate to play judge and jury, maybe we should move "Palestinian genocide accusation" back to its prior title, "Genocide against Palestinians"... there's certainly ample evidence supporting that legal conclusion. WillowCity^(talk) 05:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Per international law and UN criteria of genocide. Israeli action has not been defined as genocide, therefore it remains within accusation scope since there is scholarship that deals with this issue. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed we're not international law judge and jury and therefore ought to stick to legal definitions and not accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  And due to international legal experts as well as notable condemnation from supranational organization (EU), other international organizations and experts, we should adhere to referring to the term as it is: in this case, Use of human Shields. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  ICC puts burden on Israel to prove Hamas uses human shields - analysis Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:WEIGHT, the vast majority of experts and international organizations agree that human shields have been used by Hamas over multiple incidents. Regarding renaming to in Israeli-Palestinian conflict Human shields use, due to overwhelming evidence and notability (per WP:WEIGHT) toward Hamas, in this case it would be inappropriate to change the name. Thus the name ought to remain as it is, although I personally would prefer Hamas use of human shields, (minor, therefore, don't think its worth discussing or changing).

per sources already raised above, EU has condemned this practice. So has US Per source [2] Homerethegreat (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support adding "allegation" or "accusation" for consistency. Other articles from the same conflict have similar or even more defensive titles than "allegations of" e.g. "Palestinian genocide accusation". Both sides in this conflict appear to have committed multiple war crimes. We can't present one side's war crimes as fact while simultaneously impaling other's war crimes are a baseless "accusation". They should have a comparable qualifying term, like "alleged". There have been massive civilian casualties on the Palestinian side, over the years and especially this month, and "human shields" is the constant excuse given for many actions that - to many impartial observers - look like very deliberate targeting of civilians. Irtapil (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue that this isn't really preferential treatment. There's an article that deals with Israeli War Crimes, (rightfully) without using alleged in the title, because these are well documented and undisputed facts. That there's a genocide happening against Palestinians on the other hand is disputed, which is why the title you linked makes sense.

  Wouldn't the main criterion for deciding on this particular move be whether the statement "Hamas is using civilians as shields" is disputed or not? FynnFreyer (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  It is sometimes an unreasonable accusation. The IDF often claims of "human shield" use when what they seem to have done is bomb a guy's home and kill his entire family and neighbours. But I hadn't seen the Israeli war crimes page, the title of this page does seem more balanced in that light. But the "accusation" in Palestinian genocide accusation is still wildly inappropriate, because "accusation" doesn't just imply dispute, it implies that one side is making an unreasonable accusation. It's strongly biased terminology, and last time I looked, somebody shut down an attempt to discuss the title before any other editors had commented. Irtapil (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. When there are pictures, videos, recordings and explicit statements, So it's not about "Allegations".

If we go this way, half of the articles on Wikipedia will start with the words "Allegations"Eladkarmel (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly over-use or abuse of the term should be a sub section? There are many cases when the IDF strike a residential area claiming to be targeting an enemy, when to me really looks like they killed the guy at home some with his entire family and neighbours. Combatants spending time with their wives and kids is really not a reasonable user of the term "human shield", and there is never very much evidence shown that these locations are being used for substantial military activities, just the presence of an individual the IDF wanted dead. Irtapil (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Orgullomoore, Elie goodman and Homerethegreat. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Homerethegreat. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, and a future article Use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Use of human shields by Israel should also not include alleged.VR _talk 00:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. --Orgullomoore (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree Parham wiki (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Homerethegreat Zanahary (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. The proposed change would move us from a more precise to a less precise title so accepting it would be a serious setback for Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above and WP:CONSISTENT. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Parham wiki (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Orgullomoore and WP:CONSISTENT. Relspas (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Zinderboff 05:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above Zanahary (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

someone removing comments in this page

someone deleted a comment on this talk page, the comment wasn't particularly constructive, but i thought we were only supposed to remove other people's comments in extreme cases of vandalism? Irtapil (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil: As per a recent amendment to WP:ARBECR, non-EC users can only use the talk page to post edit requests. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil -- What @ARandomName123 said. If it's not an edit request, it's subject to removal. Especially if it's just bait to turn the talk page into a forum dumpster fire. --Orgullomoore (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

exceptional claim?

Um, BilledMammal, even if it were an exceptional claim, and it is not just because you say so, that is an exceptional source, a work of scholarship by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini published by the University of California Press is the very definition of an exceptional source. Kindly return what you improperly removed. nableezy - 11:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your following edit is likewise inappropriate as blatant synthesis, it nowhere mentions human shields. For another comparison of the claim of shielding regarding the Ministry of Defense, see Amira Hass. nableezy - 12:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What the interviewed Gazan says is "hiding among civilians".

That source doesn't make any claims, it just asks some rhetorical questions. If you want answers to them, What is and is not Human Shielding? is a good article - it explains that intent is required, and notes there are additional protections for medical and cultural facilities. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The cited source does not say the word shield anywhere, making your usage of the quote synthesis. nableezy - 12:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This article addresses whether Hamas is hiding among civilians to deter Israeli attacks. Sources don't need to address the full question to be relevant - I note that several other sources currently in the article also don't use the magic words - they just need to address part of it, and this source addresses the first half. BilledMammal (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t what human shields means and the source does not discuss the topic of this article. You can’t remove noted scholars in international law and the Israeli Palestinian conflict writing in the area of their expertise and directly discussing the topic of this article and include random people on the street not discussing the topic of this article. nableezy - 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The claim that Hamas is targeting the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv - as opposed to launching indiscriminate attacks against Tel Aviv - goes against virtually every reliable source we have on the topic of these rocket attacks. It's an exceptional claim, and one source isn't enough to meet that burden or to establish that inclusion is WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion does not make it true and if you won’t restore it I will. nableezy - 12:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

When a claim is as out of step with the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources as this claim is a single source isn't sufficient to justify its inclusion; at a bare minimum several reliable sources making such a claim are required. Do you have any other sources supporting the claim that Hamas targets the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv? Sources claiming that they have the capabilities to do so would also be beneficial.

I did a quick search myself for sources on this topic and every one I found claimed that the city was targeted; one even included a Hamas quote saying as much. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That isnt the claim that is being made, it is a comparison in how accusations are levied. It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards". Ill reproduce here the quote you removed so anybody reading isnt left with the misimpression that you are creating: "Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields." Nowhere in the quote does it say anything about targeting, what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimes. It is about placement of military assets, like command centers, in populated areas, and only one side being accused of using human shields. nableezy - 13:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards". Can you explain what difference you see between "targeted" and "launched towards" in this context? To me, they mean the same thing.

what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimes The article still says that; Gordon and Perugini remarking that the framing of protestors as terrorists or human shields effectively "categorizes any Palestinian from Gaza who participates in civil protests as a terrorist who is consequently killable"; they find that the usage of the human shield accusation both during war and civil protest has caused the very idea of a Palestinian civilian to have "disappeared" in Israeli discourse. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

One is active one is passive. The quote is saying that Israel is not accused of using human shields despite its Ministry of Defense being located in the heart of Tel Aviv (you can check a map if you like). While Hamas is accused of using human shields for doing the same. And that this disparity in treatment is meant to absolve Israel of blame for civilian casualties, making them always be, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian deaths, the fault of Hamas. The latter bit is about Israeli claims about Palestinians, not about disparity in treatment in the claims themselves. nableezy - 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

One is active one is passive. That doesn't really explain the difference here; the quote claims that Hamas is "aiming at", "launching at", "targeting" (whichever word you prefer; they're all the same to me in this context) the IDF headquarters, not the city of Tel Aviv.

Either way, lets not get stuck on semantics; sources that say anything close to any of the above will be helpful in establishing that inclusion is WP:DUE. Have you been able to find such sources, because I have looked further and I cannot? BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that isnt the claim. You are misrepresenting what Gordon and Perugini are saying. They are talking about the location of the military asset, not how precise a weapon is used. You are saying the quote is about the missiles targeting something, no, that is not the topic of this article. This article, and the source, is about shielding military assets by civilians. And the source is saying that Israel does not face the same accusation for the same activity that it accuses Hamas of. nableezy - 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

They are saying ...when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center.

Not at Tel Aviv, which virtually every other reliable source is saying, but at the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv; they're talking about Hamas' intent with these rocket launches.

Now, I don't know why they're so at odds with every other reliable source, but the fact is they are; unless we can find additional reliable sources that make this claim - and so far, I have not been able to - we cannot include it. It's a violation both of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what the argument is. Towards means in the direction of. Not aimed at. It isnt even launched at Tel Aviv, it is launched towards Tel Aviv. Nobody is claiming that Hamas targets the Ministry of Defense building at 127 133, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel. That is not what either the source or the article is discussing. So a. that is not the claim, b. what the article is saying is not exceptional, and c. you are literally placing in the article a random Gazan on the street but excluding widely cited scholars writing a book published by University of California Press on the basis of WP:DUE? And you are doing so with a blatant misreading of the source, despite repeated efforts to explain it to you. The source is not saying that Hamas launches rockets aimed at the MoD. It is saying when Hamas launches rockets in that direction that Israel is not accused of shielding its MoD through the population of Tel Aviv. Now you either get this or you dont, but this is a supremely reliable source directly discussing the topic of this article. nableezy - 15:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The implication of "launched towards X" is that X is the intended target or destination; that the projectile was directed in the general direction of X with the intention of hitting it. The accuracy or precision may vary, but the intent exists. This isn't just my definition; to make sure I wasn't mistaken I asked ChatGPT what "Launched towards X" would mean and it gave the same description.

Regardless of which of us is correct we can't use the quote; if I am correct it is WP:UNDUE, if you are correct it is so poorly written that it would mislead many of our readers. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Towards: in the direction of; Toward: in the direction of; towards: in the direction of, or closer to someone or something. I dont really care what ChatGPT told you, and no it is not so poorly written that it would mislead anybody, and no you are not in a position of, having repeatedly misunderstood the source, claiming that something published by University of California Press is poorly written, and again, you are literally placing in the article a quote from a random Gazan on the street not even directly discussing the topic of the article, but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP (aka the best sources available). That is on its face absurd POV pushing. Nothing is implied regarding Hamas's ability or desire to aim at anything, the sentence isnt about the weapon used or the targeting of, it is about the location of military assets in civilian spaces and how only Hamas is claimed to use human shields for that same thing Israel does. nableezy - 15:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I dont really care what ChatGPT told you You should; it means that my interpretation is almost certainly the most common interpretation of "launched towards X", which in turn means that many of our readers will be misled if your interpretation of the source is correct.

but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP Works of scholarship aren't automatically WP:DUE.

An alternative is to replace the quote with a summary; while I would be concerned that the summary is incorrect as it would be based on your interpretation, it would be an improvement over including the quote directly. Perhaps:

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards them, despite the presence of the Israel Defence Forces headquarters in the city center, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

Thoughts? BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT is not a reliable source, Gordon and Perugini are. Im fine with your rephrasing though for the most part, cut when Hamas launched rockets towards them, because a thats verging on plagiarism and b that isnt exactly what the source says. But if you had done that to begin with we would not have had a dispute and we could have productively niggled over the wording instead of the inclusion of what is inarguably the best source on the entire page. nableezy - 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT is not a reliable source. It's not, but it is useful to verify that our interpretation of something is reasonable, and it is useful in determining how our readers will interpret our articles.

I'm not certain I've correctly understood your objections, but how about:

Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards the city despite the presence of the Israeli military headquarters, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

−

Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini wrote that "Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv are not classified as shields when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center. By sharp contrast, Palestinian civilians are cast as human shields when Israel bombs Hamas command centers and military infrastructures in Gaza. In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

+

Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrast how Israeli civilians are not treated as human shields for the Ministry Defense for Hamas rocket attacks, despite its location in the center of the city, and how, in "sharp contrast", Palestinian civilians are called human shields when Israeli bombs Hamas locations in Gaza, writing how this creates a paradigm that "if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."

nableezy - 16:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What percentage of Hamas rockets are launched towards Tel Aviv to begin with? Drsmoo (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct Drsmoo (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The source here is literally the best one on the page lol. I’ll be returning it and referring tendentious editing elsewhere. nableezy - 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The source by Gordon and Perugini is succinct and lucid and there is no need to blur it by a clumsy paraphrase. They are among the world authorities on the comparative use of human shields, and their ipsissima verba should stand for that reason. The first sentence here is a decidedly twisted POV, taking most sources commenting on 2023 as if it was a characteristic of the history of Hamas in its various conflicts, when down to and including 2014, as the meme made its hasbara rounds, independent authorities could find no conclusive proof for the charge, unlike the Israeli Supreme Court which found it was employed by the IDF (for decades). Regulars cannot but know all this since it is duly documented on the relevant pages Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

amnesty

BilledMammal, the source says, in the following paragraph: The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields", does amount to a violation of their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular "avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. It also earlier says In particular, it found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve as "human shields". In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of "human shields" by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians. Even so, Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters were obliged at all times to apply the principle of distinction and proportionality, and take the precautions required by international humanitarian law, when launching attacks. It very clearly says that placing weapons and fighters in those areas are not evidence of using human shields. I also think that is arguably a 1RR violation, especially given the expansive definition you have sought to impose on others. nableezy - 16:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you see it as a revert, self-reverted.

What you say is wrote that while it is uncontested that Hamas weapons and fighters were located in civilian areas, that this does not itself constitute human shielding

This doesn't align with the source, which says While the presence of Hamas and other fighters and weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as “human shields”.

The first half aligns, but the second half does not; if you don't believe I can correct it without reverting can you do so? BilledMammal (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I would except that isnt all the source says. As I quoted, it also says The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields". That is saying that just having combatants and weapons in the vicinity of civilians does not constitute, or is not evidence for, human shielding. nableezy - 16:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The comparative scholars of this have done a far better job is stating what their conclusions are than these paraphrases. Drop it. It looks obfuscatory.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the source is making two slightly different claims; one says that this isn't evidence of use of human shields, and the second says this isn't conclusive evidence of intent to use human shields.

Is there some way we could include both of these claims in the sentence? I realize they are very similar, but it's the only explanation I can see that doesn't result in the source contradicting itself. BilledMammal (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Human shielding in international law requires the intent to to shield oneself with the civilian population. See where it documents Israeli usage of human shields, saying "The prohibition against the use of “human shields” is further clarified in Article 51(7) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I). It states: "Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operation". See also, for a more comprehensive overview of the topic, International Review of the Red Cross: The essential element in the prohibition on use of human shields is rather the intention to use the presence of humans as shields to shelter a military objective. This is corroborated by the International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes. nableezy - 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is very little prose I read, but particularly in this area, that doesn't lend itself to queries by a reader. We can't, for that, try and explain what might appear to be this or that or both except through other secondary sources which address the spefic source in question. To do so is to risk WP:OR-16:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

In some respects this is cart before the horse, the purpose of these allegations is to relieve Israel of responsibility for civilian death and destruction when they kill civilians and destroy structures, when those civilians and structures are protected, by arguing that the death and destruction arises only because of Hamas alleged use of human shields. Even if some civilian structure was being used for a military purpose such that it lost protected status, any attack must be proportional to the military gain from attacking the otherwise protected object. Shielding must be "purposeful" Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're going for idioms i'd agree but fundamentally we would be making the same kind of implication of what motivates that amnesty international is going to lengths to avoid

The amnesty international article reads as such:

Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts

Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.

Now you alledge that relieves Israel of responsibility for civilian death. I don't think anyone agrees that they don't bear responsibility. More importantly you are also making an assumption of intentions. Can't really have it both ways where with one party you assume the worst of intentions and the other you give the benefit of the doubt. Dabrams13 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

lead

This is one of the worst leads I have read in my idk how long Ive been here. Im going to re-write it as an actual summary of the article, not a series of accusations. nableezy - 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about your concerns? Also, some people would find it a bit incivil the way you're denigrating the contributions of other Wikipedians, so let's keep it civil and focus on a constructive discussion. Everything on Wikipedia can be improved. Hamas uses human shields and it's a war crime. Let's start there. Andre🚐 05:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I dont think I will start there. Accusations that have repeatedly been found to be false arent something we start with as a given, sorry. Also, if you feel my comment was incivil feel free to discuss at my talk page or if you would like to report them to ANI or AE. nableezy - 16:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It is the most flagrant in your face violation of NPOV I can remember in 17 years of editing wikipedia. 'Hamas uses human shields and it is a war crime'. Using human shields is a war crime. What we know is that Israel, adopting a practice instituted by the British mandatory Authority's army in 1936-1939. was condemned by its own Supreme Court in 2006 for its consistent use of Palestinians, even young men, as human shields in the occupied territories. In the immediate aftermath of that decision, as successive wars broke out, it began deploying this accusation, of which it was convicted, to account for the extremely high civilian 'collateral damage' emerging from its battle strategies in Gaza. Independent studies down through to 2014 could find no certain evidence that this formed part of Hamas's panoply of military techniques. A controversy exists based on whether the contested proximity of missile firing to civilian structures fits the technical definition of the war crime definition if using human shields or not. Informed opinion is divided. The lead is little more than a stacked summation of ISrael's POV, and totally ignores the controversial nature of these charges. Therefore it violates NPOV, and is little more than an inept dumbed down synthesis of cherry picked sources of the kind sponsored by one of the two protagonistsa of this tragedy. It is a public disgrace, and that experienced editors fail to see the problem suggests unfamiliarity, in the best reading, of one of the core pillars of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on matters of fact and substance, such as WP:FALSEBALANCE and whataboutism. WP:CONSENSUS will carry the day. I will caution you to focus on the abstract arguments, and refrain from personalizing the dispute by speculating as to editors' relative familiarity or time spent reading policy versus their experience, and descriptions like "disgraceful" are unproductive and disruptive. Nor does Israel's usage of 2006 or studies from 2014 affect whether in 2023, post 10/7-world, Hamas used human shields; regardless, your removal of text was overbroad and removed several RS as well. Now, we can discuss this, but please let's keep it civil, or we can start an RFC to solicit broader opinion if we're at an impasse. But I remind you that nobody owns the article and nobody is obliged to provide satisfaction. A my way or the highway approach won't get us anywhere. You clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV. You are entitled to that. But Wikipedia by consensus and by a preponderance of the reliable sources will determine what should appear in the article, and we cannot put our fingers on the scale where our sympathies may lie. Andre🚐 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone here has been appointed arbiter of civility and good behavior. Lecturing and hectoring on the subject in successive comments could also be considered uncivil. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The You clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV is by far the most uncivil thing written on this talk page. jfc. nableezy - 16:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of lecturing and hectoring, I'm also turned off by the dramatic and pedantic condescension. Editorial concerns are best expressed in more or less the following form: "Based on x policy, my opinion is that y change should be made." The following style is discouraged: "I have been here a very long time, and therefore I know very much. In very big words I do proclaim that those who disagree with me are very small indeed and should be reported in case they dare challenge my correctness." Looking through all that rubbish, what I understand from the concern expressed is something along the lines of: too much weight is given to one side of the controversy, which results in the article not living up to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Fine. Let's work on that. The solution is not saying: "One of the protagonista claims this, but nobody who knows anything agrees. Some useful idiots endorsed the claim." All the while ignoring the very explicit and high-level statements by the protagonista itself endorsing the practice of civilians facing warplanes with their bare chests as an effective means of advancing the protagonista's combat strategy. Capisce? --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You think that opening the lead with a series of accusations by partisan actors is appropriate? Why is there no mention of the fact that Amnesty for example has repeatedly looked at Israel's allegations and found them to not be factual? Why is Joe Biden quoted in the lead? Why is al-Shifa in the lead as an example of evidence offered despite the fact that sources have said the evidence does not prove any part of their allegations? Oh, Shifa is now completely inoperable, the evidence has proven to be lacking, but people have moved on to the next propaganda ploy. Why do we repeat allegations that have been investigated and found to be false without including the conclusions of those investigations? Fine, Ill re-write it now. nableezy - 13:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I am all for balancing the POV, but not inverting it. Amnesty should be mentioned but not distorted. It should not be ignored that they say: "In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law." Nor should the rest of what they say be ignored. Take Joe Biden out of the lead. Take Shifa out of the lead. I'm not sure what allegations that have been investigated you are talking about, but by all means include the conclusions. Please don't do what Nishidani did, which was simply to turn the lead into apologetics. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should not distort AI, and I dont think I have ever suggested we do so, but that quote from Amnesty is saying the indiscriminate rockets are what is in violation of international law, and that firing from residential areas by itself is not human shielding. What the whole quote says is "Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply." nableezy - 14:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. You're on the right track. Thank you for arriving. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What was that about dramatic and pedantic condescension again? Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Cute. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead. nableezy - 15:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much better. I added their Interior Ministry's explicit acknowledgment in 2008. I cannot imagine why that's not leadworthy, but happy to entertain arguments to the contrary. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I dont think it actually belongs in the lead or even the article. What he said is that the people of Palestine volunteer to act as a shield against Israeli bombings, but that isnt what human shielding is. Human shielding is when the armed group forces civilians to shield them, a la the "Israeli forces repeatedly took over Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip forcing families to stay in a ground-floor room while they used the rest of their house as a military base and sniper position". It is sourced so I cant really remove it, but I think it is playing on ignorance to make a point that is factually incoherent. nableezy - 14:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

He himself actually used the words human shields, in reference to women and children... Doesn’t get much more explicit than that. --Orgullomoore (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but he said they are doing this not that they are directed to. Which, again, is not human shielding by Hamas. nableezy - 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy seems pretty clear Andre🚐 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It is based on an interview in which the Hamas leader said no such thing. This is apparently the source of the claim, nowhere does he say anything about any Hamas strategy or utilizing human shields. nableezy - 21:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I was quoting a secondary source. I understand you are fact checking the secondary sources, and saying they distorted the primary sources. That's fine, but I don't see why that's necessary. And probably there's a reasonable explanation. At any rate, it's not necessary because there are many other sources. For exmaple, [3] Andre🚐 22:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, if a secondary source is wrong we shouldn’t include it. As far as your source, different topic entirely. nableezy - 00:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's deemed wrong by other reliable fact-checkers and secondary sources. Andre🚐 00:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You can see the interview yourself. He does not say what we say he says, and including what you know to be false is curiosity best explained by some of your earlier messages on this subject. nableezy - 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that there is a fact check that was failed here. A reliable secondary source saw this interview and is indicating it as endorsing the use of human shields, i.e., stay where you are and do not flee per the Israeli air strike warning pamphlets that are issued to civilians. I am not endorsing this practice or anyone's actions. I am simply pointing out that you are substituting your own original research and opinion for that of a reliable third-party secondary analysis. Andre🚐 01:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really care what’s clear to you tbh, you’ve made your position that it doesn’t matter if we include a lie in the article clear. But I’m not proposing we insert my original research, only that we not include what we know to be false even if it is sourced. The interview cited says nothing about a Hamas strategy or even anything about Hamas using human shields. What it says is they commend the people who do that willingly. Demanding that we include false statements is tendentious. nableezy - 01:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, it's false according to you, and nobody else. Feel free to provide the citation that is needed. We can't trust the say-so of one editor named nableezy. I don't believe you that it's false and you haven't shown that. Andre🚐 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ill wait for Orgullomoore to chime in. Have no interest in carrying on on a pointless discussion in which an editor says "it's false according to you" when the source for the statement has already been made available. Where pray tell does he mention anything about a Hamas strategy? Where does he say Hamas uses human shields as a strategy? Actually, never mind, I can wait for Orgullomoore, as I have no doubt of their willingness to engage in good faith about whether or not we are including a false claim in our lead. And for the record, Andre, the belief that we should not include a secondary source we know is wrong is one I have consistently held, even when it meant disagreeing with people you wouldnt expect me to. Eg here. Guess what happened there? We all agreed to not include what we could independently see was false. nableezy - 01:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore given the interview does not say what we claim it says would you remove it from the lead? nableezy - 01:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This was a difficult decision for me. I had to resolve several questions within myself: (1) Are Rosen, Rubinstein, and Roznai wrong, as nableezy says?; (2) if yes, what is Wikipedia's content policy for when sources are factually wrong?; and (3) is it really my call to make?

To answer (1), I started with the earliest-in-time reference, which is Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766. There, Rosen writes that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 487, which is a blockquote of the entire Memri transcript of an excerpt of Fathi Hamad's Aqsa TV 29 March 2008 speech. The link given is [4], which no longer leads to the Hamad transcript. However, if we just search the language quoted, it's easy enough to arrive at the source, which now resides at this URL: [5]. The quote is: "[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'" As nableezy says, the quote does not support the proposition for which it cited which, again, is that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." Where is the acknowledgment of Hamas doing anything? The quote says, essentially, that Palestinians of all kinds have become excellent at dying, and that for this reason they (Palestinians in general) "have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine." It is a really dumb thing to say, frankly, but that is not the inquiry. The inquiry is: did he "acknowledg[e] the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." He did not. It cannot honestly be said that he did, at least not in the excerpt provided. Next up: Rubinstein & Roznai 2011, p. 98. There, Rubinstein & Roznai write: "The use of civilians as human shields, as a leader of Hamas had previously confirmed, is an essential tactic of Hamas in its armed confrontations with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 24, which points the reader to Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766, examined above. As we have already concluded, Rosen 2009 offers Hamad's statement as support for something it does not support. Rubinstein & Roznai are relying on Rosen, who is quoting Hamad and saying he said something he didn't say. Last is Rosen 2012–the same Rosen, but this time in a book. There, Rosen writes: "Early in 2008, a senior Hamas leader acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in a conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by the very same blockquote from Hamad's 29 March 2008 speech. The blockquote is in turn followed by footnote 91, which says: "Speech by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad’, Al-Aqsa Television, 29 February 2008, http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm The mission mentioned the speech (Goldstone Report, para. 477), but discarded it as irrelevant (para. 478)." Following that hyperlink will take you to a page called "Palestinians Admit Using Human Shields" with a byline of "by Carlos" (no last name given) which, unsurprisingly, is getting the excerpt in question from Memri, which we have already discussed above and concluded does not say what Rosen says. In sum, the article in its current state quotes three law professors: the first of whom mis-describes the import of Hamad's speech, and the second and third of whom merely regurgitate the misdescription of the first. All right, so the answer to (1) is: yes, they are wrong.

To answer (2), I turned to this essay for guidance: Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. It's a relatively new essay, created on 23 July 2023 and 89% authored by User:Tamzin, but addresses precisely the predicament we are faced with here. The last resort suggested there (option 6) is to "include a likely incorrect statement (or even article) if there is no way to justify another approach as within editorial discretion." The essays says: "No one likes the idea of Wikipedia getting it wrong, but it may sometimes be inevitable." I will not go into detail here about the other five options given because the immediate question to be answered is: Is it permissible to not regurgitate in WikiVoice a directly on-point statement in a reliable source because it is objectively incorrect? The answer, according to the essay, is yes, there are at least five ways of doing so. What we (as a community) do with the statement (i.e., which of the other five options we adopt) can be discussed later.

With respect to (3), my initial instinct was to answer that the source says what it says, the article is obviously not mine, and it's up to community consensus what we do with the objectively incorrect directly on-point statement. But I do bear some responsibility because I am the one that inserted this statement into the article, and I am the only one who can remove it without the removal being considered a revert. Accordingly, I am free to remove it, and if another editor wants to include it, the WP:ONUS will be on them to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content.

All that said, I have decided to remove it. Of course, that does not mean Hamas does not use human shields. What it means is that: (1) Rosen was objectively incorrect when he said that Hamad "acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel," because Hamad demonstrably did not acknowledge that; (2) Wikipedia's content policies allow editorial discretion in not including relevant statements made by reliable sources that are factually incorrect; and (3) I have the ability to remove it, subject to other editors later re-adding it and making the case for its inclusion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Human shielding regarding the hostages should obviously be included in this article. Will look for more sources on that. But thank you, that was very thorough, and you have once again proven your integrity and honesty as an editor. nableezy - 03:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair is fair. Thanks for the confidence. --Orgullomoore (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, you cannot just ignore the discussion and the agreements made here. Restoring material that is false and blatant POV is not an option, especially without discussion. nableezy - 13:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Though @Iskandar323, I think Shifa belongs in the lead, just with the amnesty statement as well. nableezy - 15:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an updated mention - but not as a mausoleum of the outdated. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

EU condemnation in July 2014

The article currently says The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields". But when I read the press release it's referring to, I don't think it explicitly accuses Hamas of having done this. It reads:

"The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts. The EU calls on Hamas to immediately put an end to these acts and to renounce violence. All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm. The EU strongly condemns calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."

There is a difference, as I see it. The EU condemns Hamas. And they also condemn, in principle, the act of calling on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields, but they are not saying that it necessarily has happened. Torr3 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would they even mention it if it hadn't happened? Also, it is not disputed that it has happened. Zuhri said the movement encourages people to adopt the practice of facing warplanes with their bare chests. I honestly don't understand why people deny this. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the Amnesty section above, shielding must be purposeful and if it is not, it is not shielding. A call on civilians to offer themselves is not shielding. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that's true, Torr3's contention above is that the EU did not say it happened, that it just so happened to condemn nobody in particular, generally, the calling upon civilians to make themselves casualties--not that it did happen but based on a technicality is not shielding. --Orgullomoore (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly report that the EU condemned a call for citizens to do it but even if they did do it, it is still not shielding unless they were forced to. And that's not a technicality, them's the rules. By doing it, if they did, they would expose themselves to attack, subject to some other rules. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The argument is: "yes, Hamas tells people to put themselves under bombs to protect Hamas, but they don't force them to do it, so it doesn't count as 'use of human shields by Hamas'." Which is essentially to say, "human shield" is a term of art, embedded in which is an element of coercion, in the absence of which it is merely... encouragement of the gratuitous increase of civilian casualties for PR purposes. Seems mighty technical to me, but I suppose human minds can bring themselves to disagree on this point, evidently. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source saying that Hamas sought to increase civilian casualties for PR purposes, I would be interested to see that. I can't see how that would interest Hamas, after all they are quite happy to generate negative PR by killing Israeli civilians. So called proximity shielding is endemic, lots of places have military facilities close to civilian populations, Israel included. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the encouragement I am talking about. In anticipation of the argument that MEMRI is partisan, I don't dispute that. But the link is simply a recording of Sami Abu Zuhri's ("senior spokesman") own words. We link to Twitter, decidedly unreliable, for the tweeter's own words. And we link to foreign-language sources without any assurance of reliability of the translation or linker's interpretation of the content. I'm not aware of what Wikipedia's policy is on this, honestly.

Anyway, the words of Zuhri's interviewer on Hamas's TV channel are: "What is your comment about this? People are reverting to the (human-shield) method, which proved very successful in the days of martyr Nizar Riyan…"

The words of Zuhri in response are: "The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation. Also, this policy reflects the character of our brave, courageous people. We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy, in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

And I would concede that we should not rely on MEMRI's insertion of "(human shield)" between "the" and "method", which is why I struck it.

As for how it benefits Hamas in terms of PR, the thinking is that the higher the civilian casualties, the worse Israel looks. I don't have a reliable source on hand backing this thinking. Here's Dershowitz asserting it, which I would not call reliable. If you can think of some other reason Hamas would tell people to stay under bombs, I'd be interested to hear it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure Israel is capable of making itself look bad without Hamas assistance. They are doing a pretty good job of that right now. Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. But occasionally Hamas lends them a helping hand. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside whether or not this is selectively edited, what he says (according to MEMRI, havent watched it myself) is This attests to the character of our noble, Jihad-fighting people, who defend their rights and their homes with their bare chests and their blood. The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation. Also, this policy reflects the character of our brave, courageous people. We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy, in order to protect the Palestinian homes. That is not Hamas using human shields, it is not even Hamas encouraging people to shield Hamas. That is him urging people to shield their own homes. nableezy - 19:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a technical topic, as defined in international law; it is not determined by opinion, aspersion and vaguery. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Students of history and its rhetoric in times of war know what all of this selective quotation to prove some 'policy' exists that, as the enemy's propaganda machine insists, hurts the people. Doesn't anyone remember the RoyalFamily's response to Germany's London carpet-bombing? They stayed in the Palace even after its grounds were bombed, to express solidarity with the commoners in London, who had to stay put. Defiance. refusing to budge. Tlater Queen Elizabeth said:'I am glad we have been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East-End in the face'. What you have in these excerpts from the rhetoric of defiance is only illustrative of desperate efforts by the opposing side to win the image war by indicting leaders for the mass of collateral victims caused by the opposing side's strategy, and it tells us nothing, except the uses of media to get a talking point passed off as the truth.Nishidani (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously very true, there is an entire industry built on trying to highlight these tidbits of quotes to prove the inhumanity of Hamas and the Palestinians. No such thing exists for the Israelis, and there is, as literally any person who even peruses the Israeli press knows, no end to the individual quotes uttered by some politician or spokesman or media personality that are racist, genocidal, clearcut admissions of war crimes, and so on. Imagine placing in the lead of an article the most objectionable thing Itamar Ben-Gvir has said. Or Ariel Sharon. Lets pretend in Palestinian genocide accusation we stuffed its lead with quotes of Israeli ministers making straightforward calls for genocide. Imagine including "We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba" being included in the lead of that article. But there isnt this industry built on trying to legitimize what would in any normal setting be called Israeli propaganda, so these quotes are not highlighted and then misused to claim some sort of policy and so on. nableezy - 02:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"Why would they even mention it if it hadn't happened?" Probably because some (like Israel) claimed it had happened (although I don't know if Israel or anyone else did make this claim or not, I have not read up on this, so that's just my guess). And probably the EU could not confidently verify this claim, yet they wanted to condemn it in case it had happened. Torr3 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If I had the permission, I would change the text to this:

´The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields". And I would add the press release as reference.´
Just to improve it a bit without having to do more research. Torr3 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WSJ journalist's photo tweet

Article reads tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet. This is strange. He might have deleted it because it was incorrect. Or he might have deleted it because of security concerns, as a blog in Times of Israel suggests. Unless the veracity of the claim in that tweet can be verified (which I can not), I suggest we remove this sentence. Torr3 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH

The material in Israeli accusations is in large part WP:SYNTH in that they do not relate to the topic of this article. I plan to keep going through the ones that dont mention any shielding by Hamas. For example, The Messenger News cited for On 23 November the IDF released footage showing a weapons cache hidden under a child's bed, which it stated belonged to the child of a senior Hamas official. does not mention human shields at all. The JPost article for The footage shows what the IDF claims is a rocket launcher situated near a school, and an armament-laden truck used in the 7 October attack that is parked in the courtyard of a mosque again does not mention human shielding. This is the case for much of the material, editors are taking news reports that they think proves their case here and then inserting it. But the sources dont actually relate to human shielding by Hamas and their usage is synth. nableezy - 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Think I've got it done for the most part. nableezy - 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not SYNTH and unless there's some other reason to invalidate that content, it should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

POV images

Editor keeps adding IDF press release images that have nothing to do with "shielding". IDF is notoriously unreliable, staging images and making stuff up are recent examples. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this comment is a serious POV. Each side thinks that the other side is "notoriously unreliable, staging images and making stuff up are recent examples".

If we start removing photos of the IDF, it means that we will also have to remove photos taken by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. There are dozens and maybe hundreds of them embedded in Wikipedia articles. Do you think this is the right step?. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Any individual source (obviously that is not all Palestinians, a comment that frankly borders on the racist, equivalent to my saying that all images posted by Israeli Jews should be removed) that can be shown as fabricating and making stuff up should go. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Eladkarmel can you please explain why you repeatedly returned unverified Israeli propaganda as the lead image in this article over the objections of multiple editors without anything resembling a consensus on this talk page? nableezy - 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Because this is not propaganda. And this very statement is defamation and of course POV
2. The first image was removed because "there is no connection between a mosque and a human shield", and the second image was removed on the grounds that it was unsupported.Eladkarmel (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is propaganda, material released by an army for public consumption to bolster their claims is definitionally propaganda. It is propaganda by a combatant with no third party indepedent sourcing substantiating it. And it has no consensus for its inclusion. nableezy - 18:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

2014 and Amnesty in lead

This is outdated. I suggest it be moved to the body and referred to more summarily. Right now it seems to be the main takeaway, but we know post-10/7 there is an entirely different instance of human shield usage that's more current than the 2014 controversy. Andre🚐 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, same old, same old. Ain't recycling wonderful.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not the same old; it's substantively different. Andre🚐 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Take al-Shifa, Israel put up the same story in 2014 and 2012. All bs. Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's always been exactly the same argument of indirect human shielding by virtue of proximity - and the rhetorical assertion that it is human shielding more than any kind of legal proof of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to dedicate so much space to something that happened 9 years ago. Alaexis_¿question? 18:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There was only reason to include it when it didn’t include that amnesty found the charges to be bogus? Nah, the history of the accusation is relevant here and so are the repeated findings that Israel’s accusations have been unfounded. nableezy - 18:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's relevant to the history but should not be the biggest block of space and weight and the most prominent thing in the lead. Andre🚐 18:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I said up above shifa should be included as well, so too should the hostages but that needs material in the body. But people don’t want to actually look things up and edit comprehensively they just want to stuff in whatever news article they think shows something even if it doesn’t have anything to do with this topic. nableezy - 19:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the proper article Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict takes a more balanced approach to these matters. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

false edit summary and WP:PRESERVE

Hey Iskandar323, I saw this edit. And I have a concern that this is an incorrect editorial summary. You wrote that you removed mention of the al-Shifa hospital (which should be left in IMO because it is a notable controversy), but you also removed the US support of the human shield claims. I also' if I understand correctly there is WP:PRESERVE here, Want to explain? Eladkarmel (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And sorry for the confusion with the discussion on the other page... as I explained there, I tried to do it with the cell phone while I was at work... Eladkarmel (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I see the content they removed was regarding Us accusations regarding al-shifa hospital, no? VR _talk 18:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the al-shifa hospital: there are a lot of claims and counterclaims and it violates NPOV to cover only one side. So its best to cover that in the body. VR _talk 18:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ahmad Kahlot

Why does the section on Ahmad Kahlot repeat that "Israel says he said" this and that during his interrogation, while one of the cited sources includes video of him saying these things during said interrogation? It makes primary source material look like hearsay. 94.105.121.73 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's important to note that he said it while being detained by Israel. How would you phrase it better? Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Phallic" ability?

"Just because they don't have the phallic ability to bomb these places?"

Is this a misquote? What is the meaning of "phallic ability" here? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's the full quote. I'm not sure what it means either. “Hamas uses the population as human shields.” If I’m not mistaken, the Defense Ministry is in the heart of Tel Aviv, as is the army’s main “war room.” And what about the military training base at Glilot, near the big mall? And the Shin Bet headquarters in Jerusalem, on the edge of a residential neighborhood? And how far is our “sewing factory” in Dimona from residential areas? Why is it all right for us and not for them? Just because they don’t have the phallic ability to bomb these places? Andre🚐 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a reference to her setup earlier in this screed that war is part rational and part testosterone and bluster. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Definition #3 of your link. You're welcome. 184.147.148.9 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Requested move 2 April 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. As for the merge, it is a content discussion best continued separately. – robertsky (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Use of human shields by Hamas → Hamas Human shields accusations – For now, there is no existing evidence supporting hamas usage human shields, most of the existing notions is just western and israeli politicians accusing the Palestinian resistance of using human shields who themselves provide no evidence to the international community for their claims while some western journals just echo them. I believe the current article title should be renamed to comply with WP:NPOV Stephan rostie (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: See #Requested move 17 November 2023 above (outcome: not moved to an "allegations of..." title). I assume the intended proposal here is Hamas human shields accusations, given Human is not a proper noun. SilverLocust 💬 22:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The proposed title is confusingly phrased (as well as incorrectly capitalized). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is a relatively small article supposedly covering both sides. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous consensus and the broad verification by RS that are infrequently disputed based on the major legal and practical definitions, weak secondary merge per @Selfstudier FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an IP posted their reasoning here and was reverted per WP:ECR but what they said summarizes my thoughts well. “The article has clear links to credible sources and also quotes from Hamas leaders, it passes verifiability. The article itself also is clear and robust in its presentation of sources and passes NPOV.” Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can't see a problem with the titling. See RM above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Do not see an issue with the title. Supported by reliable sources Ilenart626 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge per Selfstudier. Israel has a distinguished record of using human shields, a finding by the Israeli Supreme Court, and, just as with Hamas, allegations of this kind were made in the 2014 war. The point is, these allegations are endemic with Hamas,(less well known is the record of such allegations made against the IDF), and treating it in isolation with one party would tend to prioritize the standard Israeli claim that the (massive) civilian casualties it caused are in fact to be blamed on its adversary's deliberate tactics.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

"supported by NATO" is incorrect

Supported by the Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, yes. But SCCoE itself, on its About page ( https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5 ) says it does not speak for NATO, which means you cannot attribute that report to NATO.

I also find citing the report to be problematic, because it is undated and has no authorship. Consider citing the report's sources instead of the report itself. 2601:180:8200:35B0:3510:5932:ADA1:AAEE (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Is there a reason this report is given so much weight? Allegations of human shields by Hamas have been covered by many other sources so surely we don't need an ambiguously named entity to support this.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I too wondered about that odd source which used NATO backing to endorse a POV much subject to serious questioning. That kind of material is a political statement, not scholarship, and we should avoid using it.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Its also the same paper covered two paragraphs higher, I just removed that bit from that paragraph. nableezy - 14:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, @Justanotherguy54, this explains the removal of supported by NATO. nableezy - 14:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As below, esp. given the lowbrow newspaper digest passed off as research in that flimsy screed and the fact that Israel can expect support, as a major strategic ally, from NATO or its branches, I have reduced per WP:Undue the excessive emphasis given to that paper. Its function here, given that it does not represent NATO, is dubious.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Given that no one has come forth with who actually authored that PDF, I'm removing it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Insignificant content in lede

@Nableezy: regarding your revert, my point wasn't that there's no RS, just that including it in the very first paragraph seems like giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minor point. I wasn't trying to remove the claim altogether, it's still covered later (in a section that I think is too lengthy, also seems WP:UNDUE, but that's another question).

It's just not a very significant aspect of the topic with significant coverage. Plenty of counterarguments could be made, such as the argument that Hamas isn't capable of targeting military assets anyway, but RS don't cover both sides of this because it's not significant. We can't properly cover both sides of this argument without resorting to citing (non-RS) Twitter fights or what not. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see there's a lot of wild excisive editing of leads recently by a number of relatively new editors to the IP area. That example is one. As with the other examples, all I can see is distaste for balance, explained as the removal of 'insignificant' content. The content you removed balanced details that constitute a major and repeated element of Israel's POV regarding Hamas's use of hostages, and the academic source simply expresses reserve about the premise of that endlessly repeated assertion. More proposals on the talk page before charging in to excise stuff on fragile grounds, please.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what my or anyone's editing history has to do with this.

The lede, and the article generally, already has a major focus on sources questioning the human shield claims. Removing this insignificant sentence wouldn't change that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What you removed is cited to the very best source in this entire article. A work by two noted academics published by a high quality university press. UNDUE doesnt mean how many news stories talk about something. nableezy - 14:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires that we represent viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". WP:LEAD instructs us to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Surely the "Tel Aviv argument" isn't such a prominent controversy to warrant inclusion in the very first paragraph? The argument has been made by several sources, but (to my knowledge) always in passing, never with substantial discussion. In the cited Amnesty piece, it's just one sentence of the 127 page report. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The first para is properly balanced. The problems in the lede (which is inept in its manifold reduplicativeness) begins with the following lines in para 2

According to a paper published by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the strategic use of human shields by groups like Hamas hinges on exploiting Israel's aim to minimize civilian casualties and the sensitivity of Western public opinion which it says allows Hamas to either accuse Israel of war crimes if civilian casualties occur or to protect its assets and continue operations if the IDF limits its military response.[5][6] Israel has said that Hamas's actions have been responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza.[7][8]

As noted this is a political document, not a serious study, one which takes on board critically all Israel's public hasbara ('hinges on exploiting Israel's aim to minimize civilian casualties' - a vast amount of scholarship would contest a statement like that, which confuses a governmental meme with a 'fact': there is no evidence I know of - to the contrary - that has ever established minimizing civilian casualties is an Israeli goal). Virtually a whole paragraph is devoted to paraphrasing its assertions.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there are good grounds for believing official Israeli hands had some part in its drafting. On page 165 the text refers to the West Bank (universal in Western mainstream usage) as 'Judea and Samaria'.

Of the 57 notes, the overwhelming majority come from newspaper reports, like the Jerusalem Post, the Guardian, the New York Times etc., while significant credence is given to IDF blogs.

When it comes to the Goldstone Report there's a sticking point in their hasbara recital.

” However, the mission found no evidence of Palestinian armed groups placing civilians in areas where attacks were being launched, or engaging in combat in civilian dress, or using a mosque for military purposes or to shield military activities. This statement contrasted with both Israeli and international media reports that Hamas fighters wore civilian clothes and concealed their weapons.'p.159

I.e. Goldstone did an intensive review of all of the available evidence and found nothing to substantiate the Israeli claims as they were repeated in the mainstream press which this lousy paper relies on for its research. How do they reconcile their own conclusions? They refer to the troubling fact that the G report had repercussions in the UN.

The resolution called on the bloc’s member states to “publicly demand the implementation of [the report’s] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.” These declarations, as well as others, demonstrate Hamas’ triumph in controlling the narrative. Hamas’ ability to control the narrative limits Israel’s strategic choices.’

So, in plain man's language, the report is that of NATO speaking on behalf of a strategic ally, using newspaper reports in lieu of scholarship, and when the empirical evidence contradicts the meme machine, developing the weird idea that somehow a tiny little islamic group 'controls the narrative' when their own evidence draws on a mainstream which is hostile to Hamas. It's slush, bullshit, sheer incompetence, which flies in the face of scrupulous examinations, period by period, of these repeated claims, by independent research bodies and scholars. Ergo Undue.-Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to discuss the credibility of each related organization or report. The topic at hand was a particular argument that's casually mentioned by a few sources, but doesn't seem significant. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It isnt casually mentioned, Gordan and Perugini do more than mention it, so does Amira Hass. nableezy - 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You've apparently forgotten the header which, I'll remind you, reads:'Insignificant content in lede'. Both that report and its content (which already is covered in the lead) are insignificant, and, undue.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong citation?

There is claim:

On 13 November 2023, 27 European Union nations jointly condemned Hamas for the use of hospitals and civilians as human shields.

Supported by citation (79):

"Physicians for Human Rights Condemns Attacks against Civilians in Eastern Ghouta". Human Rights Documents Online. doi:10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-2259-20180038. Retrieved 14 November 2023.

I don't think this citation is relevant to that claim. JozMan1 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

use of statements made under potential torture

When mentioning statements made by Hamas members (or other Palestinians) during interrogation, it should be added that Israel has tortured Palestinian detainees, and so the reader should use caution in accepting such statements as fact. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Torture_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%20a%20UNRWA,tortured%20to%20extract%20forced%20confessions. Fullerwollman (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research and MOS

I believe that this edit violates WP:OR. The sources cited do not discuss the specific revelations published in the Jerusalem Post and so should not be added to that section. If I've missed something, please explain why you believe they are related.

Also, this is a minor quibble but MOS:SAID discourages the use of words like "claimed" when "said" can do the job. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Both the sources accurately reflect the information, namely that these human rights organizations (HRW, Amnesty and PHRI) have criticized these taped alleged confession videos released by Israeli for likely involving the use of torture, not giving due process rights to detainees, and violating international law. And they were published after the Jerusalem Post piece, so include the claims in that piece regarding the credibility of those alleged confessions.

Moreover, additional reporting including on testimonies from detainees who were interrogated with the use of torture while being accused of Hamas membership and forced to say things that were by their own admission upon release not accurate, confirms that we cannot just cite these claims in these videos as fact without adding this crucial context.

That is essential to ensure NPOV.

It is either that, or the entire paragraph should be removed. I opted for the establishing NPOV option.

However, I agree that placing it within the paragraph itself isn't needed, so I have moved the NPOV point to a separate section after that paragraph, and added additional sources published after the Post piece on selective editing, use of torture, violation of rights re these alleged taped "confessions", and false allegations of Hamas membership.

Also I agree that "said" is better than "claimed", so I have changed that. However, using phrasing like "admitted", "disclosed", "terrorists" and referring to those who made these alleged confessions as "Hamas", with the context just provided, is a gross violation of NPOV, as it reproduces allegations as fact from interrogations that have been widely criticized as including the use of torture, violation of due process rights and false allegations of Hamas membership, by credible mainstream human rights organizations and media reports.

We don't publish as fact allegations made by Israeli hostages in taped videos released by Hamas, but if they are referenced, the crucial context that hostages have been subjected to torture and are likely giving these statements under duress and all their statements are "alleged" and not "disclosing" certain facts about Israeli use of military force or anything else, must obviously be included to ensure NPOV.

It is no different here, and I was actually shocked the paragraph was even there in the first place.

If you disagree and want to revert it to include the allegations as fact and remove the NPOV context added, please gain consensus here first as it is highly controversial. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You're right that words like "admitted", "disclosed", "terrorists" also violate the guidelines. The right way to fix it is to replace them with more neutral ones. I'll respond to the rest a bit later. Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Raskolnikov.Rev. We wouldn't use statements from Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity as stating facts about alleged Israeli military activities or anything else, and we don't need a specific report on that specific hostage being subjected to torture for that. That's absurd and strongly violates NPOV. The same applies to interrogation videos of alleged Hamas operatives released by the Israeli government, which has been widely reported for systematically torturing Palestinian detainees, including during interrogations, and forcing them to admit to false claims, such as Hamas membership. See for example the recent reports by B'TSelem, and Haaretz on Palestinian detainees being forced to become human shields.

As noted by Raskolnikov.Rev, human rights organizations have specifically highlighted that these alleged 'confession' videos likely involve the use of torture, deny detainees due process rights, and violate international law, making them inadmissible as evidence. These concerns have been raised both before and after the publication of the Jerusalem Post article, which relies entirely on these selectively released interrogation videos for its claims.

I actually think that paragraph should be deleted entirely as we would never cite even as possibly credible allegations statements from Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity that repeat claims detrimental to Israel and favorable to Hamas. - Ïvana (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus to merge this article into Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Post-close edit: I have been informed of a previous merge discussion at Talk:Human_shields_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Merge_proposal that didn't find consensus to merge. Thus, a new merge discussion will be required to generate enough consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations that Hamas use human shields – The current title puts increasingly controversial claims in wiki voice. After 4 months more evidence, it is worth discussing this title again. Since the first two discussions there has been strong expert criticism of the IDF claim that civilian casualties are human shields, particularly by Francesca Albanese, but also by others.

Even if some of the past allegations are credible or proven, the current title somewhat implies that human shield use can explain a substantial proportion of recent casualties.

Adding "allegations" is the simplest and mildest thing we can do to fix the bias in the current title. "Allegation" might be a more acceptable compromise for some people who rejected "accusation", and this proposal is hopefully less confusingly phrased than previous suggestions. FourPi (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that - though your reasoning is sound - is that we have an article entitled Gaza genocide. In that discussion, if I remember correctly (I don't remember if I participated there, probably not), it was noted that a title does not necessarily imply that genocide is taking place. By a similar logic, this title does not necessarily mean that Hamas uses human shields: it simply refers readers to the argument regarding that topic. My point is that there is an interconnection over articles and that we are obliged to struggle for coherence. A change of title in one, to 'allegation' would automatically require we change the other. One could suggest something like Gaza and genocide/Hamas and human shields as a third way, if the reasoning above is seen as inadequate. The important thing is that consensus on one page should mirror a consensual approach to the issue where 'allegations' is the keyword. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a sensibly titled Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which in my view (although not upheld) is where this material should be. This article (again in my view) was a POV creation designed to match the Israeli narrative during the ongoing war. We now have proof of human shield use by the IDF and there is no article Use of human shield by the IDF, again that should rather go in the top article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree this material should go to that other article, and that we have here a POV fork.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agree that this is a POV fork. We should either 1) create Use of human shields by the IDF and move the Israeli section of the parent article there or 2) merge this one and redirect it to Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Use by Hamas. The resulting article would have a little bit over 8500 words which per WP:SIZESPLIT almost reaches the limit where it should probably be divided or trimmed (and it will certainly be expanded in the coming months), so take that into account. - Ïvana (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating a new matching fork isn't constructive, that just splits and duplicates further. It doesn't solve balance because public opinion isn't determined by number of articles, if anything that makes things more likely to get lost and never seen. You could turn that one into just IDF and this one just Gaza, but that doesn't seem to really solve anything? FourPi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The only useful thing I can see to do with two pages is if we have one about specific incidents and another about whether human shield use is a valid explanation for the death toll. Both sides maybe use human shields, but only one side claims that the other using human shields explains civilian casualties? FourPi (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We should probably have a proper discussion about this instead of hijacking this one. I think either option is an improvement compared to the current situation but I would like to hear more opinions. - Ïvana (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, in hindsight, moving to Gaza genocide was partisan and a mistake, and it sets a bad premise for other articles

Kowal2701 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Allegations unnecessary as evidence exists for use and this article is anyway a POV fork of Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and if it can't be resolved in informal discussion should be AfD'd with a view to redirect/merge.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’d support a merge there if others agreed Kowal2701 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Typo in "History of alleged usage"

The first sentence's last word 'shield' should be plural. Teegrube (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Apropos my revert

of this. See Neve Gordon, Israel has Taken Human Shields to a Whole New Criminal Level CounterPunch 23 October 2024 Gordon has a strong publishing record on this theme. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is one of the problems in having different articles for each party here on the same topic. We had Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, then Use of human shields by Hamas was spun out. I think the overall topic should be covered in a single article, or, and this is a BadIdea™, make Use of human shields by Israel a spin out from the main article as well as that can likewise reach the same size of this article. nableezy - 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The concept is the use of human shields in the IP conflict. That was a unified topic. To split off a Hamas-specific page, while ignoring balance, is way out of whack with the evidence. In all of these articles, given the POV pushing, we should try to eliminate as far as feasible 'claims' 'reactions', 'responses' and stick to ascertained facts. The factual record gives us no serious empirical evidence for the contention that must underlie the creation of a Hamas-specific page, i.e. that, unlike its adversary, Hamas typically uses human shields. To the contrary, and the Israeli practice, like virtually everything else in this theatre of endemic war, goes back to the precedent created by the British, who adopted a policy of using Palestinians as human shields in their repression of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Unlike Israel, no court has convicted Hamas of using humans as shields. Israel has been so convicted on more than one occasion,mor caught out on videos in numerous occasions, of doing precisely this. One can indeed argue that Hamas is tactically organized within the urban civilian population, but to infer from that that this is interpretable in terms of the usual sense of using human shields is technically and historically difficult (the guiding assumption is that Hamas to clear its name should establish military strongholds in clear view of its adversary, distinct from townships and cities in the Strip, and fight 'fairly', fight fairly against an army that has immense capabilities to shoot anything that moves on the ground, which is under microscopic surveillance, from the comfortable distance of the sky or via precision artillary way beyond those borders. I.e. commit suicide). We don't write as historians of the Siege of Leningrad, the Siege of Gush Halav or that of Jerusalem in 7=CE, or the Siege of Yorktown, of of Delhi in 1857 or of Jerusalem in 48 in terms of the defenders using the civilian population as shields. The term in the modern IP use has been overworked to caricature Hamas, as opposed to what the besiegers do and the use of the term 'human shields' now almost automatically evokes Israel's chronic adversary's tactics, which however makes military history, were that designation functional in this sense applicable to every historical events where sieges take place, regardless.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

An editor has made changes (again) to the first sentence of the article which are gratuitous and biased. This editor added language to the first sentence to mention that "Hamas, like Israel, has been accused of using human shields in the Gaza strip." The mention of "like Israel" should be deleted. This is an article about use of human shield by Hamas, not Israel. There is no reason to gratuitously mention Israel in this sentence. Also there are already plenty of paragraphs in this article which attempt to argue against the proven claim that Hamas uses human shields, so this gratuitous addition is not for balance. Nishidani's most recent changes should be reverted (again) and "like Israel" should be deleted from the first sentence. Apndrew (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting this. It's a standard misuse of the lead to subvert WP:NPOV, and I've reverted the edit. Nishidani, please get consensus before making a major contentious change like this, and be wary of lead-stuffing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)