![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some referenced information was very quickly reverted and/or changed no irrelevant/unhelpful non-referenced material. Maybe we can save ourselves some trouble and sort out the main points here.
-- Filter23 ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There should be a section added detailing the use of the term "human shield" as a form of propaganda to de-humanize enemy combatants. An insurgency using human shields has been a repeated lie told by governments to justify the use of force against them. They did it in WW1, they did it in Iraq, they did it with Bin Laden (it has now been confirmed he did not use his wife/ves as human shields when he was raided by the SEALS), and they've been doing it with Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me this article is describing two rather different situations, and getting itself a bit confused in the process. I would suggest separate headings, one for the non-voluntary human shields and one for voluntary ones. I might have a go at this but not right now. -- Joeboy 12:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excellent point. the two are different. Roger Warren ( talk) 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren
I think this point needs to be revisited. It's not just a matter of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary." When Israeli soldiers force Palestinians at gunpoint to enter houses first so that the Israeli soldiers don't get shot at, that fits the literal definition of "human shield" used in international law. When Hamas militants hide out in a hospital or school, they are not literally fitting that definition, but certainly they can be criticized (and are) for putting civilians at risk. But the only people who consider them "human shields" at that point is the IDF. The ICRC reserves the term for use "where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack." [1]. The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional colocation of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives." (p. 340 of Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume 1 Rules, pub by ICRC, 2005). The stuff happening in Gaza, while certainly troubling, doesn't fit this definition by a long shot. Civilians aren't being moved to targets, they aren't being forced, and the intent is in fact to draw israeli fire to civilian targets and provoke media condemnations of Israeli actions rather than to prevent targeting of military objectives. If Hamas managed to bomb the Kirya or the Rabin IDF base there, hundreds of civilians in Tel Aviv would probably be killed. Certainly these are military targets -- would people criticize Israel for making the civilians who live and work in Tel Aviv into human shields? Doubtful. I think we need to be clear at least that there is an "official" definition of "human shield" as used in international law, and there is a rhetorical notion that is used during wartime that is not consistent with that legal definition. Certainly the whole section on Gaza and Hamas should be greatly shortened here and should include this caveat. csloat ( talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point. Of course when the Israelis and their supporters speak of "rules of war", they mean two sets: one for themselves and another for their "terrorist" enemies. So they aren't bothered by their own hypocrisy.- 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article listed as NPOV? -- Eyrian 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Illegal where? T. S. Rice 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention- it is explicitly defined as a war crime.
This is a little more serious-
Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet.
This is factually wrong. Bullets made of (relatively) soft metals such as lead can deform when they hit something, but this has to do with the density of what they hit and the round's velocity when it hits, not the temperature. I'm going to remove the 'when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being)' portion of the sentence.
Oy. Upon re-reading the paragraph, I decided it needs a complete re-write. Here's the original:
Some lesser used instances of human shields, include literally using a human as a physical barrier against bullets, or taking advantage of the opposing gun's lack of over penetration as a means of creating a shield. Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet. The same is true for hollow point bullets which mushroom when entering living tissue. However both of these types prevent the bullet from piercing right through the victim, thus leaving anything directly behind them safe from oncoming fire. This idea has been demonstrated in several action movies including a controversial scene in Total Recall.
Anyone who decides my new version is inferior is welcome to revert it.
This claim
needs a new reference as the link in question is down/gone. Also the original source was from an Israeli newspaper. Ideally a more neutral source should be used. Also, since I haven't seen the pictures I can't say for sure but we need to be careful here. Especially if it's only one image, we need to be sure the picture conclusively proves such a claim. If the child were simply nearby, it is unlikely we can say for sure IMHO. If the person was actually holding the child then perhaps but again, if it's only one image, it could very well be that the person is trying to move the child out of the way. In the absence of clarity, we should only say it's alleged Nil Einne 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is lebanon grouped with Gaza and the West bank ? Lebanon is independent soverign democracy, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are independent of Lebanon and are a democracy without a state. These are seperate areas.. why are tey linked together? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that my understanding is that a 'protected person' under Geneva Convention IV does not include all civilians, but does include all people who are of a different nationality to the State which has them in its control (i.e. people in an occupied territory, captured enemy soldiers, civilians in enemy territory, etc). See article 4 "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." For these people, article 8 says that they cannot renounce their rights under the convention (relevant with respect to 'voluntary' human shields). Additional Protocol I is also relevant for those states which have ratified it (not the US), since it does make it illegal to use civilians to render an area immune from military operations (article 51(7)). This article says nothing which would indicate that consent would make the use of civilians lawful, but nor does it explicitely say otherwise.
The explanation in the ICRC commentary ( http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600033?OpenDocument) needs to be incorporated into the text. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the following text here from the article page because since I raised the issue last August nothing has been done to fix the obvious generalisations in it which cause it to be either wrong or misleading or both:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Avraham, a pro-Israel editor is removing sourced content about Israel's use of Human shiled tactic, that is published on many sites, and has good sources. I ask professional users to counter his vandalism. Thanks -- 217.219.236.17 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising articles, and stop posting rude messages to me. I've read your edits, and the opinion of other users about you. It seems you're a notorious editor here. Try to remain civil and polite, and do not try to make personal attacks. This could make a you better editor. -- 217.219.236.17 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham. Thank you. -- Avi 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put text into the inline links in the section "Human shields in Israel/Palestine". And also please consider if such a list should carry the template {{ examplefarm}} -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to go further into Israel's use of "human shields." What it is referring to is the IDF policy of asking neighbors of terrorist holed up, surronnded by the Israeli Army, to talk to their neighbor and try to get them to come out. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this Illegal because one of these people were killed when a terrorist shot one of them. 96.229.94.216 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The placement of the Fathi Ahmad Hammad "quote" at the beginning of the article is an obvious attempt to use the article to make a political point. It should not be placed in the introduction. Futher, the source for this "quote" is the questionable translation of an overly political group (MEMRI) whose staff consists of former Israeli intelligence military officers. 70.234.253.15 ( talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently added this section, but it was quickly removed:
===Ireland=== During the Irish War for Independence, attacks on British motorised patrols were common in Dublin. To prevent this, Irish Republican Army prisoners were brought along in the trucks and their presence advertised by signs, some of which also taunted, "Bomb Us Now". This practice was discontinued following reports of it in the international media.
The editor who removed it seems to be working under the assumption that not alone do human shields have to be human shields to make it into this article, they have to be described as such at the time, a premise I find dubious. Editing restrictions placed on me have been recently interpreted more liberally so as to embrace this period in Irish history, so it's doubtful I'll be reinserting this material myself. All of this information is already available at Irish War for Independence, where it has existed without controversy for years.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 10:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to evidence that Hamas has used civilian areas for cover, somebody wrote:
The sentence and reference are unrelated to each other and to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 ( talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody changed it back. Here's a compromise:
It's more accurate to say that everybody denounces human shields than to say that the Palestinians do. E.g. Israelis denounce it:
but you have to remember that Palestinians voted for Hamas in part knowing how they would carry out war.
Mainstream sources do not support the claim that Israel's enemies systematically use human shields, or that most civilian casualties among the Palestinians, Lebanese, and others can be explained by "collateral damage" resulting from attacks on military targets by Israel. But in any case all of Israel's leaders have been elected by the people, which would presumably mean that there are no "civilians" among the Israelis either. It's odd when Israel's supporters speak of "rules of war" and argue that Israel abides by them better that its "terrorist" enemies, and then proceed to apply one set of rules to the Israelis and another to those enemies.- 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Just from the top of my head. Mongols during their campaigns in Central Asia. Germans in Warsaw in 1944. Soviets in eastern Poland in 1939. Germans in Glogow 1109.
"After the five days were up, Henry V. reversed his decision and laid siege to Głogów. Breaking his promise, he chained the child hostages to his siege engines, hoping that the people of Głogów would not shoot their own offspring, which would allow him to conquer the Polish settlement.
However, Henry's cruelty towards children only strengthened the resolve of Głogów's defenders. Several attacks by the German army were repulsed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_G%C5%82og%C3%B3w
Soviets - in Polish: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Jasi%C5%84ski -- Revery ( talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It was a common German tactic in the USSR during WWII to use peasants as human shields during attacks.-- Dojarca ( talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand how inserting information identifying the source of a picture and the story depicted is POV pushing. Malik, I am expecting an explanation. You reverted the edit I made that was based on sourced content. It identified the person who took the picture and described the alleged events, and also the organization of which he is the director. Thanks. Breein1007 ( talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror "In Helsinki, the White Guards made workers' wives and children walk in front of their troops as they recaptured the city street by street."-- Revery ( talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is clearly not neutral, given the excessive focus on the claims of Israel's use of human shields when there is overwhelming evidence of Palestinian use of human shields. The weight of the claims against Israel are completely unbalanced and must be immediately addresses. Clearly not neutral from any perspective. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have added an undue weight tag. Israel's use of human shields has been marginal and does not play an important role in the conflict (unlike Hamas's infamous use of human shields), yet it has the largest section of all. Your last comment is also correct, that since the Israel and WB/Gaza sections deal with the same conflict, they should be merged. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Until the problems above ar addressed (inbalance and leak of proportions) the NPOV tag should be put on this entry. For example: it clearly ignores testimonies of armed Hamas gunmen crossing street while carrying children in order to prevent IDF soldiers to shoot them (the gunmen) - a clear use of human shield that Amnesty ignores. Also cases of rigged schools, mosques and civilian facilities are ignored. MathKnight 11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the liberation of their country." "Liberation"?! Really? Reads like it was sourced from the autobiography of someone fed on US propaganda justifying his shooting of Iraqis. 'Invasion' would be more NPOV, but I'm going to leave it up to others to consider this because I don't have a lot of wiki editing experience.
We're giving this weird terrorist too much quote space, and leaving too many of his long rants without breaks, resulting in a whole section of him expressing his views word-by-word. There is no need letting such an insane madman gain that much of the spotlight. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sean and I could not agree on this section, so this seems to be the right place to discuss.
I see it has been put back in. In response to the edit summary, however, I started this discussion section. Is there a problem with it as it is now? Dlabtot ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If the 4th convention was held in 1949 ... how did a man serving during the Second World War (1939-1945) know using human shields would breech a convention not yet conceived? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we get a reliable source that describes the File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Qalandiya Rioters Use Ambulance for Cover While Hurling Rocks (1).jpg image as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? Was the image (or a part of the same sequence) used in the press/human rights reports etc and described as an example of the use of human shields ? If so, we can cite that source and attribute the claim if necessary. Or can we replace the image with something similar where the source explicitly cites it as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? When images provided by belligerents in a conflict are used in this way with us synthetically concluding via our own interpretation that it's an example of X via the popular "it's obvious" procedure, we aren't complying with WP:V. There must be something out there that could serve the same purpose but comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets." If the Palestinians are not combatants, then then they are not "combat targets", but civilians throwing stones. Doe Israeli security personnel treat captured stone throwers as prisoners of war until placed in front of a tribunal to decide their combatant status or does it hold such people on capture as common criminals?
Has anyone interviewed the people using the van for protection to ask them why they were doing so? Suppose that the van carried no markings, the van could be used in exactly the same way. So it is not the people in the van which are the shield but the van itself in which case it is a van shield not a human shield. If it is because the van is marked with a protective sign then the stone throwers are using a sign for protection not the occupants, in which case it is not a human shield.
All in all it is a very dubious image to use on this page as its connection to human shields is tangential at best. -- PBS ( talk) 23:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The section marked "Tactic in peace campaigning" has its first paragraph end with the sentence, "Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the invasion of their country." This claim is backed by a citation from a book - one US Marine's personal account of his time in Iraq, which appears to be written with a heavy bias against both "antiwar nutcases" and Iraqis who just don't understand democracy. I would like to see claim this corroborated by a second, less biased source. Otherwise it does not seem like it belongs here, as it attaches a clear value judgment to the actions of the peace activists. Martin.fish ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Palestinians throwing STONES in a protest. Hiding from GUNFIRE behind an vehicle, which happens to be an ambulance, there because of the destruction Israeli soldiers are causing.
And this is an example of "Palestinians" using HUMAN shields?
Remove this at once. It's ridiculous Israeli POV pushing that doesn't even meet the standards for this article even if it wasn't fallacious bullshit. 124.168.249.244 ( talk) 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Throwing stones isn't a protest it is assoult with a deadly weapon
Irishfrisian (
talk)
05:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictures and video from the Gaza Strip have documented incident's of Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees using children as human shield, to prevent the IDF from firing over gunmen and Qassam rockets. During the recent conflict hamas spokesman have also defended the use of human shields [1]
The article states: "The IDF admitted it had used Palestinians as human shields; it acknowledged using human shields 1,500 times during the Second Intifada (However, out of these 1,500 uses the Palestinian human shield was injured in one case only)" The source for the supposedly only case in which a Palestinian was injured is the IDF. How can the IDF, as the perpetrator of this crime, be a reliable source in this case? 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have several points:
Oldstone James ( talk) 17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@ 76.70.6.43 and Averysoda: Please stop edit warring. Neither of you have opened a talk page discussion on this matter. Repeated reversion like this is unacceptable. Discuss, instead of just reverting back and forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the section. The Washington Post described Al-Shifa hospital as a "de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." [2] Nick Casey of the Wall Street Journal tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet. [3]
References
Firstly, Hamas is a political party, as well as the government in Gaza. A Hamas minister giving interviews inside a hospital is not an evidence of human shielding, nor has anyone claimed it is so. To insert it in the human shields section is WP:OR by juxtaposition. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A primary source in the Amnesty article also writes "I went to al-Shifa hospital outpatients’ clinic where the Internal Security had a room. http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/embargoed_report_2015_strangling_necks.pdf Drsmoo ( talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
I have rearranged, condensed and expanded the section on the 2008 war.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ When Other Legends Are Forgotten: Your edit here is WP:OR. Human shielding has a specific meaning in international humanitarian law: many conditions need to be satisfied: someone deliberately uses civilians to shield themselves from attack, there should be choices of battlefield etc. One cannot arbitrarily infer from Gunness's statement that there was human shielding. It is logically impossible for an empty school to provide human shielding in any case. It is of course forbidden to use UN schools for storing weapons, but that does not constitute human shielding by itself. The UN investigation did not accuse Hamas of human shielding in this case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The UN concluded that no rockets were stored in populated schools, so the practice doesn't fit the human shield description. By the way, I'm reverting the mass deletion of content related to the Israel-Palestine subsections, which was clearly inspired by pro-Israel partisanship. Rafe87 ( talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the article back to the version before Monochrome Monitor made their changes. There has been continuous edit-warring since then over this. Speaking for myself, I do not oppose drastically condensing both sides of the conflict: the I/P section is vastly bigger than others on this page. I suggest that someone propose a scheme first, on the talk page, on what should be mentioned here, and prune content based on that scheme. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I will be re-inserting the content. Monitor's edits are blatantly pro-Israel. The recommended entry has not 1/100 of the content previously used on this entry. Rafe87 ( talk) 02:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Use of human shields by US troops: /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Washita_River#The_role_of_Indian_noncombatants_in_Custer.27s_strategy
It was also reported that 'rebel' towns were using human shields in 2015 to prevent air attacks, by placing captured civilians in cages in public areas. Many examples from a search for "syria captured cages rebel", like http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/syria-cages-human-shields/ 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Human shield. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Human shield. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/48a40ca00c3be03d85256c910074441f!OpenDocumentWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is why I am editing as I am. The 1982 example does NOT give an example of civilians being used to SHIELD combatants from attack. It merely describes an incident in which a besieged population refused to evacuate a camp. Logically, every case in history of a human habitation under attack (such as in a siege) should be called a case of "human shielding"!
The 2006 example, similarly, does not show any civilians at all in the photos. The charge of human shielding in 2006 is consistently contradicted by third-party sources such as independent human rights organizations, the UN, and US army studies-many of these sources are partial to Israel, and they frequently rely on interviews with Israeli soldiers. Apparently, the whole world lies except the Israeli government! One U.S. Army study cited by Professor Finkelstein acknowledges that Hezbollah was located in cities and towns in Southern Lebanon (again, this may be a mere means of self-defense) but also writes that these areas were largely evacuated and that Hezbollah relied on natural and artificial terrain for cover in its successful fight against the Israeli army.
The photos, if they show Hezbollah (questionable as they claim to depict Christian areas) are consistent with this interpretation.
It is hard to see how human shielding could have been effective at all when General Dan Halutz had declared that "Nothing is safe, as simple as that".
I have edited the part about the Chris Link article appropriately-for the area mentioned of Beirut played no part in the war at all, in contrast to South Lebanon where the war took place-and claims of systematic human shielding are consistently denied by third party sources. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the unnamed user is talking about. The source in question is simply the Chris Link article itself. It makes clear that he did NOT take the photographs himself. It makes clear what he himself cites as the location for the alleged incidents of human shielding. Again, there are no civilians in the photos shown. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I have revoked the 1982 case. There is no real evidence there of civilians being used to shield combatants. Logically, every siege should be considered a case of human shielding. A siege alone combined with a warning simply does not constitute shielding except to Zionists. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 06:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I checked the sources for the language I changed - "used themselves as human shields" - one link is dead and the other did not use that language. The language is not insignificant, because it enters into an area that is currently being debated by legal scholars about whether voluntary human shields are protected persons, and if so, to what extent and under what circumstances. If you have a problem with the language I chose, please don't revert back to this but change it to something that accurately reflects the sources provided, in your estimation. Seraphim System ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Finkelstein was wrong, as usual. As you can see from Amnesty's own report:
The Israeli authorities claim that Hamas and Palestinian armed groups use Palestinian civilians in Gaza as “human shields”. Does Amnesty International have any evidence that this has occurred during the current hostilities, and what obligations of Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups are relevant?
Amnesty International is aware of these claims, and continues to monitor and investigate 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. As explained above, 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, and available evidence indicates that they continue to do both during the current hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople have reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate. However, in light of the lack of clarity in many of the Israeli warnings on safe routes for civilians to evacuate, the lack of shelters or other safe places in the Gaza Strip for them to go to, and numerous reports of civilians who did heed the warnings and flee doing so under Israeli fire, such statements by Hamas officials could have been motivated by a desire to avoid further panic. In any case, public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law is clear that even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups associated with other factions did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives from attacks, all of Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.
-- יניב הורון ( talk) 00:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The book cited for the record was published by University of California Press. It is on its face a rock solid source. nableezy - 00:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)However, contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants.
India attacked with a frontal assault, knowing there were civilians, against the military advice of the UK. The origin of the "human shield" claim is unknown due to India's media lockdown during the operation. I've removed it until we can find a WP:RS that states who made this claim. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 22:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
But in a statement to MPs, William Hague indicated that the advice was ignored by the Indian army, which launched a ground assault with no element of surprise, causing a heavy loss of life.[5]. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear nableezy. Gordon is very controversial. I will remove Business insider if it's not reliable. Shukran Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not into the palestine conflict but there has been a lot of turmoil about him. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy I remember reading about this guy since his articles appeared on the neo nazi Zundel site and others. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Why put a very controversial's (besides the Zundel scandal there was more as I remember) material at the main article? I haven't removed him though. Fathiyimah ( talk) 02:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Not every professor is reliable. Stating he is on the extreme is not from me. And his work pertains to more to palestinians. Which is not my material. And not in main page. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
My views are irrelevant. I quote what I remember the noise controveesy about him especially after the zundel thing. This page should be ovrall a general source. It should be about human shields. I ask you please don't start edit wars here. Fathiyimah ( talk) 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy. I see you have been on wikipedia for long. So if you have cases of human shields especially Arab civilians, unrelated to falastin, please let me know. Shukran. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I did not try to remove Gordon's book since then. Even though he was controversial for so long. Fathiyimah ( talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The expression "human shield" is by now a general descriptive term used of any enemy, thrown as a suspicion or interpretation of any arising incident. Nearly all of the new material has come up from news sources that cite spokesmen using this term to throw suspicion on another state's behavior. The bits about Iran's maintenance of civilian flights after the US attack is a case in point. We really should restrict coverage to known, independently verified examples of the use of humans as shields, otherwise we will have the Hamas issue repeated with every state, i.e. a bluster of accusations that, on examination, fall the pieces since they fail verification. One can't just google away "human shield"+Houthi, "human shield"+Iran, etc to get ammo for the proposition that all actors not aligned with US policy use human shields. The additions that fail serious sourcing should be removed. In short, if it ain't in Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, which cover this minutely, it shouldn't be here, and therefore reverted out. Nishidani ( talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
All human shields should be included. It is why France on Algerian Arabs or Myanmar which I added . Etc. It should not be political or selective. Fathiyimah ( talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Any HRW opinion on Israel should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm surprised you said about France. All colonial regimes are maybe guilty of that. Wbiases ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Another point . Why do you have some 40 % of your global page dedicated to anti Israel? Wbiases ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think nashibi, nabeezy, and wbiases should talk it out on a Palestine talk page. Not here. Fathiyimah ( talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Besides the rang of anti israel biased groups "reports" or betselem "activists" claims, the page is riddled with an anti usafel rant. User Nableezy even removed the criticism. Facts of BDS links should also be noted. Wbiases ( talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear wbiases. I mainly posted about Human shields and not about Palestinian-Israeli conflict relating to it. I think both of you should discuss it on talk pages of that conflict. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Numerous claims that both Israel and Palestinian factions have resorted to the use of human shields. It is a known technique in garnering public support for any side. Examples of the former's use of hostages to that end have been proven in Israeli courts. To date, evidence the PLO or Hamas engages in the tactic have either not been verified, or shown to be without any basis.
Aroma Stylist. Give me your reasons for restoring a huge amount of outdated news reportage on claims about human shield use among Hamas, when to date, no independent authority has ever ascertained this to be a Hamas practice?
This article had a huge amount of material on Palestinian human shields,- when it is mere speculation- while neglecting any effort to expand coverage where this has been shown to be employed around the world. As such repeated attempts to jam the article with this tripe violates WP:Due. You just cannot shovel that mess back in without grounding the edit in a reasoned explanation of its necessity. If you can't give a policy based reason why an exception should be made, it will be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 11:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Because of the sensitivity of this page, that shows war crimes made by country/ groups/ people, I think that there should be an article about the reliability of sources, and the intreset of groups to show thier cause is right, there are a lot of known false reports on human shield usage, and I belive it will help reader to reduce false information and by that not fall to false accusation.
"According to many observers, including B'tselem, the IDF repeatedly used Palestinians as human shields. This practice became military policy during the Second Intifada, and was only dropped when Adalah challenged the practice before Israel’s High Court of Justice in 2002. though the IDF persisted in using Palestinians in its 'neighbor procedure', whereby people picked at random were made to approach the houses of suspects and persuade them to surrender, a practice which arguably placed the former's lives in danger."
This has no cited source in the article. For the part immediately after, the source, B'Tselem, is a more than questioned source here:
https://jcpa.org/article/btselem-less-reliability-credibility/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:35A6:9B86:F8FF:6C58 ( talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Some referenced information was very quickly reverted and/or changed no irrelevant/unhelpful non-referenced material. Maybe we can save ourselves some trouble and sort out the main points here.
-- Filter23 ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There should be a section added detailing the use of the term "human shield" as a form of propaganda to de-humanize enemy combatants. An insurgency using human shields has been a repeated lie told by governments to justify the use of force against them. They did it in WW1, they did it in Iraq, they did it with Bin Laden (it has now been confirmed he did not use his wife/ves as human shields when he was raided by the SEALS), and they've been doing it with Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me this article is describing two rather different situations, and getting itself a bit confused in the process. I would suggest separate headings, one for the non-voluntary human shields and one for voluntary ones. I might have a go at this but not right now. -- Joeboy 12:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Excellent point. the two are different. Roger Warren ( talk) 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren
I think this point needs to be revisited. It's not just a matter of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary." When Israeli soldiers force Palestinians at gunpoint to enter houses first so that the Israeli soldiers don't get shot at, that fits the literal definition of "human shield" used in international law. When Hamas militants hide out in a hospital or school, they are not literally fitting that definition, but certainly they can be criticized (and are) for putting civilians at risk. But the only people who consider them "human shields" at that point is the IDF. The ICRC reserves the term for use "where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack." [1]. The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional colocation of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives." (p. 340 of Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume 1 Rules, pub by ICRC, 2005). The stuff happening in Gaza, while certainly troubling, doesn't fit this definition by a long shot. Civilians aren't being moved to targets, they aren't being forced, and the intent is in fact to draw israeli fire to civilian targets and provoke media condemnations of Israeli actions rather than to prevent targeting of military objectives. If Hamas managed to bomb the Kirya or the Rabin IDF base there, hundreds of civilians in Tel Aviv would probably be killed. Certainly these are military targets -- would people criticize Israel for making the civilians who live and work in Tel Aviv into human shields? Doubtful. I think we need to be clear at least that there is an "official" definition of "human shield" as used in international law, and there is a rhetorical notion that is used during wartime that is not consistent with that legal definition. Certainly the whole section on Gaza and Hamas should be greatly shortened here and should include this caveat. csloat ( talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point. Of course when the Israelis and their supporters speak of "rules of war", they mean two sets: one for themselves and another for their "terrorist" enemies. So they aren't bothered by their own hypocrisy.- 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is this article listed as NPOV? -- Eyrian 19:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Illegal where? T. S. Rice 03:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention- it is explicitly defined as a war crime.
This is a little more serious-
Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet.
This is factually wrong. Bullets made of (relatively) soft metals such as lead can deform when they hit something, but this has to do with the density of what they hit and the round's velocity when it hits, not the temperature. I'm going to remove the 'when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being)' portion of the sentence.
Oy. Upon re-reading the paragraph, I decided it needs a complete re-write. Here's the original:
Some lesser used instances of human shields, include literally using a human as a physical barrier against bullets, or taking advantage of the opposing gun's lack of over penetration as a means of creating a shield. Some bullets expand when the temperature around it rises (ie. when entering a living being), this is done to increase the amount of tissue damage per bullet. The same is true for hollow point bullets which mushroom when entering living tissue. However both of these types prevent the bullet from piercing right through the victim, thus leaving anything directly behind them safe from oncoming fire. This idea has been demonstrated in several action movies including a controversial scene in Total Recall.
Anyone who decides my new version is inferior is welcome to revert it.
This claim
needs a new reference as the link in question is down/gone. Also the original source was from an Israeli newspaper. Ideally a more neutral source should be used. Also, since I haven't seen the pictures I can't say for sure but we need to be careful here. Especially if it's only one image, we need to be sure the picture conclusively proves such a claim. If the child were simply nearby, it is unlikely we can say for sure IMHO. If the person was actually holding the child then perhaps but again, if it's only one image, it could very well be that the person is trying to move the child out of the way. In the absence of clarity, we should only say it's alleged Nil Einne 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is lebanon grouped with Gaza and the West bank ? Lebanon is independent soverign democracy, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are independent of Lebanon and are a democracy without a state. These are seperate areas.. why are tey linked together? -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that my understanding is that a 'protected person' under Geneva Convention IV does not include all civilians, but does include all people who are of a different nationality to the State which has them in its control (i.e. people in an occupied territory, captured enemy soldiers, civilians in enemy territory, etc). See article 4 "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." For these people, article 8 says that they cannot renounce their rights under the convention (relevant with respect to 'voluntary' human shields). Additional Protocol I is also relevant for those states which have ratified it (not the US), since it does make it illegal to use civilians to render an area immune from military operations (article 51(7)). This article says nothing which would indicate that consent would make the use of civilians lawful, but nor does it explicitely say otherwise.
The explanation in the ICRC commentary ( http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600033?OpenDocument) needs to be incorporated into the text. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the following text here from the article page because since I raised the issue last August nothing has been done to fix the obvious generalisations in it which cause it to be either wrong or misleading or both:
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Avraham, a pro-Israel editor is removing sourced content about Israel's use of Human shiled tactic, that is published on many sites, and has good sources. I ask professional users to counter his vandalism. Thanks -- 217.219.236.17 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising articles, and stop posting rude messages to me. I've read your edits, and the opinion of other users about you. It seems you're a notorious editor here. Try to remain civil and polite, and do not try to make personal attacks. This could make a you better editor. -- 217.219.236.17 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by Yossiea and Avraham. Thank you. -- Avi 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone put text into the inline links in the section "Human shields in Israel/Palestine". And also please consider if such a list should carry the template {{ examplefarm}} -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to go further into Israel's use of "human shields." What it is referring to is the IDF policy of asking neighbors of terrorist holed up, surronnded by the Israeli Army, to talk to their neighbor and try to get them to come out. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled this Illegal because one of these people were killed when a terrorist shot one of them. 96.229.94.216 ( talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The placement of the Fathi Ahmad Hammad "quote" at the beginning of the article is an obvious attempt to use the article to make a political point. It should not be placed in the introduction. Futher, the source for this "quote" is the questionable translation of an overly political group (MEMRI) whose staff consists of former Israeli intelligence military officers. 70.234.253.15 ( talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently added this section, but it was quickly removed:
===Ireland=== During the Irish War for Independence, attacks on British motorised patrols were common in Dublin. To prevent this, Irish Republican Army prisoners were brought along in the trucks and their presence advertised by signs, some of which also taunted, "Bomb Us Now". This practice was discontinued following reports of it in the international media.
The editor who removed it seems to be working under the assumption that not alone do human shields have to be human shields to make it into this article, they have to be described as such at the time, a premise I find dubious. Editing restrictions placed on me have been recently interpreted more liberally so as to embrace this period in Irish history, so it's doubtful I'll be reinserting this material myself. All of this information is already available at Irish War for Independence, where it has existed without controversy for years.
Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 10:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to evidence that Hamas has used civilian areas for cover, somebody wrote:
The sentence and reference are unrelated to each other and to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 ( talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody changed it back. Here's a compromise:
It's more accurate to say that everybody denounces human shields than to say that the Palestinians do. E.g. Israelis denounce it:
but you have to remember that Palestinians voted for Hamas in part knowing how they would carry out war.
Mainstream sources do not support the claim that Israel's enemies systematically use human shields, or that most civilian casualties among the Palestinians, Lebanese, and others can be explained by "collateral damage" resulting from attacks on military targets by Israel. But in any case all of Israel's leaders have been elected by the people, which would presumably mean that there are no "civilians" among the Israelis either. It's odd when Israel's supporters speak of "rules of war" and argue that Israel abides by them better that its "terrorist" enemies, and then proceed to apply one set of rules to the Israelis and another to those enemies.- 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Just from the top of my head. Mongols during their campaigns in Central Asia. Germans in Warsaw in 1944. Soviets in eastern Poland in 1939. Germans in Glogow 1109.
"After the five days were up, Henry V. reversed his decision and laid siege to Głogów. Breaking his promise, he chained the child hostages to his siege engines, hoping that the people of Głogów would not shoot their own offspring, which would allow him to conquer the Polish settlement.
However, Henry's cruelty towards children only strengthened the resolve of Głogów's defenders. Several attacks by the German army were repulsed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_G%C5%82og%C3%B3w
Soviets - in Polish: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Jasi%C5%84ski -- Revery ( talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It was a common German tactic in the USSR during WWII to use peasants as human shields during attacks.-- Dojarca ( talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand how inserting information identifying the source of a picture and the story depicted is POV pushing. Malik, I am expecting an explanation. You reverted the edit I made that was based on sourced content. It identified the person who took the picture and described the alleged events, and also the organization of which he is the director. Thanks. Breein1007 ( talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror#Finnish_White_Terror "In Helsinki, the White Guards made workers' wives and children walk in front of their troops as they recaptured the city street by street."-- Revery ( talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is clearly not neutral, given the excessive focus on the claims of Israel's use of human shields when there is overwhelming evidence of Palestinian use of human shields. The weight of the claims against Israel are completely unbalanced and must be immediately addresses. Clearly not neutral from any perspective. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and have added an undue weight tag. Israel's use of human shields has been marginal and does not play an important role in the conflict (unlike Hamas's infamous use of human shields), yet it has the largest section of all. Your last comment is also correct, that since the Israel and WB/Gaza sections deal with the same conflict, they should be merged. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Until the problems above ar addressed (inbalance and leak of proportions) the NPOV tag should be put on this entry. For example: it clearly ignores testimonies of armed Hamas gunmen crossing street while carrying children in order to prevent IDF soldiers to shoot them (the gunmen) - a clear use of human shield that Amnesty ignores. Also cases of rigged schools, mosques and civilian facilities are ignored. MathKnight 11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
"Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the liberation of their country." "Liberation"?! Really? Reads like it was sourced from the autobiography of someone fed on US propaganda justifying his shooting of Iraqis. 'Invasion' would be more NPOV, but I'm going to leave it up to others to consider this because I don't have a lot of wiki editing experience.
We're giving this weird terrorist too much quote space, and leaving too many of his long rants without breaks, resulting in a whole section of him expressing his views word-by-word. There is no need letting such an insane madman gain that much of the spotlight. 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sean and I could not agree on this section, so this seems to be the right place to discuss.
I see it has been put back in. In response to the edit summary, however, I started this discussion section. Is there a problem with it as it is now? Dlabtot ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If the 4th convention was held in 1949 ... how did a man serving during the Second World War (1939-1945) know using human shields would breech a convention not yet conceived? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we get a reliable source that describes the File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Qalandiya Rioters Use Ambulance for Cover While Hurling Rocks (1).jpg image as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? Was the image (or a part of the same sequence) used in the press/human rights reports etc and described as an example of the use of human shields ? If so, we can cite that source and attribute the claim if necessary. Or can we replace the image with something similar where the source explicitly cites it as an example of Palestinians using human shields ? When images provided by belligerents in a conflict are used in this way with us synthetically concluding via our own interpretation that it's an example of X via the popular "it's obvious" procedure, we aren't complying with WP:V. There must be something out there that could serve the same purpose but comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets." If the Palestinians are not combatants, then then they are not "combat targets", but civilians throwing stones. Doe Israeli security personnel treat captured stone throwers as prisoners of war until placed in front of a tribunal to decide their combatant status or does it hold such people on capture as common criminals?
Has anyone interviewed the people using the van for protection to ask them why they were doing so? Suppose that the van carried no markings, the van could be used in exactly the same way. So it is not the people in the van which are the shield but the van itself in which case it is a van shield not a human shield. If it is because the van is marked with a protective sign then the stone throwers are using a sign for protection not the occupants, in which case it is not a human shield.
All in all it is a very dubious image to use on this page as its connection to human shields is tangential at best. -- PBS ( talk) 23:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The section marked "Tactic in peace campaigning" has its first paragraph end with the sentence, "Several of these human shields had to be saved by US Marines after Iraqis threatened them for opposing the invasion of their country." This claim is backed by a citation from a book - one US Marine's personal account of his time in Iraq, which appears to be written with a heavy bias against both "antiwar nutcases" and Iraqis who just don't understand democracy. I would like to see claim this corroborated by a second, less biased source. Otherwise it does not seem like it belongs here, as it attaches a clear value judgment to the actions of the peace activists. Martin.fish ( talk) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Palestinians throwing STONES in a protest. Hiding from GUNFIRE behind an vehicle, which happens to be an ambulance, there because of the destruction Israeli soldiers are causing.
And this is an example of "Palestinians" using HUMAN shields?
Remove this at once. It's ridiculous Israeli POV pushing that doesn't even meet the standards for this article even if it wasn't fallacious bullshit. 124.168.249.244 ( talk) 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Throwing stones isn't a protest it is assoult with a deadly weapon
Irishfrisian (
talk)
05:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictures and video from the Gaza Strip have documented incident's of Hamas and Popular Resistance Committees using children as human shield, to prevent the IDF from firing over gunmen and Qassam rockets. During the recent conflict hamas spokesman have also defended the use of human shields [1]
The article states: "The IDF admitted it had used Palestinians as human shields; it acknowledged using human shields 1,500 times during the Second Intifada (However, out of these 1,500 uses the Palestinian human shield was injured in one case only)" The source for the supposedly only case in which a Palestinian was injured is the IDF. How can the IDF, as the perpetrator of this crime, be a reliable source in this case? 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have several points:
Oldstone James ( talk) 17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@ 76.70.6.43 and Averysoda: Please stop edit warring. Neither of you have opened a talk page discussion on this matter. Repeated reversion like this is unacceptable. Discuss, instead of just reverting back and forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the section. The Washington Post described Al-Shifa hospital as a "de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." [2] Nick Casey of the Wall Street Journal tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet. [3]
References
Firstly, Hamas is a political party, as well as the government in Gaza. A Hamas minister giving interviews inside a hospital is not an evidence of human shielding, nor has anyone claimed it is so. To insert it in the human shields section is WP:OR by juxtaposition. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A primary source in the Amnesty article also writes "I went to al-Shifa hospital outpatients’ clinic where the Internal Security had a room. http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/embargoed_report_2015_strangling_necks.pdf Drsmoo ( talk) 21:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
I have rearranged, condensed and expanded the section on the 2008 war.
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ When Other Legends Are Forgotten: Your edit here is WP:OR. Human shielding has a specific meaning in international humanitarian law: many conditions need to be satisfied: someone deliberately uses civilians to shield themselves from attack, there should be choices of battlefield etc. One cannot arbitrarily infer from Gunness's statement that there was human shielding. It is logically impossible for an empty school to provide human shielding in any case. It is of course forbidden to use UN schools for storing weapons, but that does not constitute human shielding by itself. The UN investigation did not accuse Hamas of human shielding in this case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The UN concluded that no rockets were stored in populated schools, so the practice doesn't fit the human shield description. By the way, I'm reverting the mass deletion of content related to the Israel-Palestine subsections, which was clearly inspired by pro-Israel partisanship. Rafe87 ( talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the article back to the version before Monochrome Monitor made their changes. There has been continuous edit-warring since then over this. Speaking for myself, I do not oppose drastically condensing both sides of the conflict: the I/P section is vastly bigger than others on this page. I suggest that someone propose a scheme first, on the talk page, on what should be mentioned here, and prune content based on that scheme. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I will be re-inserting the content. Monitor's edits are blatantly pro-Israel. The recommended entry has not 1/100 of the content previously used on this entry. Rafe87 ( talk) 02:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Use of human shields by US troops: /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Washita_River#The_role_of_Indian_noncombatants_in_Custer.27s_strategy
It was also reported that 'rebel' towns were using human shields in 2015 to prevent air attacks, by placing captured civilians in cages in public areas. Many examples from a search for "syria captured cages rebel", like http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/syria-cages-human-shields/ 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Human shield. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Human shield. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/48a40ca00c3be03d85256c910074441f!OpenDocumentWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is why I am editing as I am. The 1982 example does NOT give an example of civilians being used to SHIELD combatants from attack. It merely describes an incident in which a besieged population refused to evacuate a camp. Logically, every case in history of a human habitation under attack (such as in a siege) should be called a case of "human shielding"!
The 2006 example, similarly, does not show any civilians at all in the photos. The charge of human shielding in 2006 is consistently contradicted by third-party sources such as independent human rights organizations, the UN, and US army studies-many of these sources are partial to Israel, and they frequently rely on interviews with Israeli soldiers. Apparently, the whole world lies except the Israeli government! One U.S. Army study cited by Professor Finkelstein acknowledges that Hezbollah was located in cities and towns in Southern Lebanon (again, this may be a mere means of self-defense) but also writes that these areas were largely evacuated and that Hezbollah relied on natural and artificial terrain for cover in its successful fight against the Israeli army.
The photos, if they show Hezbollah (questionable as they claim to depict Christian areas) are consistent with this interpretation.
It is hard to see how human shielding could have been effective at all when General Dan Halutz had declared that "Nothing is safe, as simple as that".
I have edited the part about the Chris Link article appropriately-for the area mentioned of Beirut played no part in the war at all, in contrast to South Lebanon where the war took place-and claims of systematic human shielding are consistently denied by third party sources. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the unnamed user is talking about. The source in question is simply the Chris Link article itself. It makes clear that he did NOT take the photographs himself. It makes clear what he himself cites as the location for the alleged incidents of human shielding. Again, there are no civilians in the photos shown. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 13:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I have revoked the 1982 case. There is no real evidence there of civilians being used to shield combatants. Logically, every siege should be considered a case of human shielding. A siege alone combined with a warning simply does not constitute shielding except to Zionists. 70.190.102.49 ( talk) 06:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I checked the sources for the language I changed - "used themselves as human shields" - one link is dead and the other did not use that language. The language is not insignificant, because it enters into an area that is currently being debated by legal scholars about whether voluntary human shields are protected persons, and if so, to what extent and under what circumstances. If you have a problem with the language I chose, please don't revert back to this but change it to something that accurately reflects the sources provided, in your estimation. Seraphim System ( talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Human shield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Finkelstein was wrong, as usual. As you can see from Amnesty's own report:
The Israeli authorities claim that Hamas and Palestinian armed groups use Palestinian civilians in Gaza as “human shields”. Does Amnesty International have any evidence that this has occurred during the current hostilities, and what obligations of Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups are relevant?
Amnesty International is aware of these claims, and continues to monitor and investigate 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. As explained above, 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, and available evidence indicates that they continue to do both during the current hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople have reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate. However, in light of the lack of clarity in many of the Israeli warnings on safe routes for civilians to evacuate, the lack of shelters or other safe places in the Gaza Strip for them to go to, and numerous reports of civilians who did heed the warnings and flee doing so under Israeli fire, such statements by Hamas officials could have been motivated by a desire to avoid further panic. In any case, public statements referring to entire areas are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Furthermore, international humanitarian law is clear that even if officials or fighters from Hamas or Palestinian armed groups associated with other factions did in fact direct civilians to remain in a specific location in order to shield military objectives from attacks, all of Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.
-- יניב הורון ( talk) 00:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The book cited for the record was published by University of California Press. It is on its face a rock solid source. nableezy - 00:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)However, contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants.
India attacked with a frontal assault, knowing there were civilians, against the military advice of the UK. The origin of the "human shield" claim is unknown due to India's media lockdown during the operation. I've removed it until we can find a WP:RS that states who made this claim. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 22:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
But in a statement to MPs, William Hague indicated that the advice was ignored by the Indian army, which launched a ground assault with no element of surprise, causing a heavy loss of life.[5]. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear nableezy. Gordon is very controversial. I will remove Business insider if it's not reliable. Shukran Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not into the palestine conflict but there has been a lot of turmoil about him. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy I remember reading about this guy since his articles appeared on the neo nazi Zundel site and others. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Why put a very controversial's (besides the Zundel scandal there was more as I remember) material at the main article? I haven't removed him though. Fathiyimah ( talk) 02:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Not every professor is reliable. Stating he is on the extreme is not from me. And his work pertains to more to palestinians. Which is not my material. And not in main page. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
My views are irrelevant. I quote what I remember the noise controveesy about him especially after the zundel thing. This page should be ovrall a general source. It should be about human shields. I ask you please don't start edit wars here. Fathiyimah ( talk) 16:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Nableezy. I see you have been on wikipedia for long. So if you have cases of human shields especially Arab civilians, unrelated to falastin, please let me know. Shukran. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I did not try to remove Gordon's book since then. Even though he was controversial for so long. Fathiyimah ( talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The expression "human shield" is by now a general descriptive term used of any enemy, thrown as a suspicion or interpretation of any arising incident. Nearly all of the new material has come up from news sources that cite spokesmen using this term to throw suspicion on another state's behavior. The bits about Iran's maintenance of civilian flights after the US attack is a case in point. We really should restrict coverage to known, independently verified examples of the use of humans as shields, otherwise we will have the Hamas issue repeated with every state, i.e. a bluster of accusations that, on examination, fall the pieces since they fail verification. One can't just google away "human shield"+Houthi, "human shield"+Iran, etc to get ammo for the proposition that all actors not aligned with US policy use human shields. The additions that fail serious sourcing should be removed. In short, if it ain't in Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, which cover this minutely, it shouldn't be here, and therefore reverted out. Nishidani ( talk) 07:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
All human shields should be included. It is why France on Algerian Arabs or Myanmar which I added . Etc. It should not be political or selective. Fathiyimah ( talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Any HRW opinion on Israel should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm surprised you said about France. All colonial regimes are maybe guilty of that. Wbiases ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Another point . Why do you have some 40 % of your global page dedicated to anti Israel? Wbiases ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think nashibi, nabeezy, and wbiases should talk it out on a Palestine talk page. Not here. Fathiyimah ( talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Besides the rang of anti israel biased groups "reports" or betselem "activists" claims, the page is riddled with an anti usafel rant. User Nableezy even removed the criticism. Facts of BDS links should also be noted. Wbiases ( talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear wbiases. I mainly posted about Human shields and not about Palestinian-Israeli conflict relating to it. I think both of you should discuss it on talk pages of that conflict. Fathiyimah ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Numerous claims that both Israel and Palestinian factions have resorted to the use of human shields. It is a known technique in garnering public support for any side. Examples of the former's use of hostages to that end have been proven in Israeli courts. To date, evidence the PLO or Hamas engages in the tactic have either not been verified, or shown to be without any basis.
Aroma Stylist. Give me your reasons for restoring a huge amount of outdated news reportage on claims about human shield use among Hamas, when to date, no independent authority has ever ascertained this to be a Hamas practice?
This article had a huge amount of material on Palestinian human shields,- when it is mere speculation- while neglecting any effort to expand coverage where this has been shown to be employed around the world. As such repeated attempts to jam the article with this tripe violates WP:Due. You just cannot shovel that mess back in without grounding the edit in a reasoned explanation of its necessity. If you can't give a policy based reason why an exception should be made, it will be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 11:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Because of the sensitivity of this page, that shows war crimes made by country/ groups/ people, I think that there should be an article about the reliability of sources, and the intreset of groups to show thier cause is right, there are a lot of known false reports on human shield usage, and I belive it will help reader to reduce false information and by that not fall to false accusation.
"According to many observers, including B'tselem, the IDF repeatedly used Palestinians as human shields. This practice became military policy during the Second Intifada, and was only dropped when Adalah challenged the practice before Israel’s High Court of Justice in 2002. though the IDF persisted in using Palestinians in its 'neighbor procedure', whereby people picked at random were made to approach the houses of suspects and persuade them to surrender, a practice which arguably placed the former's lives in danger."
This has no cited source in the article. For the part immediately after, the source, B'Tselem, is a more than questioned source here:
https://jcpa.org/article/btselem-less-reliability-credibility/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:35A6:9B86:F8FF:6C58 ( talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)