![]() | 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 |
Should we make room to acknowledge prominent examples of false accusations of human shield use by Israel against Palestinians? In the last war between Israel and Hamas, Israeli minister Ofir Gendelman and the IDF official account on Twitter both spread fake videos to suggest that Hamas was launching rockets from residential streets. Now-PM Naftali Bennett also filmed a video where he accused Hamas of using a Gaza hospital as a base, but the picture he showed in his video was that of a hospital in Pakistan. Both instances were prominent enough they were discussed and debunked on mainstream media:
Palestinian nurse Rouzan al-Najjar was also defamed as a "Hamas human shield" by the Israeli government after her death, and the Israeli attempt to tar her image with corrupt footage was also exposed and criticized on the media:
Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 01:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I added this to summarize the two sections that follow, a broad overview that was lacking.
It was reverted by an IP engaged in violating the ARBPIA restrictions. The edit summary was neither here nor there, moreover, flagwaving without substance and false assertions. I.e.
(WP:Cherrypicking one-sided summary that is completely inappropriate based on biased opinion articles. Let readers decide for themselves based on information and sources available in article.) (undo) (Tags: Undo, references removed, Reverted)
All untrue. The source has a whole chapter on human shield. Editors cannot dismiss RS because they dislike the statements in them, as mere opinions’ . The material in the article is itself cherrypicked, for the case against Palestinians is based on numerous claims, none of which have been verified by neutral external authorities, a series of opinions/hearsay. The Israeli Supreme Court, and independent NGOs have all confirmed numerous cases of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields, on the other hand.
It was duly restored because the three sources used are impeccably RS-compliant.
It was again excised with the edit summary
remove unreliable source. the comparison between Israeli and Gazan casualties misrepresents the human shield claim)
1. 2 sources were removed, not one. 2.All are RS, Finkelstein exceptionally so. 3. What is mean by the Israeli/Gazan casualty comparison being misrepresented is obscure. Those are the ratios in Finkelstein, who has a whole chapter on the ‘human shield’ accusation.
This is again WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, nothing else. All these removalist claims are unfocused, generic and therefore without substance. There are real problems with the article, such as positioning the British use of Palestinians in 1936-9 as human shields (the first case was in September 1936 when the Brits used the mayor of Nablus as a shield) out of chronological sequence (it should be between the two world wars), and restricting the I/P phenomena of human shields to the 21st century, etc. It is a practice that goes back to the beginning of the occupation (whose practices almost always mimic the abuses of 1936-9. (Charles Anderson, When Palestinians Became Human Shields: Counterinsurgency,Racialization, and the Great Revolt(1936–1939) Comparative Studies in Society and History 2021;63(3):625–654.
Therefore this material should be shifted up back to the 20th century in the IP area. Nishidani ( talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Besides the obviously nonsensical claim that an editor decides who is "pro-Palestinian" or what that even means, the second source cited here is this peer-reviewed journal article published by University of California Press. What it says is Despite the fact that countless journalists and others refuted these allegations and despite the fact that it has since been established that Israel has continued its own practice of using Palestinians as human shields, Israel’s vocal allegation was repeated ceaselessly. That is, a reliable source saying that Israel's charges on Palestinians becoming human shields due to Hamas' actions have been refuted by countless journalists. Ill be rephrasing this little bit of well-poisoning in a bit. nableezy - 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The use here is silly, it has one mention of Hamas, and it cites nothing for that mention. And no, that is not some 2013 report, it is a news article in its Security Watch section by Michael Newton. I dont think that throwaway line is needed here, and views on Hamas and launching attacks from populated areas are already represented by much better sources. Im removing it. nableezy - 01:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"there is now overwhelming evidence that Hamas has used civilian houses, schlools, and other protected places in the Gaza Strip to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel
Amnesty International has not been able to verify specific statements which the Israeli authorities have cited as made by Hamas officials during the hostilities encouraging civilians in Gaza to ignore IDF warnings to evacuate.128 However, the reported statements were directed to civilians in general or in large geographic areas; for example, Ministry of Interior spokesperson Iyad al-Buzm’s call on people “in all parts of the Strip to ignore the warnings… as these are part of a psychological warfare”. Public statements referring to entire areas do not amount to directing specific civilians to remain in their homes in order to render fighters, munitions or military equipment in specific locations immune from Israeli attacks. Thus, while potentially of concern, such statements would not constitute the use of “human shields”. There are no bomb shelters or protective facilities for Gaza’s 1.8 million people, and no place in the Strip was truly safe during the hostilities. In some cases, the warnings issued by the Israeli military did not specify safe evacuation routes, and in many cases, civilians who tried to evacuate came under Israeli fire. In these circumstances, the Hamas authorities instructing civilians in the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes could have been out of concern for their safety or a desire to avoid further panic. It cannot be presumed that the intention of any such statements by the authorities was to use civilians to prevent the targeting of specific military objectives by Israeli forces. 'Unlawful and deadly rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel Conflict,' Amnesty International March 2015 pp.47-49
RafaelJC12 ( talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.”
There are much better sources to present the Israeli argument here, using this devalues the point honestly. nableezy - 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)The photographs from recent operations show that the armed Palestinians use the many civilians in the area, including children, as a "human shield." Since this is done routinely, harming children (some, it is possible, by Palestinian fire) becomes almost impossible to prevent. Nevertheless, Israel does not consider it a reason not to conduct these raids.
“ | The claim that people are being used as human shields is frequently invoked by many countries to exonerate their military forces from blame when schools, hospitals and other institutions are targeted for bombing, causing notable casualties among the civilian population. These claims assert that the adversaries in question deliberately deploy arms near civilians in order to protect their military personnel and installations. | ” |
Nableezy, Selfstudier, can you provide references for this? Also, what justifies putting it in the lede? Alaexis ¿question? 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there is someone willing to fix it. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 19:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
“ | In 2015, Amnesty International condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. They also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.” [1] [2] According to Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International, "evidence suggesting that a rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group may have caused 13 civilian deaths inside Gaza underscores how indiscriminate these weapons can be and the dreadful consequences of using them". He also stated that "the devastating impact of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians during the conflict is undeniable, but violations by one side in a conflict can never justify violations by their opponents." [2] | ” |
This should be added to the Palestine section. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
References
“ | Amnesty International stated that Hamas violated international humanitarian law: "[Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups] launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire". [1] | ” |
I've reviewed the Amnesty report and it does not explicitly say everything that is written here (I should have checked it before restoring it). Still, it does say that "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups at times launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes" so I think this part should be retained. Alaexis ¿question? 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
You're reading the wrong document (I accidentally liked a "Facts and Figures" version of the real study).
The
correct link shows
this document, the full study, that explicitly says everything that is written there. In pp.3-4, it says:
“ | Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups also violated international humanitarian law in their conduct within Gaza. They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire. | ” |
RafaelJC12 ( talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The report cited above contains this bit:Several of these actions which have been discussed above, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks from the vicinity of civilian buildings, violate the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attacks. But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.” The practices most commonly condemned as such have involved actually moving civilians to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”
Distorting a source to claim it says something that it explicitly rejects is not acceptable. nableezy - 20:57, 30 December 2021 (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.
Drsmoo your edit is OR as discussed here. The material on things not human shields does not belong in this article. nableezy - 03:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
No, restoring a full quote from a reliable source is not original research. Drsmoo ( talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
“It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.” - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1_rul_rule97
“They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. ” - Amnesty International
The only point of ambiguity is that Amnesty states that these “do not necessarily” amount to human shields. In other words, they leave the issue open ended, which is why the full quote/section should be included. Only including half of it is misleading, as the full statement was composed with intentionality. Drsmoo ( talk) 04:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
From Strife Journal (The Academic Journal of the Department of War Studies at King's College, London): https://www.strifejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/STRIFE_10_02_DRAY_14_23.pdf
“ The Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenceless Shields Act
In its report from March 2015 about the 50-day war in Gaza, Amnesty International focused on the Islamist militant group Hamas and other armed factions in Gaza. It concluded: ‘The military wing of Hamas committed war crimes, by indiscriminately firing unguided rockets and mortar rounds from civilian areas in Gaza at population centres in Israel.’22 The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church, and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets ‘very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.’ … While numerous reports of NGOs and UN and European Parliament resolutions were condemning the use of human shields (especially by Hamas), no coercive measures have been taken against entities that were using human shields. Despite the condemnation of the use by those terrorist organisations of civilian populations as human shields, the international community has been powerless to take efficient measures that significantly impact the practices of these groups. An early lesson that arose from the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the need to mould legal instruments to current problems: ‘[the] law is not static, but by continual adaption follows the needs of a changing world.’25 Do we thus need to adapt to meet the challenge of ISIS’s, Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s use of human shields?“ Drsmoo ( talk) 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Obviously there's going to be argument on anything to do with Israel/Palestine so can we sort out key points here:
The Wikipedia article about Hamas#Human shields has a great section about human shields. We should add a "See Also" link to it. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
As there a already some reverts here on the Palestinians section I thought here would be a good place to discuss rather than have an edit war or plain vandalism -- 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filter23 ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
“ | In 2014, Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesperson, said, in an interview to their TV station, Al-Aqsa TV, that the tactic of using Gaza residents as human shields is praiseworthy and effective against Israel: “The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation,” he tells the interviewer. “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.” [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | ” |
I think this could be added. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
References
![]() | 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 |
Should we make room to acknowledge prominent examples of false accusations of human shield use by Israel against Palestinians? In the last war between Israel and Hamas, Israeli minister Ofir Gendelman and the IDF official account on Twitter both spread fake videos to suggest that Hamas was launching rockets from residential streets. Now-PM Naftali Bennett also filmed a video where he accused Hamas of using a Gaza hospital as a base, but the picture he showed in his video was that of a hospital in Pakistan. Both instances were prominent enough they were discussed and debunked on mainstream media:
Palestinian nurse Rouzan al-Najjar was also defamed as a "Hamas human shield" by the Israeli government after her death, and the Israeli attempt to tar her image with corrupt footage was also exposed and criticized on the media:
Peleio Aquiles ( talk) 01:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I added this to summarize the two sections that follow, a broad overview that was lacking.
It was reverted by an IP engaged in violating the ARBPIA restrictions. The edit summary was neither here nor there, moreover, flagwaving without substance and false assertions. I.e.
(WP:Cherrypicking one-sided summary that is completely inappropriate based on biased opinion articles. Let readers decide for themselves based on information and sources available in article.) (undo) (Tags: Undo, references removed, Reverted)
All untrue. The source has a whole chapter on human shield. Editors cannot dismiss RS because they dislike the statements in them, as mere opinions’ . The material in the article is itself cherrypicked, for the case against Palestinians is based on numerous claims, none of which have been verified by neutral external authorities, a series of opinions/hearsay. The Israeli Supreme Court, and independent NGOs have all confirmed numerous cases of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields, on the other hand.
It was duly restored because the three sources used are impeccably RS-compliant.
It was again excised with the edit summary
remove unreliable source. the comparison between Israeli and Gazan casualties misrepresents the human shield claim)
1. 2 sources were removed, not one. 2.All are RS, Finkelstein exceptionally so. 3. What is mean by the Israeli/Gazan casualty comparison being misrepresented is obscure. Those are the ratios in Finkelstein, who has a whole chapter on the ‘human shield’ accusation.
This is again WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, nothing else. All these removalist claims are unfocused, generic and therefore without substance. There are real problems with the article, such as positioning the British use of Palestinians in 1936-9 as human shields (the first case was in September 1936 when the Brits used the mayor of Nablus as a shield) out of chronological sequence (it should be between the two world wars), and restricting the I/P phenomena of human shields to the 21st century, etc. It is a practice that goes back to the beginning of the occupation (whose practices almost always mimic the abuses of 1936-9. (Charles Anderson, When Palestinians Became Human Shields: Counterinsurgency,Racialization, and the Great Revolt(1936–1939) Comparative Studies in Society and History 2021;63(3):625–654.
Therefore this material should be shifted up back to the 20th century in the IP area. Nishidani ( talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Besides the obviously nonsensical claim that an editor decides who is "pro-Palestinian" or what that even means, the second source cited here is this peer-reviewed journal article published by University of California Press. What it says is Despite the fact that countless journalists and others refuted these allegations and despite the fact that it has since been established that Israel has continued its own practice of using Palestinians as human shields, Israel’s vocal allegation was repeated ceaselessly. That is, a reliable source saying that Israel's charges on Palestinians becoming human shields due to Hamas' actions have been refuted by countless journalists. Ill be rephrasing this little bit of well-poisoning in a bit. nableezy - 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The use here is silly, it has one mention of Hamas, and it cites nothing for that mention. And no, that is not some 2013 report, it is a news article in its Security Watch section by Michael Newton. I dont think that throwaway line is needed here, and views on Hamas and launching attacks from populated areas are already represented by much better sources. Im removing it. nableezy - 01:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"there is now overwhelming evidence that Hamas has used civilian houses, schlools, and other protected places in the Gaza Strip to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel
Amnesty International has not been able to verify specific statements which the Israeli authorities have cited as made by Hamas officials during the hostilities encouraging civilians in Gaza to ignore IDF warnings to evacuate.128 However, the reported statements were directed to civilians in general or in large geographic areas; for example, Ministry of Interior spokesperson Iyad al-Buzm’s call on people “in all parts of the Strip to ignore the warnings… as these are part of a psychological warfare”. Public statements referring to entire areas do not amount to directing specific civilians to remain in their homes in order to render fighters, munitions or military equipment in specific locations immune from Israeli attacks. Thus, while potentially of concern, such statements would not constitute the use of “human shields”. There are no bomb shelters or protective facilities for Gaza’s 1.8 million people, and no place in the Strip was truly safe during the hostilities. In some cases, the warnings issued by the Israeli military did not specify safe evacuation routes, and in many cases, civilians who tried to evacuate came under Israeli fire. In these circumstances, the Hamas authorities instructing civilians in the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes could have been out of concern for their safety or a desire to avoid further panic. It cannot be presumed that the intention of any such statements by the authorities was to use civilians to prevent the targeting of specific military objectives by Israeli forces. 'Unlawful and deadly rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel Conflict,' Amnesty International March 2015 pp.47-49
RafaelJC12 ( talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.”
There are much better sources to present the Israeli argument here, using this devalues the point honestly. nableezy - 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)The photographs from recent operations show that the armed Palestinians use the many civilians in the area, including children, as a "human shield." Since this is done routinely, harming children (some, it is possible, by Palestinian fire) becomes almost impossible to prevent. Nevertheless, Israel does not consider it a reason not to conduct these raids.
“ | The claim that people are being used as human shields is frequently invoked by many countries to exonerate their military forces from blame when schools, hospitals and other institutions are targeted for bombing, causing notable casualties among the civilian population. These claims assert that the adversaries in question deliberately deploy arms near civilians in order to protect their military personnel and installations. | ” |
Nableezy, Selfstudier, can you provide references for this? Also, what justifies putting it in the lede? Alaexis ¿question? 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there is someone willing to fix it. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 19:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
“ | In 2015, Amnesty International condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. They also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.” [1] [2] According to Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International, "evidence suggesting that a rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group may have caused 13 civilian deaths inside Gaza underscores how indiscriminate these weapons can be and the dreadful consequences of using them". He also stated that "the devastating impact of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians during the conflict is undeniable, but violations by one side in a conflict can never justify violations by their opponents." [2] | ” |
This should be added to the Palestine section. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
References
“ | Amnesty International stated that Hamas violated international humanitarian law: "[Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups] launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire". [1] | ” |
I've reviewed the Amnesty report and it does not explicitly say everything that is written here (I should have checked it before restoring it). Still, it does say that "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups at times launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes" so I think this part should be retained. Alaexis ¿question? 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
You're reading the wrong document (I accidentally liked a "Facts and Figures" version of the real study).
The
correct link shows
this document, the full study, that explicitly says everything that is written there. In pp.3-4, it says:
“ | Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups also violated international humanitarian law in their conduct within Gaza. They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire. | ” |
RafaelJC12 ( talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The report cited above contains this bit:Several of these actions which have been discussed above, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks from the vicinity of civilian buildings, violate the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attacks. But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.” The practices most commonly condemned as such have involved actually moving civilians to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”
Distorting a source to claim it says something that it explicitly rejects is not acceptable. nableezy - 20:57, 30 December 2021 (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.
Drsmoo your edit is OR as discussed here. The material on things not human shields does not belong in this article. nableezy - 03:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
No, restoring a full quote from a reliable source is not original research. Drsmoo ( talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
“It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.” - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1_rul_rule97
“They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. ” - Amnesty International
The only point of ambiguity is that Amnesty states that these “do not necessarily” amount to human shields. In other words, they leave the issue open ended, which is why the full quote/section should be included. Only including half of it is misleading, as the full statement was composed with intentionality. Drsmoo ( talk) 04:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
From Strife Journal (The Academic Journal of the Department of War Studies at King's College, London): https://www.strifejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/STRIFE_10_02_DRAY_14_23.pdf
“ The Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenceless Shields Act
In its report from March 2015 about the 50-day war in Gaza, Amnesty International focused on the Islamist militant group Hamas and other armed factions in Gaza. It concluded: ‘The military wing of Hamas committed war crimes, by indiscriminately firing unguided rockets and mortar rounds from civilian areas in Gaza at population centres in Israel.’22 The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church, and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets ‘very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.’ … While numerous reports of NGOs and UN and European Parliament resolutions were condemning the use of human shields (especially by Hamas), no coercive measures have been taken against entities that were using human shields. Despite the condemnation of the use by those terrorist organisations of civilian populations as human shields, the international community has been powerless to take efficient measures that significantly impact the practices of these groups. An early lesson that arose from the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the need to mould legal instruments to current problems: ‘[the] law is not static, but by continual adaption follows the needs of a changing world.’25 Do we thus need to adapt to meet the challenge of ISIS’s, Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s use of human shields?“ Drsmoo ( talk) 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Obviously there's going to be argument on anything to do with Israel/Palestine so can we sort out key points here:
The Wikipedia article about Hamas#Human shields has a great section about human shields. We should add a "See Also" link to it. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 22:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
As there a already some reverts here on the Palestinians section I thought here would be a good place to discuss rather than have an edit war or plain vandalism -- 2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filter23 ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
“ | In 2014, Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesperson, said, in an interview to their TV station, Al-Aqsa TV, that the tactic of using Gaza residents as human shields is praiseworthy and effective against Israel: “The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation,” he tells the interviewer. “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.” [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] | ” |
I think this could be added. RafaelJC12 ( talk) 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
References