This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Use of human shields by Hamas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
On 2 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Hamas Human shields accusations. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has been created with an intentionally POV scope, selectively copying material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a clearly one-sided manner, presenting only Palestinian and not Israeli usage of human shields. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. With gratitude for a civil discussion, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 19:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations of use of human shields by Hamas – Per WP:NDESC "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)" Selfstudier ( talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
someone deleted a comment on this talk page, the comment wasn't particularly constructive, but i thought we were only supposed to remove other people's comments in extreme cases of vandalism? Irtapil ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Um, BilledMammal, even if it were an exceptional claim, and it is not just because you say so, that is an exceptional source, a work of scholarship by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini published by the University of California Press is the very definition of an exceptional source. Kindly return what you improperly removed. nableezy - 11:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards".Can you explain what difference you see between "targeted" and "launched towards" in this context? To me, they mean the same thing.
what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimesThe article still says that;
Gordon and Perugini remarking that the framing of protestors as terrorists or human shields effectively "categorizes any Palestinian from Gaza who participates in civil protests as a terrorist who is consequently killable"; they find that the usage of the human shield accusation both during war and civil protest has caused the very idea of a Palestinian civilian to have "disappeared" in Israeli discourse. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
One is active one is passive.That doesn't really explain the difference here; the quote claims that Hamas is "aiming at", "launching at", "targeting" (whichever word you prefer; they're all the same to me in this context) the IDF headquarters, not the city of Tel Aviv.
...when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center.
I dont really care what ChatGPT told youYou should; it means that my interpretation is almost certainly the most common interpretation of "launched towards X", which in turn means that many of our readers will be misled if your interpretation of the source is correct.
but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIPWorks of scholarship aren't automatically WP:DUE.
Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards them, despite the presence of the Israel Defence Forces headquarters in the city center, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
ChatGPT is not a reliable source. It's not, but it is useful to verify that our interpretation of something is reasonable, and it is useful in determining how our readers will interpret our articles.
Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards the city despite the presence of the Israeli military headquarters, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
− | Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini | + | Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrast how Israeli civilians are not treated as human shields for the Ministry Defense for Hamas rocket attacks, despite its location in the center of the city, and how, in "sharp contrast", Palestinian civilians are called human shields when Israeli bombs Hamas locations in Gaza, writing how this creates a paradigm that "if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields." |
BilledMammal, the source says, in the following paragraph: The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and
Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields", does amount to a violation of their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular "avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas
. It also earlier says In particular, it found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve as "human shields". In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of "human shields" by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians. Even so, Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters were obliged at all times to apply the principle of distinction and proportionality, and take the precautions required by international humanitarian law, when launching attacks.
It very clearly says that placing weapons and fighters in those areas are not evidence of using human shields. I also think that is arguably a 1RR violation, especially given the expansive definition you have sought to impose on others.
nableezy - 16:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
wrote that while it is uncontested that Hamas weapons and fighters were located in civilian areas, that this does not itself constitute human shielding
While the presence of Hamas and other fighters and weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as “human shields”.
The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields". That is saying that just having combatants and weapons in the vicinity of civilians does not constitute, or is not evidence for, human shielding. nableezy - 16:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The prohibition against the use of “human shields” is further clarified in Article 51(7) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I). It states: "Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operation". See also, for a more comprehensive overview of the topic, International Review of the Red Cross:
The essential element in the prohibition on use of human shields is rather the intention to use the presence of humans as shields to shelter a military objective. This is corroborated by the International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes. nableezy - 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
In some respects this is cart before the horse, the purpose of these allegations is to relieve Israel of responsibility for civilian death and destruction when they kill civilians and destroy structures, when those civilians and structures are protected, by arguing that the death and destruction arises only because of Hamas alleged use of human shields. Even if some civilian structure was being used for a military purpose such that it lost protected status, any attack must be proportional to the military gain from attacking the otherwise protected object. Shielding must be "purposeful" Selfstudier ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This is one of the worst leads I have read in my idk how long Ive been here. Im going to re-write it as an actual summary of the article, not a series of accusations. nableezy - 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategyseems pretty clear Andre 🚐 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This was a difficult decision for me. I had to resolve several questions within myself: (1) Are Rosen, Rubinstein, and Roznai wrong, as nableezy says?; (2) if yes, what is Wikipedia's content policy for when sources are factually wrong?; and (3) is it really my call to make?
To answer (1), I started with the earliest-in-time reference, which is Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766. There, Rosen writes that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 487, which is a blockquote of the entire Memri transcript of an excerpt of Fathi Hamad's Aqsa TV 29 March 2008 speech. The link given is [4], which no longer leads to the Hamad transcript. However, if we just search the language quoted, it's easy enough to arrive at the source, which now resides at this URL: [5]. The quote is: "[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'" As nableezy says, the quote does not support the proposition for which it cited which, again, is that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." Where is the acknowledgment of Hamas doing anything? The quote says, essentially, that Palestinians of all kinds have become excellent at dying, and that for this reason they (Palestinians in general) "have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine." It is a really dumb thing to say, frankly, but that is not the inquiry. The inquiry is: did he "acknowledg[e] the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." He did not. It cannot honestly be said that he did, at least not in the excerpt provided. Next up: Rubinstein & Roznai 2011, p. 98. There, Rubinstein & Roznai write: "The use of civilians as human shields, as a leader of Hamas had previously confirmed, is an essential tactic of Hamas in its armed confrontations with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 24, which points the reader to Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766, examined above. As we have already concluded, Rosen 2009 offers Hamad's statement as support for something it does not support. Rubinstein & Roznai are relying on Rosen, who is quoting Hamad and saying he said something he didn't say. Last is Rosen 2012–the same Rosen, but this time in a book. There, Rosen writes: "Early in 2008, a senior Hamas leader acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in a conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by the very same blockquote from Hamad's 29 March 2008 speech. The blockquote is in turn followed by footnote 91, which says: "Speech by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad’, Al-Aqsa Television, 29 February 2008, http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm The mission mentioned the speech (Goldstone Report, para. 477), but discarded it as irrelevant (para. 478)." Following that hyperlink will take you to a page called "Palestinians Admit Using Human Shields" with a byline of "by Carlos" (no last name given) which, unsurprisingly, is getting the excerpt in question from Memri, which we have already discussed above and concluded does not say what Rosen says. In sum, the article in its current state quotes three law professors: the first of whom mis-describes the import of Hamad's speech, and the second and third of whom merely regurgitate the misdescription of the first. All right, so the answer to (1) is: yes, they are wrong.
To answer (2), I turned to this essay for guidance: Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. It's a relatively new essay, created on 23 July 2023 and 89% authored by User:Tamzin, but addresses precisely the predicament we are faced with here. The last resort suggested there (option 6) is to "include a likely incorrect statement (or even article) if there is no way to justify another approach as within editorial discretion." The essays says: "No one likes the idea of Wikipedia getting it wrong, but it may sometimes be inevitable." I will not go into detail here about the other five options given because the immediate question to be answered is: Is it permissible to not regurgitate in WikiVoice a directly on-point statement in a reliable source because it is objectively incorrect? The answer, according to the essay, is yes, there are at least five ways of doing so. What we (as a community) do with the statement (i.e., which of the other five options we adopt) can be discussed later.
With respect to (3), my initial instinct was to answer that the source says what it says, the article is obviously not mine, and it's up to community consensus what we do with the objectively incorrect directly on-point statement. But I do bear some responsibility because I am the one that inserted this statement into the article, and I am the only one who can remove it without the removal being considered a revert. Accordingly, I am free to remove it, and if another editor wants to include it, the WP:ONUS will be on them to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content.
All that said, I have decided to remove it. Of course, that does not mean Hamas does not use human shields. What it means is that: (1) Rosen was objectively incorrect when he said that Hamad "acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel," because Hamad demonstrably did not acknowledge that; (2) Wikipedia's content policies allow editorial discretion in not including relevant statements made by reliable sources that are factually incorrect; and (3) I have the ability to remove it, subject to other editors later re-adding it and making the case for its inclusion. -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields".
But when I read the
press release it's referring to, I don't think it explicitly accuses Hamas of having done this. It reads:
"The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts. The EU calls on Hamas to immediately put an end to these acts and to renounce violence. All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm. The EU strongly condemns calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."
There is a difference, as I see it. The EU condemns Hamas. And they also condemn, in principle, the act of calling on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields, but they are not saying that it necessarily has happened. Torr3 ( talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
´The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields". And I would add the
press release as reference.´
Just to improve it a bit without having to do more research.
Torr3 (
talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Article reads tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet
. This is strange. He might have deleted it because it was incorrect. Or he might have deleted it because of security concerns, as
a blog in Times of Israel suggests. Unless the veracity of the claim in that tweet can be verified (which I can not), I suggest we remove this sentence.
Torr3 (
talk) 15:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The material in Israeli accusations is in large part
WP:SYNTH in that they do not relate to the topic of this article. I plan to keep going through the ones that dont mention any shielding by Hamas. For example,
The Messenger News cited for On 23 November the IDF released footage showing a weapons cache hidden under a child's bed, which it stated belonged to the child of a senior Hamas official.
does not mention human shields at all. The
JPost article for The footage shows what the IDF claims is a rocket launcher situated near a school, and an armament-laden truck used in the 7 October attack that is parked in the courtyard of a mosque
again does not mention human shielding. This is the case for much of the material, editors are taking news reports that they think proves their case here and then inserting it. But the sources dont actually relate to human shielding by Hamas and their usage is synth.
nableezy - 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Editor keeps adding IDF press release images that have nothing to do with "shielding". IDF is notoriously unreliable, staging images and making stuff up are recent examples. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Eladkarmel can you please explain why you repeatedly returned unverified Israeli propaganda as the lead image in this article over the objections of multiple editors without anything resembling a consensus on this talk page? nableezy - 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is outdated. I suggest it be moved to the body and referred to more summarily. Right now it seems to be the main takeaway, but we know post-10/7 there is an entirely different instance of human shield usage that's more current than the 2014 controversy. Andre 🚐 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Iskandar323, I saw this . And I have a concern that this is an incorrect editorial summary. You wrote that you removed mention of the al-Shifa hospital (which should be left in IMO because it is a notable controversy), but you also removed the US support of the human shield claims. I also' if I understand correctly there is WP:PRESERVE here, Want to explain? Eladkarmel ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Why does the section on Ahmad Kahlot repeat that "Israel says he said" this and that during his interrogation, while one of the cited sources includes video of him saying these things during said interrogation? It makes primary source material look like hearsay. 94.105.121.73 ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"Just because they don't have the phallic ability to bomb these places?" [1]
Is this a misquote? What is the meaning of " phallic ability" here? IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
“Hamas uses the population as human shields.” If I’m not mistaken, the Defense Ministry is in the heart of Tel Aviv, as is the army’s main “war room.” And what about the military training base at Glilot, near the big mall? And the Shin Bet headquarters in Jerusalem, on the edge of a residential neighborhood? And how far is our “sewing factory” in Dimona from residential areas? Why is it all right for us and not for them? Just because they don’t have the phallic ability to bomb these places?Andre 🚐 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. As for the merge, it is a content discussion best continued separately. – robertsky ( talk) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Use of human shields by Hamas → Hamas Human shields accusations – For now, there is no existing evidence supporting hamas usage human shields, most of the existing notions is just western and israeli politicians accusing the Palestinian resistance of using human shields who themselves provide no evidence to the international community for their claims while some western journals just echo them. I believe the current article title should be renamed to comply with WP:NPOV Stephan rostie ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Supported by the Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, yes. But SCCoE itself, on its About page ( https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5 ) says it does not speak for NATO, which means you cannot attribute that report to NATO.
I also find citing the report to be problematic, because it is undated and has no authorship. Consider citing the report's sources instead of the report itself. 2601:180:8200:35B0:3510:5932:ADA1:AAEE ( talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Nableezy: regarding your revert, my point wasn't that there's no RS, just that including it in the very first paragraph seems like giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minor point. I wasn't trying to remove the claim altogether, it's still covered later (in a section that I think is too lengthy, also seems WP:UNDUE, but that's another question).
It's just not a very significant aspect of the topic with significant coverage. Plenty of counterarguments could be made, such as the argument that Hamas isn't capable of targeting military assets anyway, but RS don't cover both sides of this because it's not significant. We can't properly cover both sides of this argument without resorting to citing (non-RS) Twitter fights or what not. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
According to a paper published by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the strategic use of human shields by groups like Hamas hinges on exploiting Israel's aim to minimize civilian casualties and the sensitivity of Western public opinion which it says allows Hamas to either accuse Israel of war crimes if civilian casualties occur or to protect its assets and continue operations if the IDF limits its military response.[5][6] Israel has said that Hamas's actions have been responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza.[7][8]
” However, the mission found no evidence of Palestinian armed groups placing civilians in areas where attacks were being launched, or engaging in combat in civilian dress, or using a mosque for military purposes or to shield military activities. This statement contrasted with both Israeli and international media reports that Hamas fighters wore civilian clothes and concealed their weapons.'p.159
The resolution called on the bloc’s member states to “publicly demand the implementation of [the report’s] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.” These declarations, as well as others, demonstrate Hamas’ triumph in controlling the narrative. Hamas’ ability to control the narrative limits Israel’s strategic choices.’
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Use of human shields by Hamas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 2 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Hamas Human shields accusations. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has been created with an intentionally POV scope, selectively copying material from Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a clearly one-sided manner, presenting only Palestinian and not Israeli usage of human shields. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. With gratitude for a civil discussion, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 19:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations of use of human shields by Hamas – Per WP:NDESC "(Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)" Selfstudier ( talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
someone deleted a comment on this talk page, the comment wasn't particularly constructive, but i thought we were only supposed to remove other people's comments in extreme cases of vandalism? Irtapil ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Um, BilledMammal, even if it were an exceptional claim, and it is not just because you say so, that is an exceptional source, a work of scholarship by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini published by the University of California Press is the very definition of an exceptional source. Kindly return what you improperly removed. nableezy - 11:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
It does not say the IDF headquarters are targeted, it says "launched towards".Can you explain what difference you see between "targeted" and "launched towards" in this context? To me, they mean the same thing.
what it is discussing, as is Hass, is the usage of the human shield accusation to ward off attention to war crimesThe article still says that;
Gordon and Perugini remarking that the framing of protestors as terrorists or human shields effectively "categorizes any Palestinian from Gaza who participates in civil protests as a terrorist who is consequently killable"; they find that the usage of the human shield accusation both during war and civil protest has caused the very idea of a Palestinian civilian to have "disappeared" in Israeli discourse. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
One is active one is passive.That doesn't really explain the difference here; the quote claims that Hamas is "aiming at", "launching at", "targeting" (whichever word you prefer; they're all the same to me in this context) the IDF headquarters, not the city of Tel Aviv.
...when Hamas launches rockets towards the Israel Defense Forces military command headquarters located in the city center.
I dont really care what ChatGPT told youYou should; it means that my interpretation is almost certainly the most common interpretation of "launched towards X", which in turn means that many of our readers will be misled if your interpretation of the source is correct.
but are claiming it is undue to include noted scholars writing works of WP:SCHOLARSHIPWorks of scholarship aren't automatically WP:DUE.
Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards them, despite the presence of the Israel Defence Forces headquarters in the city center, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
ChatGPT is not a reliable source. It's not, but it is useful to verify that our interpretation of something is reasonable, and it is useful in determining how our readers will interpret our articles.
Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrasted how civilians in Tel Aviv were not classified as human shields when Hamas launched rockets towards the city despite the presence of the Israeli military headquarters, while Palestinian civilians were classified as human shields when Israel bombed Hamas' military infrastructure. They concluded by saying "In other words, if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields."
− | Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini | + | Discussing the asymmetrical treatment of accusations of usage of human shields, Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini contrast how Israeli civilians are not treated as human shields for the Ministry Defense for Hamas rocket attacks, despite its location in the center of the city, and how, in "sharp contrast", Palestinian civilians are called human shields when Israeli bombs Hamas locations in Gaza, writing how this creates a paradigm that "if Hamas kills Israeli civilians, it is to blame, and if Israel kills Palestinian civilians, then Hamas is also to blame, since, at least ostensibly, it is Hamas that has deployed these civilians as shields." |
BilledMammal, the source says, in the following paragraph: The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and
Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields", does amount to a violation of their obligation to take the necessary precautions to protect civilians under its control from the dangers of military operations “to the maximum extent feasible”, and in particular "avoiding locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas
. It also earlier says In particular, it found no evidence that Hamas or other fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. By contrast, Amnesty International did find that Israeli forces on several occasions during Operation “Cast Lead” forced Palestinian civilians to serve as "human shields". In any event, international humanitarian law makes clear that use of "human shields" by one party does not release the attacking party from its legal obligations with respect to civilians. Even so, Israeli forces and Palestinian fighters were obliged at all times to apply the principle of distinction and proportionality, and take the precautions required by international humanitarian law, when launching attacks.
It very clearly says that placing weapons and fighters in those areas are not evidence of using human shields. I also think that is arguably a 1RR violation, especially given the expansive definition you have sought to impose on others.
nableezy - 16:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
wrote that while it is uncontested that Hamas weapons and fighters were located in civilian areas, that this does not itself constitute human shielding
While the presence of Hamas and other fighters and weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as “human shields”.
The placing of combatants and a variety of weapons within towns and villages by Hamas and Israel, while not in itself of evidence of using "human shields". That is saying that just having combatants and weapons in the vicinity of civilians does not constitute, or is not evidence for, human shielding. nableezy - 16:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The prohibition against the use of “human shields” is further clarified in Article 51(7) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I). It states: "Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operation". See also, for a more comprehensive overview of the topic, International Review of the Red Cross:
The essential element in the prohibition on use of human shields is rather the intention to use the presence of humans as shields to shelter a military objective. This is corroborated by the International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes. nableezy - 16:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
In some respects this is cart before the horse, the purpose of these allegations is to relieve Israel of responsibility for civilian death and destruction when they kill civilians and destroy structures, when those civilians and structures are protected, by arguing that the death and destruction arises only because of Hamas alleged use of human shields. Even if some civilian structure was being used for a military purpose such that it lost protected status, any attack must be proportional to the military gain from attacking the otherwise protected object. Shielding must be "purposeful" Selfstudier ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This is one of the worst leads I have read in my idk how long Ive been here. Im going to re-write it as an actual summary of the article, not a series of accusations. nableezy - 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategyseems pretty clear Andre 🚐 21:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
This was a difficult decision for me. I had to resolve several questions within myself: (1) Are Rosen, Rubinstein, and Roznai wrong, as nableezy says?; (2) if yes, what is Wikipedia's content policy for when sources are factually wrong?; and (3) is it really my call to make?
To answer (1), I started with the earliest-in-time reference, which is Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766. There, Rosen writes that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 487, which is a blockquote of the entire Memri transcript of an excerpt of Fathi Hamad's Aqsa TV 29 March 2008 speech. The link given is [4], which no longer leads to the Hamad transcript. However, if we just search the language quoted, it's easy enough to arrive at the source, which now resides at this URL: [5]. The quote is: "[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'" As nableezy says, the quote does not support the proposition for which it cited which, again, is that "a Hamas leader had earlier acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." Where is the acknowledgment of Hamas doing anything? The quote says, essentially, that Palestinians of all kinds have become excellent at dying, and that for this reason they (Palestinians in general) "have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine." It is a really dumb thing to say, frankly, but that is not the inquiry. The inquiry is: did he "acknowledg[e] the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel." He did not. It cannot honestly be said that he did, at least not in the excerpt provided. Next up: Rubinstein & Roznai 2011, p. 98. There, Rubinstein & Roznai write: "The use of civilians as human shields, as a leader of Hamas had previously confirmed, is an essential tactic of Hamas in its armed confrontations with Israel." The sentence is followed by footnote 24, which points the reader to Rosen 2009, pp. 765-766, examined above. As we have already concluded, Rosen 2009 offers Hamad's statement as support for something it does not support. Rubinstein & Roznai are relying on Rosen, who is quoting Hamad and saying he said something he didn't say. Last is Rosen 2012–the same Rosen, but this time in a book. There, Rosen writes: "Early in 2008, a senior Hamas leader acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in a conflict with Israel." The sentence is followed by the very same blockquote from Hamad's 29 March 2008 speech. The blockquote is in turn followed by footnote 91, which says: "Speech by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad’, Al-Aqsa Television, 29 February 2008, http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm The mission mentioned the speech (Goldstone Report, para. 477), but discarded it as irrelevant (para. 478)." Following that hyperlink will take you to a page called "Palestinians Admit Using Human Shields" with a byline of "by Carlos" (no last name given) which, unsurprisingly, is getting the excerpt in question from Memri, which we have already discussed above and concluded does not say what Rosen says. In sum, the article in its current state quotes three law professors: the first of whom mis-describes the import of Hamad's speech, and the second and third of whom merely regurgitate the misdescription of the first. All right, so the answer to (1) is: yes, they are wrong.
To answer (2), I turned to this essay for guidance: Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. It's a relatively new essay, created on 23 July 2023 and 89% authored by User:Tamzin, but addresses precisely the predicament we are faced with here. The last resort suggested there (option 6) is to "include a likely incorrect statement (or even article) if there is no way to justify another approach as within editorial discretion." The essays says: "No one likes the idea of Wikipedia getting it wrong, but it may sometimes be inevitable." I will not go into detail here about the other five options given because the immediate question to be answered is: Is it permissible to not regurgitate in WikiVoice a directly on-point statement in a reliable source because it is objectively incorrect? The answer, according to the essay, is yes, there are at least five ways of doing so. What we (as a community) do with the statement (i.e., which of the other five options we adopt) can be discussed later.
With respect to (3), my initial instinct was to answer that the source says what it says, the article is obviously not mine, and it's up to community consensus what we do with the objectively incorrect directly on-point statement. But I do bear some responsibility because I am the one that inserted this statement into the article, and I am the only one who can remove it without the removal being considered a revert. Accordingly, I am free to remove it, and if another editor wants to include it, the WP:ONUS will be on them to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content.
All that said, I have decided to remove it. Of course, that does not mean Hamas does not use human shields. What it means is that: (1) Rosen was objectively incorrect when he said that Hamad "acknowledged that the employment of human shields was integral to Hamas's strategy in its conflict with Israel," because Hamad demonstrably did not acknowledge that; (2) Wikipedia's content policies allow editorial discretion in not including relevant statements made by reliable sources that are factually incorrect; and (3) I have the ability to remove it, subject to other editors later re-adding it and making the case for its inclusion. -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 03:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields".
But when I read the
press release it's referring to, I don't think it explicitly accuses Hamas of having done this. It reads:
"The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians. These are criminal and unjustifiable acts. The EU calls on Hamas to immediately put an end to these acts and to renounce violence. All terrorist groups in Gaza must disarm. The EU strongly condemns calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields."
There is a difference, as I see it. The EU condemns Hamas. And they also condemn, in principle, the act of calling on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields, but they are not saying that it necessarily has happened. Torr3 ( talk) 15:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
´The European Union condemned Hamas, and in particular condemned "calls on the civilian population of Gaza to provide themselves as human shields". And I would add the
press release as reference.´
Just to improve it a bit without having to do more research.
Torr3 (
talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Article reads tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Al-Shifa hospital for media interviews, but later deleted the tweet
. This is strange. He might have deleted it because it was incorrect. Or he might have deleted it because of security concerns, as
a blog in Times of Israel suggests. Unless the veracity of the claim in that tweet can be verified (which I can not), I suggest we remove this sentence.
Torr3 (
talk) 15:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The material in Israeli accusations is in large part
WP:SYNTH in that they do not relate to the topic of this article. I plan to keep going through the ones that dont mention any shielding by Hamas. For example,
The Messenger News cited for On 23 November the IDF released footage showing a weapons cache hidden under a child's bed, which it stated belonged to the child of a senior Hamas official.
does not mention human shields at all. The
JPost article for The footage shows what the IDF claims is a rocket launcher situated near a school, and an armament-laden truck used in the 7 October attack that is parked in the courtyard of a mosque
again does not mention human shielding. This is the case for much of the material, editors are taking news reports that they think proves their case here and then inserting it. But the sources dont actually relate to human shielding by Hamas and their usage is synth.
nableezy - 16:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Editor keeps adding IDF press release images that have nothing to do with "shielding". IDF is notoriously unreliable, staging images and making stuff up are recent examples. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Eladkarmel can you please explain why you repeatedly returned unverified Israeli propaganda as the lead image in this article over the objections of multiple editors without anything resembling a consensus on this talk page? nableezy - 16:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is outdated. I suggest it be moved to the body and referred to more summarily. Right now it seems to be the main takeaway, but we know post-10/7 there is an entirely different instance of human shield usage that's more current than the 2014 controversy. Andre 🚐 18:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey Iskandar323, I saw this . And I have a concern that this is an incorrect editorial summary. You wrote that you removed mention of the al-Shifa hospital (which should be left in IMO because it is a notable controversy), but you also removed the US support of the human shield claims. I also' if I understand correctly there is WP:PRESERVE here, Want to explain? Eladkarmel ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Why does the section on Ahmad Kahlot repeat that "Israel says he said" this and that during his interrogation, while one of the cited sources includes video of him saying these things during said interrogation? It makes primary source material look like hearsay. 94.105.121.73 ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
"Just because they don't have the phallic ability to bomb these places?" [1]
Is this a misquote? What is the meaning of " phallic ability" here? IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
“Hamas uses the population as human shields.” If I’m not mistaken, the Defense Ministry is in the heart of Tel Aviv, as is the army’s main “war room.” And what about the military training base at Glilot, near the big mall? And the Shin Bet headquarters in Jerusalem, on the edge of a residential neighborhood? And how far is our “sewing factory” in Dimona from residential areas? Why is it all right for us and not for them? Just because they don’t have the phallic ability to bomb these places?Andre 🚐 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. As for the merge, it is a content discussion best continued separately. – robertsky ( talk) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Use of human shields by Hamas → Hamas Human shields accusations – For now, there is no existing evidence supporting hamas usage human shields, most of the existing notions is just western and israeli politicians accusing the Palestinian resistance of using human shields who themselves provide no evidence to the international community for their claims while some western journals just echo them. I believe the current article title should be renamed to comply with WP:NPOV Stephan rostie ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Supported by the Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, yes. But SCCoE itself, on its About page ( https://stratcomcoe.org/about_us/about-nato-stratcom-coe/5 ) says it does not speak for NATO, which means you cannot attribute that report to NATO.
I also find citing the report to be problematic, because it is undated and has no authorship. Consider citing the report's sources instead of the report itself. 2601:180:8200:35B0:3510:5932:ADA1:AAEE ( talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Nableezy: regarding your revert, my point wasn't that there's no RS, just that including it in the very first paragraph seems like giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minor point. I wasn't trying to remove the claim altogether, it's still covered later (in a section that I think is too lengthy, also seems WP:UNDUE, but that's another question).
It's just not a very significant aspect of the topic with significant coverage. Plenty of counterarguments could be made, such as the argument that Hamas isn't capable of targeting military assets anyway, but RS don't cover both sides of this because it's not significant. We can't properly cover both sides of this argument without resorting to citing (non-RS) Twitter fights or what not. — xDanielx T/ C\ R 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
According to a paper published by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the strategic use of human shields by groups like Hamas hinges on exploiting Israel's aim to minimize civilian casualties and the sensitivity of Western public opinion which it says allows Hamas to either accuse Israel of war crimes if civilian casualties occur or to protect its assets and continue operations if the IDF limits its military response.[5][6] Israel has said that Hamas's actions have been responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza.[7][8]
” However, the mission found no evidence of Palestinian armed groups placing civilians in areas where attacks were being launched, or engaging in combat in civilian dress, or using a mosque for military purposes or to shield military activities. This statement contrasted with both Israeli and international media reports that Hamas fighters wore civilian clothes and concealed their weapons.'p.159
The resolution called on the bloc’s member states to “publicly demand the implementation of [the report’s] recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes.” These declarations, as well as others, demonstrate Hamas’ triumph in controlling the narrative. Hamas’ ability to control the narrative limits Israel’s strategic choices.’