Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Merge proposal

I propose merging Use of human shields by Hamas into Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The content of both articles was originally together in Human shield and it seems most logical to present both "sides" together. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wonder if it makes more sense to just create an analogous Use of human shields by Israel and make the current page into a disambig page? VR _talk 20:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Why have two WP:POVFORKS when you could have none? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's one conflict, one problem. One coin, two different sides. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be stated that there is a difference between WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOFF. An article on something Hamas does is not a WP:POVFORK just because it doesn't also cover something some other group supposedly does. JM (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is the invitation for the material, segregated by POV, to drift off in an ever more POV direction, as Use of human shields by Hamas is already admirably demonstrating - you can see it already becoming a WP:COATRACK for all manner of tawdry IDF insinuation (including an array of debunked claims). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas has also been accused of using human shields strategically by NATO, the UN, EU, US, Israel, and several European countries".

• Oppose Use of human shields by Hamas is a phrase people are going to search for. They will not expect to find information about all uses of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should be noted that this is the third attempt to get rid of "Use of human shields by Hamas", the first two being a deletion proposal on 2023-11-16 (fail) and a rename proposal on 2023-11-17 (failing).--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Readers would still be able to search for that phrase: they would simply be redirected to a page with neutral context where they might actually acquire some perspective, as opposed to heading down a POV rabbit hole that panders to their confirmation bias. An encyclopedia is a platform for knowledge. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Right, for knowledge, but not reprogramming. If they want to read about Hamas's use of human shields only, let them do so. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is a proper WP:SPINOFF of Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notable, and long and unique enough to keep. The use of human shields is typical of Hamas warfare. Adding that Use of human shields by Hamas had in a very short timespan an AfD, rename debate, and merge debate. It's a regular WP article. We're currently experiencing an overkill in conflict-related debates. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article on systemic use of human shields by Hamas contain enough information to be an article on its own. They have turned it into an entire industry in Gaza by using ambulances, mosques, houses, schools and hospitals. No comparison to specific instances of human shield use by other Palestinian groups or Israeli forces. Dovidroth (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Dovidroth: They have turned it into an entire industry in Gaza by using ambulances, mosques, houses, schools and hospitals. - is this RS, opinion, or Israeli government press release? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a major topic deserving of an article. The current conflict shows that usage of human shields is a fundamental characteristic of Hamas tactics: using mosques, schools and hospitals as military headquarters, outposts and for weapon storage; building an extensive military tunnel network under Gaza (The Gaza Metro); launching rockets from densely populated areas; setting up roadblocks to prevent the mass evacuation of northern Gaza... Finally, with prose size (text only) of 19 kB there is no technical reason for merging. GidiD (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Orgullomoore, Dovidroth and GidiD. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: One topic perhaps even more notable than the very limited evidence of the use of human shields implied by the POVFORK being discussed here is the use of the claim of such for propaganda purposes. So, one alternative to the proposal here is to expand the spin-off with the scholarly subject of Israel's constant manipulation of A) the narrative, and B) perceptions of international law - furnished with the likes of The politics of human shielding: On the resignification of space and the constitution of civilians as shields in liberal wars (or just start that topic from scratch). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this article can be developed in the usual way and cover both sides of the debate, merger or not. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Dovidroth@GidiD@Orgullomoore Homerethegreat (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The topic of Use of human shields by Hamas is (sadly) large enough to deserve an article of its own. פעמי-עליון (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose it was already demonstrated in the deletion discussion for Use of human shields by Hamas that it's a significant topic and a WP:SPINOFF because it has so much media coverage in RS. No need to go over the same things again and again. JM (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support the presentation of just one side of the story is tendentious and does a disservice to our readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  How is this "one side of the story"? The story is Hamas using human shields. Is it also "one side of the story" to write an article about German war crimes without also writing about Russian war crimes in that same article? JM (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because Israel and Hamas have been using civilian cover in exactly the same times and places. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a notable topic per WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The oppose arguments are basically variations of "but it's more notable/worse/true that Hamas does it", which are (A) statements of opinion, not fact and (B) not an answer to the obvious POV-forking of content from this article. And then there are bare assertions that the other article is not a POVFORK, which I have yet to see convincingly argued. In the AfD, the most common rebuttal to the POVFORK argument was semantic (i.e., that there was no standalone article that covered both sides of the topic)—well, here it is. Is our goal here to create two parallel encyclopedias, one for each POV, or to create a single, unified encyclopedia written from NPOV? WillowCity^(talk) 21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  There are reliable sources that cover Hamas's use of human shields without so much as mentioning the use of human shields by any other party. That is enough to justify a standalone article. --Orgullomoore (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Coverage in RS is necessary but not sufficient. GNG itself notes: A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (emphasis mine). Other policies and guidelines elaborate on this. For example:

  • WP:NOPAGE: The very first bullet point says, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. This is the case here.
  • WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCACY: The other article (like many POVFORKs) is run through with NPOV issues and (as Iskandar323 notes above) seems liable to continue drifting off in that direction. In large part, it's a gratuitous rehash of the perspective of Israel and its allies, which have not been tested in court, without mention of parallel allegations against Israel itself that would better inform readers and provide relevant context.

  Coverage in RS may create some sort of presumption for a standalone article, but that presumption is rebuttable (and, in my view, rebutted). WillowCity^(talk) 17:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  To mitigate the risk of observers taking your contention that the presumption is rebutted as unrebutted, allow me to rebut your assertion of rebuttal by explaining why I believe having a page on use of human shields by Hamas separate and apart from the article on general use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not constitute opinion or advocacy.

  • Because the use of human shields by Hamas is not in some inseparable way linked to the use of human shields by Israel or solidarity movements, an overall larger article is not necessary to provide a complete article. It is more of a "yeah, but they do it too." The contexts are completely different. The neighbor procedure, for example, has to do with making a Palestinian participate in a raid, whereas Hamas's signature move is hiding under a school or mosque. They are completely unconnected except by the general fact that they are parties to the same conflict. The examples given at WP:NOPAGE are Barack_Obama_2012_presidential_campaign#Other_initiatives and Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign#International_trip. In each of these cases, the heading is part and parcel of its parent article. That is, the other initiatives are part of the Obama presidential campaign, and the international trip is part of the Romney campaign. Use of human shields by Israel is not part of use of human shields by Hamas. The two can be discussed in isolation without compromising understanding, just as they can be discussed together in the same way that crows and ravens can be discussed separate and apart from corvids (and they can also be discussed together as part of an overarching topic) or French Renaissance architecture and Italian Renaissance painting can be discussed separate and apart from Renaissance architecture, Renaissance art, or Renaissance (and they can all also be discussed together as part of an overarching topic). All of these are, like use of human shields by Hamas, notable in their own right. There is a line somewhere short of the absurd argument that "x" cannot have its own article because "x" cannot be understood except for in the context of "Universe." Where is that line, though? What are the criteria?
  • I would point out that the assertion that the article is, and only can be, a gratuitous rehash of the perspective of Israel and its allies, which have not been tested in court, is in itself an opinion. There is no reason why this article on the use of human shields by Hamas cannot include counterweights to balance this POV. By way of simple illustration, there is no reason why the statement "x professor wrote that Hamas systematically shields itself from attack by launching rockets from heavily populated areas and storing weapons in and under schools and children's bedrooms" cannot be balanced with the statement that "y NGO said there is no proof of x professor's assertion and z professor said that, even if true, these launch sites and weapons stores do not meet the legal definition of human shielding; also, author A pointed out that none of this has been tested in court." It is an opinion that the discussion of use of human shields by Hamas necessarily implicates discussion of use of human shields by Israel, in a completely different way and in a different context and for different motives and seeking defense from different types of attack. It is arguably advocacy to says "Israel does it too" when the reader asks: "Tell me about use of human shields by Hamas." Does the article on the Holocaust say "but the USA also committed mass killing by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? Must those topics be covered only as part of "Mass killings in World War II"?

  --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Woah, this is a lot of text. But let’s unpack it:

  • to your first point, you note that in each of these cases, the heading is part and parcel of its parent article. So too in this case: the human shields allegation against Hamas is part and parcel of “Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. There may be separation between the alleged tactics, but not the underlying practice. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is one article, not two, because it covers two related (but distinct) occurrences.
  • I’m not suggesting we merge all articles into a single article on the Universe, I’m suggesting that allegations of a single type of war crime against two belligerents in the same conflict can be covered in the same article. As with most slippery slope arguments, the answer to the question, “where do we draw the line?” is “somewhere.” If your argument is accepted, editors would be justified in spinning off an article on Israeli use of human shields, or creating standalone articles for every type of risotto (which Italian Wikipedia has, charmingly enough).
  • The Holocaust analogy is a red herring. I answered a similar critique in the AfD by saying: a better analogy would be [spinning off] the "Arguments against justification" section of the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. We don't do that, because it would be advocacy. But analogies to other articles are always tricky; we need to focus on the merits of these two articles.

  I think we’ve canvassed the main points so I’ll dip out now. (edited for clarity) WillowCity^(talk) 19:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  To reply briefly: (a) I would not oppose an article on use of human shields by the IDF or the neighbor procedure – there is plenty of independent/single-topic sourcing on the neighbor procedure; (b) your categorization of use of human shields by the respective players as "allegations of a single type of war crime" is, I think, the sticking point, because I see these as different topics: hiding under schools from airstrikes (Hamas), standing between houses and bulldozers (solidarity movements), and looking over the foe's friend's shoulder (IDF); and (c) one man's red herring is another's illustrative example. Toodles! --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would not oppose an article on use of human shields by the IDF or the neighbor procedure We don't need another one sided article, that's why "merge". Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing one-sided about it. It's a completely different topic. There is the procedure itself, it being criticized as a war crime, the Supreme Court decision outlawing it, the subsequent violations of the court order, those defending it, those victimized by it. There are many sides/aspects to it. --Orgullomoore (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I for one oppose the merge, but I will say that if editors think having an article about Hamas using human shields is somehow a POVFORK and not a SPINOFF, then they should definitely support deleting or merging articles like Nakba and Nakba denial. We should not be selective about what we consider "one-sided". JM (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Added by the creator of Use of human shields by Hamas with edit summary (my italics) "An article that gives undue weight to one side. Mixing the opinions of researchers with the facts. And it is unacceptable to compare Hamas, which uses human shields on a daily basis, to Israel. Certainly not to start with the side that uses less human shields" Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it as an instance of WP:DRIVEBY tagging, pending input. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt this editor can present any proof Hamas uses human shields more than Israel. This was clearly a case of abusive tagging and it's a shame that it was allowed to remain in place for so long. Rafe87 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

POV

Never have I ever seen such a one-sided POV disaster, without even a shred of effort made to balance the obvious two sides in a conflict.

1. presenting Norman Finkelstein's opinion as a fact in Wikipidia's voice.
2. to present Israel first and in a disproportionate amount using human shields as claimed in the article
3. Hamas uses human shields, as can be seen in the reliable sources in the article "Use of human shields by Hamas". Therefore, the fact that they are presented only in the third paragraph and also there as a claim of others. It's POV plain and simple.
4. To claim that all Palestinians use human shields is a distortion of reality. This is only about Hamas and we should not blame the "Palestinians".

It's like saying all Jews use human shields. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh, it's OK though for you to present just one side of the story in the other article? Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As I also wrote there. Definately not. Both sides should be treated in a way that is proportional to reality. In all articles I cuntribute to, I do a lot of research looking for sources that relate to both sides. If you have any more information, no matter which side...TFADAL. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The other article only relates to one side. Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I got confused with the discussion on the article Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

You meant the article Use of human shields by Hamas. I will not repeat here the reason why a separate article is needed. Look at the talk page. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to, reading the title tells me all I need to know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think having an article covering the very significantly covered use of human shields by Hamas is a WP:POVFORK and not a WP:SPINOFF there is a problem. No need to be so flippant. JM (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV is not optional, but rather "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia", and one should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but rather "use direct discussion only." --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Who said NPOV is optional? Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Who said somebody said that NPOV is optional? --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV is not optional, but rather "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" So just editorializing then, rather than "direct discussion". Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Eladkarmel said NPOV is lacking. Your response was to ask Eladkarmel if it was "OK though" for one side to be presented "in the other article", the implication being that the other article is also lacking NPOV. My reply was to point out that NPOV is a fundamental principle regardless of whether other articles lack it. To state the point directly: this section of this talk page should focus not on whether it is "OK" for Eladkarmel to push a POV in another article, but in resolving the POV in this article you appear to acknowledge exists. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't really read either article as yet, any POV anywhere should of course be dealt with (such as pretending that al-Shifa is "evidence", for instance). I was just amused at the tag and the italicized sentence above "An article that gives undue weight to one side". Chutzpah. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Great. Glad we cleared that up. --Orgullomoore (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eladkarmel: So in repeating my words back at me "Never have I ever seen such a one-sided POV disaster, without even a shred of effort made to balance the obvious two sides in a conflict." from here - you are obviously being taunting, which I would note, while not a personal attack, does fall under WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL / WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL - which makes it harder to believe that you came to this POV tagging based on content, as opposed to personal motives and/or being WP:POINT-y - I'd suggest not demonstrating such behaviour in a CT area if you want to be taken seriously. As to the substance: #1) Norman Finkelstein is an expert and his opinion carries weight; #2) Israel's use of human shields chronologically precedes the current evidenced suggestion of Palestinian usage of human shields, and also it's A-Z (take your pick of those reasons); #3) chronological concerns also similarly apply to the lead; #4) the first determined Palestinian usage of human shields is attributed to the Popular Resistance Committees, which are not Hamas, so you are 100% wrong on that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

1. I did not say to delete Norman Finkelstein's opinion, just to state that it is his opinion and not to write it as fact.

2. OK, I think that under the WP:STRUCTURE, in the lead it is appropriate to put the organization that certainly uses human shields today and in a more serious way. And for years it is the prominent organization on the subject in the area

3. See 2

4. These are only accusations. I haven't seen evidence that Popular Resistance Committees used human shields, it doesn't appear in the article about them and it doesn't appear in the lead either... Eladkarmel (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Per #2: First, the burden of proof for those claiming human shields are being used rests on those making the accusations. You are assuming that Hamas' use of human shields is an airtight case under international law (as opposed to just Israeli and Western rhetoric), which it is not. Secondly, you are assuming that Hamas is the only recipient of human shield accusations in the present conflict, which it is not. Per #4 - almost this entire topic is one of accusations (bar the lone conviction), and, of course, the accusation has also been levelled at other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza, since the logic is the same. Here Israel accuses the PIJ. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's silly to say there is any doubt that Hamas uses human shields when they themselves say they do it. Why are you so resistant to this obvious fact, Iskandar323? I realize Memri is a partisan source, but these are Fathi Hamad's own words. And these are Sami Abu Zuhri's own words. Will you claim it is a mistranslation? Will you say there is context missing? Is it your contention that this does not meet the legal definition of human shielding? I would like to understand the basis for your denial. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that primary sources citing two random politicians saying something is far removed from reliable sources establishing the same thing in no uncertain terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

But a Hamas spokesperson and their Interior Minister are not random and the statements are quoted and cited in secondary sources for the assertion that Hamas has admitted to using human shields and encouraging civilians to resist Israeli airstrikes by staying in the line of fire. Do you dispute that? --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. Find better sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

As stories of people being used as human shields multiply in this war and Palestinians come forward to tell their stories, or to show videos they took of their neighbors being used as shields, an undeniable pattern can be noticed -- that Israeli forces are the ones using people as shields. So this entry did right in prioritizing Israel's abuse of people, as this is the story that is being told by victims, confirmed by human rights groups, and corroborated by material evidence such as videos and photos. We even have admissions by Israeli soldiers. The case against Palestinian groups is largely made up of accusations by Israelis and their unconditional allies to justify their mass killings of civilians, as noticed by human rights groups. Rafe87 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

OK then, what fault do you find with the sources cited in the following blurb?

Hamas has openly acknowledged the use of human shields as a key component of its strategy, and has encouraged Palestinian civilians to remain in their homes even if they have knowledge of an imminent Israeli airstrike.

References

--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

For the first phrase, it needs to reflect the sources in terms of the attribution and the context, i.e. "Early in 2008, a senior Hamas leader acknowledged ...", and for the second part it would need to clarify when and to which conflict these sources and their contained statement applies - it looks to be 2008 and 2014. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Why wouldn't you just implement your own suggestions instead of wholesale reverting? You're very difficult to work with. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Body first, then lead summary, per MOS:LEAD - it's a simple rule that seems to need repeating a lot. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A continuing and longstanding trend. JM (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The “Human Shields” Defense of Bombing Gaza’s Civilians Is Morally Bankrupt Israeli forces use five Palestinian children as human shields Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not every Palestinian is Hamas

In the article the word "Palestinian" appears 86 times and the word "Hamas" 68 times. Since it is my understanding that Palestinians do not use human shields, but only Hamas, to write so much about the "Palestinians" use of human shields is similar to saying that "the Jews use human shield". Eladkarmel (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this part of the reason for the tag? Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No, one should distinguish between Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians who are not guilty of the organization's actions. This requires a serious change in the article. There are a handful of accusations against Palestinian organizations, while there is clear evidence against Hamas. (You can see photos in the article Use of human shields by Hamas itself). Eladkarmel (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying we should identify Likud versus Israeli use, why would we do that? This is the same asinine POV that calls a war that kills thousands of Palestinians a war on Hamas. The ICC prosecutor already says that Israel has to prove its claim that the protective status has been lost (because of human shields/harming the enemy)

"One: in relation to every dwelling house, in relation to any school, any hospital, any church, any mosque – those places are protected, unless the protective status has been lost because they are being used for military purposes. Two: if there is a doubt that a civilian object has lost its protective status, the attacker must assume that it is protected. Three: the burden of demonstrating that this protective status is lost rests with those who fire the gun, the missile, or the rocket in question." Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Since it is my understanding that Palestinians do not use human shields, but only Hamas - Hamas is a group composed of Palestinians. There are multiple Palestinian militant groups. The Popular Resistance Committees (mentioned here) are not Hamas. The IDF also accuses Palestinian Islamic Jihad of the practice. Etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to separate as commented on earlier. We should not say that Palestinians are doing so since it risks making it sound as if all the Palestinians are doing it. Unlike Israel; Palestinians don't have a united leadership and are fragmented into multiple groups that often war each other, therefore one should note which groups are partaking in the use of human shields. I think @Eladkarmel's comment is good start. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Locating IDF buildings in cities section

The rockets fired by Hamas into Tel Aviv cannot be precisely aimed at a target, and their use violates international law prohibiting the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate According to Amnesty International.. Terrorism by definition targets civilians, and so the citizens of Tel Aviv are not described as human shields, but rather as targets.

Hamas section

The POV atrocity that was the Hamas section is supposed to be a summary of the child article. So I copied the lead of that child article. The lead of this article was also incredibly one-sided, claiming things like al-Shifa has been confirmed to have been used as a human shield (ha!) when sources have repeatedly said Israel's so-called evidence has consisted of little more than discredited propaganda. So I removed that as well. Still needs a bit of work though. nableezy - 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal why did you move Hamas out of the Palestinian faction section? Why did you restore the POV-drivel you tried to restore to the child article without discussion? Why did you remove that AI repeatedly found no evidence of human shielding by Hamas? Are you of the belief that including accusations that third-parties have repeatedly found to be bullshit as fact to be NPOV? nableezy - 13:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There being no response, I put Hamas back in the Palestinian faction section. And so as avoid needing to go back and forth between versions of the sub-article, I simply have that lead transcluded here. nableezy - 15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• I really don't understand why Hamas should not be included under the section on Palestinian militants? VR _talk 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF Soldiers using human shields 2024

Israeli soldiers have posted pictures of them using Gazans as human shields as of March 28 2024.

Photo can be found on Quds news network twitter. Actualb3n (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you give a link here? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

Citation 36 only contains a caption with no image purporting to show a child chained to a tank. It seems like a poor quality citation. Accurate meatlauncher (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I found this source further down in the section which includes the photo and more details about this specific incident. I also corrected the child's age from 12 to 13. Jamedeus (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias

I dont understand how this is allowed to be in wikipedia. The author has expressed and exaggerated allegations of human shieldind by the IDF, but when it comes to their use by Hamas, it is downplayed, and links untrustworthy sources. The author/s have attempted to make it legitimate, especially in the second paragraph, by listing some allegations, but then go on to say it isnt considered genocide. If it isnt, why is it here. I would consider these authors to be Hamas-sympathisers. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Use by Israeli forces" in particular seems to give far too much weight to such allegations, treat them too uncritically, and rely too much on partisan sources like B'Tselem. I'll try to address some of the most obvious issues there. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep I agree, thanks DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

2023-24

There's now a report in Ynet that the soldiers drove the mnan strtapped to a jeep bonnet that way because (a) he accepted the proposal and (b) the intention was to carry him thus for just 70 metres to the waiting ambulance for (c) there was no room in the jeeps. I haven't added it because it is a farcical lie, and of no value. The video clearly shows the lead jeep and others driving past successively three waiting Red Crescent ambulances Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This just goes to show that many Israeli outlets accepted as reliable on Wikipedia are part of the PR effort spearheaded by their government. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

Jf08191992 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Human casualties on the hood of HUMVEEs have been documented since WW2. While not an official SOP, transporting casualties on the hood is usually due to mission sensitivity, such as troops, equipment, and considering the extent of the casualty.

https://www.ww2online.org/image/jeep-transporting-wounded-soldiers-mariana-islands-during-world-war-ii

During the Iraq War, a number of casualties were evacuated with this method: https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/et5gaj/a_marine_humvee_evacuating_a_casualty_iraq_603x394/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

However, since the source material is lost,(https://www.10tv.com/slideshow/slideshow-doug-reed.html) the above shows Doug Reed, a solider attached to the Ohio National Guard on top of a HUMVEE. However, here is a news article that supports the above picture: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/heros-healing-ohioan-afghanistan-heros-road-recovery/530-799e6ba5-5be1-4b2a-86bc-55e499a8cf7e Jf08191992 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

change Internationsl to International LionWarrior9 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Left guide (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Insert recent admission by prominent Israeli pundit that human shield use by the IDF has been widespread

In a recent Haaretz column about the rape of a Palestinian prisoner at Sde Teiman, Amos Harel wrote, "What happened at Sde Teiman is not an isolated incident that took place while the senior command was busy fighting. There have also been serious incidents on the front – shooting civilians near IDF forces, the widespread use of Palestinians as human shields and the systematic torching of homes, often done without operational justification. Most of the field commanders, like the senior officers, are afraid to tackle the problem. They knew what awaited them: complaints from soldiers about neglect and the failure to provide backup, as well as the systematic assault of the "poison machine" on social networks."

Considering the entry is not a mere collection of incidents but also contains media analyses, I think this belongs in the entry. We could write something to the effect of, "Israeli pundit Amos Harel wrote for Haaretz that the IDF use of Palestinians as human shields has been widespread in the Israeli-Hamas war, placing it in the context of a more general breakdown of order and discipline among Israeli soldiers that also includes wantom killings of civilians, unjustified torching of homes, and sexual abuse and torture of prisoners of war." This should be inserted in the section about 2023-2024 incidents.

Link to article

Free link via Archive Today 179.250.253.100 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I reiterate this request. Amos Harel is already cited in this entry for the (evidence-free) claim that Palestinians used human shields in 2004. If his likely biased claim (biased as he is an Israeli Jew writing for an Israeli Jewish publication!) is deemed notable for this entry, then his more recent assessment of the IDF's conduct is even more so, since it's unlikely he's moved by anti-Israeli bias. 177.121.121.68 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. Is there a report that documents this human shield usage in more detail? I'd prefer a few concrete examples. And feel free to write on my talk page if I don't respond here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The writer is already cited in the entry as making accusations against Hamas, even though he doesn't offer a single concrete example and, despite claiming there's photographic evidence, doesn't present it in his article:

As early as 2004 Amos Harel wrote in Haaretz that during the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Palestinian gunmen "routinely" used civilians and children as human shields and stated that there was photographic evidence for it.

So either this reference should be removed, or my suggestion should be accepted. Harel should also be identified as an Israeli in the Hamas accusation if the paragraph is to remain. 177.121.121.68 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

shawashim is not a word

On the other hand, shamashim is a Hebrew word that means decoy, among other meanings. Seems to fit the context here Neelthakrebew (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Why do we have an article on Use of human shields by Hamas but not on Israel? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. There was a discussion to merge them into the general "human shielding" page, but it was decided that Hamas human shielding topic is significant enough to warrant its own page. However, there was no consensus that Israeli use of it doesn't warrant a separate page, and imo it does as there is significant reporting on it, including over the past few months with for example the use of Palestinians as human shields on military vehicles, and the latest report by Haaretz confirming systematic and widespread use of it.

That definitely meets the standard of WP:SPINOFF.

So I would recommend you or another editor who has the requisite knowledge to go ahead and make it to ensure NPOV. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Evidence for Israel's use of human shields is far more significant. We don't have pictures and videos of Hamas hiding behind civilians like we do of Israel. Most of the evidence against Hamas, if we can even call it that, consists of accusations by Israel and allies. DanielCarriço2014 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

In a recent Haaretz column about the rape of a Palestinian prisoner at Sde Teiman, Amos Harel wrote, "What happened at Sde Teiman is not an isolated incident that took place while the senior command was busy fighting. There have also been serious incidents on the front – shooting civilians near IDF forces, the widespread use of Palestinians as human shields and the systematic torching of homes, often done without operational justification. Most of the field commanders, like the senior officers, are afraid to tackle the problem. They knew what awaited them: complaints from soldiers about neglect and the failure to provide backup, as well as the systematic assault of the "poison machine" on social networks."

Considering the entry is not a mere collection of incidents but also contains media analyses, I think this belongs in the entry. We could write something to the effect of, "Israeli pundit Amos Harel wrote for Haaretz that the IDF use of Palestinians as human shields has been widespread in the Israeli-Hamas war, placing it in the context of a more general breakdown of order and discipline among Israeli soldiers that also includes wantom killings of civilians, unjustified torching of homes, and sexual abuse and torture of prisoners of war." This should be inserted in the section about 2023-2024 incidents.

Source (free version) DanielCarriço2014 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done It looks like someone had added this source after you made this request, but it was only in passing mention so I supplemented it with your proposed text. I agree that analytic coverage is more appropriate than individual incidents, especially when attributed in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete section on Palestine?

There's already a large entry dedicated to this subject. Why not deleting the redundant content here and let this become the sorely needed entry on Israeli human shield use? This would also help cut the lengthy intro to size. Rafe87 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Use of human shields by Hamas into Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There was a RM about a month ago regarding renaming the Hamas article, which did not succeed, but it garnered some support for this merge. The closer noted that there was a similar discussion at the beginning of this year (in which I didn't participate). However, sufficient time has passed, and with new information on the documented use of human shields by the IDF in the ongoing conflict, it has become clearer that the other article serves as a WP:POVFORK intended to support a specific narrative. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page - this applies here. There's nothing preventing anyone from creating a new article titled Use of human shields by the IDF, but why maintain two POV forks when we can consolidate them? Merging these articles can enhance the credibility of the content by presenting a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. By merging, we can address the problem at its root and include both accusations in a single article, thus preventing more forks from being created. - Ïvana (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Use of human shields by Hamas is a more specific topic and not a POVFORK, but a more specific narrow article scope. There are many actors in the historic and current-day IP conflict. Several different accusations and situations exist with regard to allegations of human shield usage. Therefore, I do not think a merge is necessary or helpful for clarity. I will also point out that while the two articles are roughly the same age as far as I can discern, the former is actually slightly older. Andre🚐 01:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Conditional support The content of the pages cover the same topic and to ensure NPOV should be either merged, or what I think is the best way to ensure it, a separate page needs to be made for IDF use of human shields. There is extensive RS on that not only recently but going back many years so it clearly satisfies the requirements for one. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support : I agree with the idea of merging the two articles, considering this article already does have a section for "Use by Palestinian forces" and a subsection for Hamas. The section can be expanded to add any details covered by the specific Hamas article. I think that would be actually the most neutral and fair option. Even people on Israel's side should agree with this, since the article will appear more heavily weighted against Israel the more evidence against Israel shows up and the larger the Israel section of the article grows. Tashmetu (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support The only logical alternative would be the tit for tat creation of Use of human shields by the IDF, which seems unnecessary when there has been a long standing article covering both sides.Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. These are closely related concepts that are better covered in a single article, especially since the two are going to be frequently compared to one another in a way that would be redundant across two articles. While articles about the same concept across different parties aren't inherently POV forks, they likely would be in this case if they're created separately (see Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse and its tit-for-tat Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse for an example of how not to do this). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an ample amount of sources that allows this article to meet WP:DUE independently. A merge is not necessary and would only obscure a well-researched subject. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support separate page. I agree with @Hogo-2020 that a merge is not necessary. It would condense way too much information into one article. That being said, I think the Israeli use of human shields is itself something that could be WP:DUE its own article - there is decades of information on the topic and I don't think it would be a WP:POVFORK to do so provided the new article does not spend time comparing itself with this or other articles. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also agree with Hogo-2020. there is no reason to cram excessive information into a single article. Whizkin (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This article is ~4,300 words; thus it is not WP:TOOBIG.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I also have no problem with two separate articles, though I think one article is slightly better as it allows for content on comparing the two. It makes no sense to maintain an article for I-P generally and also a separate article for just one side. Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  But we already have that single top-level article - Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. All this proposal will achieve is to make it much longer. Whizkin (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hence, the argument that I made:

  It makes no sense to maintain an article for I-P generally and also a separate article for just one side.

  Bitspectator ⛩️ 11:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support for a number of reasons, including some mentioned above. One reason that has thus far not been mentioned is: Hamas's positioning its military assets in civilian areas is often directly compared to Israel doing the same. Several sources here make that comparison, including a scholarly publication by Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, which is probably the highest quality source on the topic that we have. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support merge, pr nominator,Huldra (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Support most of the human shields accusations thrown at Hamas are accusations of them hiding behind civilians in the literal meaning (which has not been proven in any way shape or form), or tiptoey definitions such as them dressing as civilians (fair) and using civilian buildings (also dubious, proven by the two raids on Al Shifa which gave no conclusive proof of Hamas presence or usage as a base)

compare this to the idf whose article is lacking, despite them using civilians in the literal way, intentionally disguising themselves as civilians (ibn Cena hospital raid), using hospitals as military bases (Turkish friendship hospital) and other means of human shields, like using Palestinian civilians as cannon fodder by sending them to booby trapped tunnels and homes, even dressing them in IDF uniforms at that The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support merging, both of the topics are covered together in a large number of sources. I suppose there can be this parent and a child article for both sets of accusations, but Israel has been long-accused of using human shields and a NPOV way of treating the topic of human shields in the conflict is to cover both sets in a single article. nableezy - 15:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. An attempt to merge two different topics is not a good idea. Israeli–Palestinian conflict doesn't involve just Hamas but others. Hamas is notable for it's terror acts and deserves a separate article based on many RS. No need to try to hide it in the broader subject. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Hamas has been recognized by the international community as a terrorist group. The same is not true for Fatah, nor for the Israeli government. Hamas's use of human shields is therefore separate from the non-terrorist use of human shields. I would support a move to Use of human shields by the Israel Defense Forces. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The international community does not recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The majority of democratic nations do so. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? Your argument is entirely personal opinion, that somehow a crime in international law is different when committed by a "terrorist group" as opposed to by a state. The laws of war cover all combatants, states or non-states alike. nableezy - 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

“The majority of democratic nations” is not the international community The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)'

Since people have had issues with my oppose, I will clarify (side note: this RFC should probably be closed as no action due to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1262114028). First, Use of human shields by Hamas is over 70,000 bytes, and this article is almost as large. Merges should not be performed when there is a large body of sources treating the two topics as separate, unless the articles are exceptionally small. Furthermore, almost all sources in each article refer only to the use of human shields by a given side: in this article, the IDF, in the other article, Hamas. This shows that in the media and in academia, the use of human shields by the IDF and by Hamas are considered separate; therefore we should follow suit, and have two separate articles: one titled Use of human shields by Hamas, and the other titled Use of human shields by the IDF. Finally, other articles on this same topic have the same naming convention: I speak here of the pair of articles, Hamas war crimes and Israeli war crimes. There is no one article called War crimes in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, just like there should be none here. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the “Hamas human shields” in the article are mere accusations, and in fact it seems much of the article is dedicated to actual disproving the usage of human shields by Hamas with how many investigations by third parties (UN, HRW, amnesty international) were actually unable to reveal conclusive evidence of this supposed phenomenon

Compare this to the usage of human shields by the IDF in the article. Not only does it follow the arbitrary criteria they claim Hamas is using (civilian buildings as bases) but also using it in the literal sense, putting civilians in front of them, or using them as cannon fodder or bait when investigating booby traps. In some cases, the civilians are even dressed in IDF uniform so that when if is a Hamas ambush they are the ones who will be targeted, not the soldiers that use them as shields. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support: There is no cause for the existence of this undue POV split outside of the parent article Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is no benefit in covering the topic from the perspective of an exceptionally narrow POV framing outside of the broader context of the parent page, which addresses the conflict as a whole. On the contrary, having the material on a separate page and only summarised on the parent page denudes the parent of important content and context, and for no reason, since the parent is not even that long. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure about that the quote from WP:PAGEDECIDE applies here. There is no relationship between the use of human shields by Hamas (using civilian buildings as cover and in general waging war in a way to maximise own civilian casualties and thus generate more support for their cause) and the use of human shields by Israel (embedding enemy civilians into their units to reduce the likelihood of being attacked). There is very little in common and no real reason to discuss both in the same article.

Two articles are considered POV forks if they discuss the same topic from two different POVs. Alaexis_¿question? 13:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There absolutely is a relationship between the two; we are discussing the same crime within the same conflict, committed by both parties involved. Your belief that one group is more justified than the other doesn't change that fact. Referring to civilians as "enemy civilians" is simply obscene, it fosters dehumanization and justification for harmful actions against them, while purposefully obscuring the fact that Israel uses ordinary civilians (some of them children) as human shields, something that has been thoroughly documented for years. It's surprising that you see this as less morally wrong. Even if you were completely correct in your interpretation of Hamas actions my initial point remains valid: both groups are committing the same crime within the same broader conflict. Therefore, there is no valid reason to avoid discussing the two in the same article. - Ïvana (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not justifying either. Where did you read in my comment that I see one as less morally wrong? My point was that while this is claimed to be the same crime, the modus operandi is different and a joint article would simply consist of two disjoint parts. Alaexis_¿question? 18:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Alaexis weighed in on the moral dimension. That's rather outside the scope. But in terms of your argument that "both groups" - well, there are more than 2 groups. For example, PLO is not the same as Hamas. Andre🚐 19:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just want to say that Use of human shields by Hamas is not a WP:POVFORK, it predates the parent so it's not a fork at all. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Andre🚐 20:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Both this and the other are in fact child articles of Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict, except that this is a proper child and the other is POV driven. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx we judge something as a POVFORK by two things: (1) massive overlap and (2) a one-sided presentation of the topic. If someone rushes to create a POVFORK, that doesn't make it a non-POVFORK.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Since forking is about the creation process, I don't think an article can retroactively become a fork (POV or not) based on overlap with a newer article. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's impossible for this to have been a fork of any kind since it predates the article people are incorrectly claiming it is a fork of. Andre🚐 17:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It was actually split off of Human shield#Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so still a POV fork, just from there. nableezy - 15:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is absurd that this article exists.....while Use of human shields by the IDF is still red-linked, as the use by IDF is far more common, and well-documented. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)