Talk:Human shield/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

False allegations by Israel

Should we make room to acknowledge prominent examples of false accusations of human shield use by Israel against Palestinians? In the last war between Israel and Hamas, Israeli minister Ofir Gendelman and the IDF official account on Twitter both spread fake videos to suggest that Hamas was launching rockets from residential streets. Now-PM Naftali Bennett also filmed a video where he accused Hamas of using a Gaza hospital as a base, but the picture he showed in his video was that of a hospital in Pakistan. Both instances were prominent enough they were discussed and debunked on mainstream media:

• https://news.sky.com/story/footage-from-syria-in-2018-among-inaccurate-videos-circulating-about-israel-gaza-conflict-12305589
• https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/bennett-wrongly-uses-photo-of-pakistani-hospital-instead-of-gaza-medical-center/

Palestinian nurse Rouzan al-Najjar was also defamed as a "Hamas human shield" by the Israeli government after her death, and the Israeli attempt to tar her image with corrupt footage was also exposed and criticized on the media:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-protests-latest-idf-condemned-edited-video-angel-of-mercy-medic-razan-al-najjar-a8389611.html
• https://theintercept.com/2018/06/08/israel-attempts-smear-razan-al-najjar-palestinian-medic-killed-calling-no-angel/

Peleio Aquiles (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Editwarring

I added this to summarize the two sections that follow, a broad overview that was lacking.

It was reverted by an IP engaged in violating the ARBPIA restrictions. The edit summary was neither here nor there, moreover, flagwaving without substance and false assertions. I.e.

(WP:Cherrypicking one-sided summary that is completely inappropriate based on biased opinion articles. Let readers decide for themselves based on information and sources available in article.) (undo) (Tags: Undo, references removed, Reverted)

All untrue. The source has a whole chapter on human shield. Editors cannot dismiss RS because they dislike the statements in them, as mere opinions’ . The material in the article is itself cherrypicked, for the case against Palestinians is based on numerous claims, none of which have been verified by neutral external authorities, a series of opinions/hearsay. The Israeli Supreme Court, and independent NGOs have all confirmed numerous cases of the IDF using Palestinians as human shields, on the other hand.

It was duly restored because the three sources used are impeccably RS-compliant.

It was again excised with the edit summary

remove unreliable source. the comparison between Israeli and Gazan casualties misrepresents the human shield claim)

1. 2 sources were removed, not one. 2.All are RS, Finkelstein exceptionally so. 3. What is mean by the Israeli/Gazan casualty comparison being misrepresented is obscure. Those are the ratios in Finkelstein, who has a whole chapter on the ‘human shield’ accusation.

This is again WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, nothing else. All these removalist claims are unfocused, generic and therefore without substance. There are real problems with the article, such as positioning the British use of Palestinians in 1936-9 as human shields (the first case was in September 1936 when the Brits used the mayor of Nablus as a shield) out of chronological sequence (it should be between the two world wars), and restricting the I/P phenomena of human shields to the 21st century, etc. It is a practice that goes back to the beginning of the occupation (whose practices almost always mimic the abuses of 1936-9. (Charles Anderson, When Palestinians Became Human Shields: Counterinsurgency,Racialization, and the Great Revolt(1936–1939) Comparative Studies in Society and History 2021;63(3):625–654.

I.e. Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli security forces have repeatedly used Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip as human shields, ordering them to perform military tasks that risked their lives. As part of this policy, soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to remove suspicious objects from roads, to tell people to come out of their homes so the military can arrest them, to stand in front of soldiers while the latter shoot from behind them, and more. The Palestinian civilians were chosen at random for these tasks, and could not refuse the demand placed on them by armed soldiers.

Therefore this material should be shifted up back to the 20th century in the IP area.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Law for Palestine" is a partisan NGO, it is not a reliable source for facts stated in Wikipedia's voice. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Says who? nableezy - 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Says their web site [1] Inf-in MD (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont see where that says anything about Wikipedia. You also neglect to mention you removed a book published by University of California Press. Wonder why. nableezy - 21:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not reliable by default, and there's good reason to think that a partisan NGO is not reliable for facts stated in Wikipedia's voice. But you can take it to a noticeboard if you'd like. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, you forgetting you deleted a book published by the University of California Press under the guise of removing an unreliable source? Or do you think that sneakily removing sources you dislike is something best left undiscussed? nableezy - 16:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

pro-palestinian academics

Besides the obviously nonsensical claim that an editor decides who is "pro-Palestinian" or what that even means, the second source cited here is this peer-reviewed journal article published by University of California Press. What it says is Despite the fact that countless journalists and others refuted these allegations and despite the fact that it has since been established that Israel has continued its own practice of using Palestinians as human shields, Israel’s vocal allegation was repeated ceaselessly. That is, a reliable source saying that Israel's charges on Palestinians becoming human shields due to Hamas' actions have been refuted by countless journalists. Ill be rephrasing this little bit of well-poisoning in a bit. nableezy - 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require an editor to decide that a Palestinian group called "Law For Palestine", that describes its goal as "to spread awareness and spark discussion regarding the Palestinian cause", or that the "former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization" is "pro-Palestinian". In contrast, a special kind of POV-pushing editing is required to misleadingly describe such a group or person as "independent". Inf-in MD (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, the other source is a peer reviewed journal article. You can continue with this tactic of combining everything in to the Law For Palestine source, but as with Finkelstein's UC Press published book and as with this journal article you are very transparently doing so in the hopes that nobody realizes that you are removing or poisoning the well of impeccable sources. Ill be adding considerably more on this topic in the meantime, likewise sourced to impeccable sources. One of these days you're gonna learn that trying to knock out things you know are true will backfire when the material starts really getting attention from anybody motivated to research it. Oh, I asked you a question in the section above. You declined to answer it. Funny how that works. nableezy - 21:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is that we know, from the Israeli Supreme Court cases, that Israel repeatedly used Palestinians as human shields in the Second Intifada. Even were it the case that Hamas does so, no independent body has ever corroborated the Israeli accusation. We can't do a balancing act between a known fact and a supposition (which has an infinite amount of google meme articles repeating the charge). Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ETH Zurich article

The use here is silly, it has one mention of Hamas, and it cites nothing for that mention. And no, that is not some 2013 report, it is a news article in its Security Watch section by Michael Newton. I dont think that throwaway line is needed here, and views on Hamas and launching attacks from populated areas are already represented by much better sources. Im removing it. nableezy - 01:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, I don't see any policy-based argument here. Alaexis_¿question? 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Alaexis_¿question? 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The policy based argument is that this is both misrepresented in the text and fails WEIGHT. nableezy - 17:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The one liner there in any case is just a meme.

"there is now overwhelming evidence that Hamas has used civilian houses, schlools, and other protected places in the Gaza Strip to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel

'overwhelming evidence'? There is overwhelming evidence that this charge has been dusted off and repeated for 2 decades by Israel, during the conflict. There is zero evidence, in the view of international NGOs who have taken the Israeli indications and researched them, for such a practice. As Newton was confidently posting his remark, Amnesty International (July 15) stated that so far no such evidence exists. So it is a POV. The only function here seems to be to cite prestigious security sources for the claim, when they assert it is a fact. Institutional name dropping in short.

Amnesty then went on to follow up the Israel IDF assertions for a year, and came out with a report that states:

Amnesty International has not been able to verify specific statements which the Israeli authorities have cited as made by Hamas officials during the hostilities encouraging civilians in Gaza to ignore IDF warnings to evacuate.128 However, the reported statements were directed to civilians in general or in large geographic areas; for example, Ministry of Interior spokesperson Iyad al-Buzm’s call on people “in all parts of the Strip to ignore the warnings… as these are part of a psychological warfare”. Public statements referring to entire areas do not amount to directing specific civilians to remain in their homes in order to render fighters, munitions or military equipment in specific locations immune from Israeli attacks. Thus, while potentially of concern, such statements would not constitute the use of “human shields”. There are no bomb shelters or protective facilities for Gaza’s 1.8 million people, and no place in the Strip was truly safe during the hostilities. In some cases, the warnings issued by the Israeli military did not specify safe evacuation routes, and in many cases, civilians who tried to evacuate came under Israeli fire. In these circumstances, the Hamas authorities instructing civilians in the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes could have been out of concern for their safety or a desire to avoid further panic. It cannot be presumed that the intention of any such statements by the authorities was to use civilians to prevent the targeting of specific military objectives by Israeli forces.'Unlawful and deadly rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel Conflict,' Amnesty International March 2015 pp.47-49

So Newton's remark has no weight, being a personal viewpoint that fails to come to grips with any evidence. (The same goes for the mindless NATO paper, -all meme reproduction from IDF handouts) but at least it pretends to be research so it passes.

The more I edit here the more I tend to think that all articles should just be boiled down to statistical data, timelines and secondary analytical studies/overviews.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Amnesty International's claims, it is certainly true that "there is now overwhelming evidence that Hamas has used civilian houses, schlools, and other protected places in the Gaza Strip to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel." Check this article from the Washington Post.

The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.”

RafaelJC12 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is still not a policy-based argument. You prefer one NGO (which is much more famous but not necessarily more reliable) to another and say that the position of the latter does not deserve to be in the article at all. I guess we'll need an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 18:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No. It is a policy based argument. This is an encyclopedia not a dropspot for careless snippets of opinion. It is not a matter of preference for AI either. They at least take care to make close enquiries on the ground afterwards, rather than recycle army handouts circulated in real time (in battle - check the dates), as Newton did. If we get a source which corroborates independently the IDF's assertions, that would constitute an eminently solid counter-source to Amnesty. In our choice of material we are advised to select the best available sources, not just any opinion which, in this case, arises without (as Harel's remark) evidence. The only encyclopedic way through the immense Nacht und Nebel of war propaganda (in which both sides engage) is to look at serious secondary studies. Newton's source, as Nableezy explained, fails such criteria. It is cited for the prestige of the Institute, not for any cogency of argument, of which it contains none. This is piddling, for far better sources do exist. Okay. I'll do your work for you for once. The same writer gives both sides of the argument ('claims') in his more cautious co-authored book of the same year Michael A. Newton, Larry May, Proportionality in International Law, Oxford University Press 2014 ISBN 978-0-199-35503-7 pp.219-220. He is undoubtedly far more guarded in his remarks there, though he espouses the Israeli official line (legitimately), than he is in the stupid comment quoted above, stupid because it is counter-factual ('overwhelming' evidence does not exist for the claim,) not only in terms of AI, but also B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, and numerous scholars who actually check claims, something he didn't. When a generic claim is strongly contested by a large number of sources known to analyse and verify on the ground the accusations, it cannot responsibly be asserted to be a fact. That book source by Newton and May alone may be usable here, duly nuanced to reflect what Newton and his Vanderbilt Uni colleague say apropos (Newton's background is in legal work as an officer in the US army).Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think this accurately portrayed the source? You claimed that this was a study by the ETH, when in fact it is not, it is an article by one person. And the entirety of the coverage that source provides is the line that is quoted in its entirety, that "There is now overwhelming evidence that Hamas has used civilian houses, schools, and other protected places in the Gaza Strip to launch indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel." That is the only place Hamas or Gaza is mentioned at all, and there is no citation given for it. And you think that you making things up by claiming that this was a study by the ETH needs an RFC? I mean sure, up to you. But there are actual sources that deal with this in depth, not give a throwaway line with no sourcing and no explanation. nableezy - 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The bit from Amos Harel is also very poorly presented. The entirety of what he says in that news article is

The photographs from recent operations show that the armed Palestinians use the many civilians in the area, including children, as a "human shield." Since this is done routinely, harming children (some, it is possible, by Palestinian fire) becomes almost impossible to prevent. Nevertheless, Israel does not consider it a reason not to conduct these raids.

There are much better sources to present the Israeli argument here, using this devalues the point honestly. nableezy - 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

“ The claim that people are being used as human shields is frequently invoked by many countries to exonerate their military forces from blame when schools, hospitals and other institutions are targeted for bombing, causing notable casualties among the civilian population. These claims assert that the adversaries in question deliberately deploy arms near civilians in order to protect their military personnel and installations. ”

Nableezy, Selfstudier, can you provide references for this? Also, what justifies putting it in the lede? Alaexis_¿question? 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You could remove just that bit without reverting the rest of the changes. Here, Ill do it for you. nableezy - 19:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Alaexis_¿question? 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The headings in the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section is a mess

I wonder if there is someone willing to fix it.RafaelJC12 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I probably could but you might not like the result. What did you have in mind? Selfstudier (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think some brilliant editor has already done this before. He put everything related to Hamas and Israel as subsections of "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and removed repetitions (like the "Palestine" and "Allegations regarding Palestinians" sections), put "Israel" outside "Allegations regarding Palestinians", and so on. RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Claims from Amnesty Internation, 2015

“ In 2015, Amnesty International condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church and at least one hospital. They also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets “very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.” According to Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International, "evidence suggesting that a rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group may have caused 13 civilian deaths inside Gaza underscores how indiscriminate these weapons can be and the dreadful consequences of using them". He also stated that "the devastating impact of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians during the conflict is undeniable, but violations by one side in a conflict can never justify violations by their opponents." ”

This should be added to the Palestine section. RafaelJC12 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The sourcing needs to say that this is human shielding. AI does not do that, at least it does not in what youve quoted here. nableezy - 00:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So then we should apply the same criteria to other sources too. This article doesn't use the words "human shield" too, shall we remove it? Alaexis_¿question? 14:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it is frequently the case that an allegation is made without specific use of the term (eg as in Hamas launched rockets from places containing or near civilians). However any allegation should usually be compared with the response in each case (proportionality etc). Israeli sources will frequently discuss the allegation while downplaying the response.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed content

“ Amnesty International stated that Hamas violated international humanitarian law: "[Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups] launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire". ”

I've reviewed the Amnesty report and it does not explicitly say everything that is written here (I should have checked it before restoring it). Still, it does say that "Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups at times launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes" so I think this part should be retained. Alaexis_¿question? 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire section needs to be rewritten honestly. There are way better sources than whats used for the Hamas using human shields bit, including this Amnesty report. The ETH piece doesnt belong as it is just a throwaway line, the Amos Harel bit too. I started gathering sources for accusations against Palestinian groups, can list them here and share if you are interested. But in general I think the entire section on Israel and Palestine needs to be rewritten. nableezy - 19:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That quote should be restored exactly as it is. The study explicitly confirms what I wrote. (I used the wrong link before, this is the correct PDF, not that "Facts and Figures" version) RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because you don't like "the Amos Harel bit too", doesn't mean you should remove it, that's censorship. The source is reliable and it backs up the text. RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You're reading the wrong document (I accidentally liked a "Facts and Figures" version of the real study). The correct link shows this document, the full study, that explicitly says everything that is written there. In pp.3-4, it says:

“ Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups also violated international humanitarian law in their conduct within Gaza. They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. They also used empty homes and properties as combat positions during armed confrontations with Israeli forces, exposing the inhabitants of nearby houses to the danger of attacks or of being caught in the crossfire. ”

RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Then yes, it should be fully restored. RafaelJC12, I think you cannot edit this page per WP:PIA since you have less than 500 edits. Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it should not be, as AI does not call this human shielding. This is being presented as though Amnesty is parroting the Israeli claim that this is human shielding when they explicitly say that it is not. What the report on 2014 actually says is:

Several of these actions which have been discussed above, such as storing munitions in civilian buildings or launching attacks from the vicinity of civilian buildings, violate the obligation to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attacks. But they do not necessarily amount to the specific violation of using “human shields” under international humanitarian law, which entails “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.” The practices most commonly condemned as such have involved actually moving civilians to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.”

The report cited above contains this bit:

However, contrary to repeated allegations by Israeli officials of the use of “human shields”, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas or other Palestinian fighters directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks. It found no evidence that Hamas or other armed groups forced residents to stay in or around buildings used by fighters, nor that fighters prevented residents from leaving buildings or areas which had been commandeered by militants.

Distorting a source to claim it says something that it explicitly rejects is not acceptable. nableezy - 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"This is being presented as though Amnesty is parroting the Israeli claim that this is human shielding" JESUS CHRIST! Could you ever be more dishonest?

As I've told you before, if you want to contextualize information, do it, but stop censoring. The accusations against Hamas, that they're violating international law by endangering civilians, is the whole reason why we're talking about them in this article. RafaelJC12 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not why. Why I am removing the Amnesty piece is that this article is not about violations of international law. It is about human shields. It is an Israeli allegation that Hamas uses human shields by doing things like launching rockets from densely populated areas. Amnesty International explicitly rejects that claim. But you, in saying that AI supports the claim by including what they say are not human shielding actions in a section on using human shields, are in fact distorting the source. AI explicitly rejects the argument you are treating them as supporting. And yes, you may not edit the article. Stop doing that. nableezy - 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If I was arguing with anybody else, I would explain that my text very explicitly clarifies that AI is not agreeing with IDF, but I know that you already know that, and I know that there's no point arguing with you. RafaelJC12 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article later shows that AI rejects the charge. The article already showed that. Putting in a bunch of things that the source says is not human shielding in an article on human shields is an attempt to prove your own point, WP:OR. Material about Hamas using human shields need to directly be about Hamas using human shields. We cover war crimes by Hamas, here and elsewhere, so the idea that I am trying to censor that material is silly. But this article is about human shields, not other war crimes. Finally, how does an account with now 79 edits know anything about me? nableezy - 21:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(a) The article doesn't later show that "AI rejects the charge" citing the this study, by which I mean, the one about the 2008-2009 war. It cites other studies, about other conflicts. (b) If you still, somehow, think this information should be omitted, just because another study about another conflict said something similar, you should also delete the "An Amnesty International document (dated July 25, 2014)..." passage, for the sake of coherence.

I suggest treating different conflicts and different studies separately, and restore de deleted content. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Both the 2008 and the 2014 reports have AI rejecting that Hamas used human shields. I quoted both. nableezy - 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Then also quote both studies about Hamas's violation of international law, that my point. You want to censor the AI's accusations against Hamas in the 2009 report just because another report said something similar, but you don't mind the similarities when writing that AI said they don't "have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to 'shield' specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks". You either keep both studies, mentioning both the violations of the international law AND the claim that Hamas didn't use human shields, or you keep only one. You can't cite both to repeat the part that you like, but omit one of them when it comes to the part you dislike. Just restore the removed content already, there's no reasonable/coherent argument to omit it. RafaelJC12 (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about other violations of international law. What dont you get about that? AI's position on Hamas' violation of international law is copiously detailed on Wikipedia. here are details on Hamas violations in 2008, Here is 2014. But this article is specifically about human shields, not other violations. nableezy - 00:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Drsmoo your edit is OR as discussed here. The material on things not human shields does not belong in this article. nableezy - 03:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

No, restoring a full quote from a reliable source is not original research. Drsmoo (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

“It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.” - https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docindex/v1_rul_rule97

“They launched rockets and located military equipment and positions near civilian homes, endangering the lives of the inhabitants by exposing them to the risk of Israeli attacks. ” - Amnesty International

The only point of ambiguity is that Amnesty states that these “do not necessarily” amount to human shields. In other words, they leave the issue open ended, which is why the full quote/section should be included. Only including half of it is misleading, as the full statement was composed with intentionality. Drsmoo (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

From Strife Journal (The Academic Journal of the Department of War Studies at King's College, London): https://www.strifejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/STRIFE_10_02_DRAY_14_23.pdf

“ The Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenceless Shields Act

In its report from March 2015 about the 50-day war in Gaza, Amnesty International focused on the Islamist militant group Hamas and other armed factions in Gaza. It concluded: ‘The military wing of Hamas committed war crimes, by indiscriminately firing unguided rockets and mortar rounds from civilian areas in Gaza at population centres in Israel.’22 The report condemned Palestinian militias for storing munitions in, and launching rockets from, schools, mosques, a Greek Orthodox church, and at least one hospital. Amnesty also reported that the militias launched attacks and stored rockets ‘very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.’ … While numerous reports of NGOs and UN and European Parliament resolutions were condemning the use of human shields (especially by Hamas), no coercive measures have been taken against entities that were using human shields. Despite the condemnation of the use by those terrorist organisations of civilian populations as human shields, the international community has been powerless to take efficient measures that significantly impact the practices of these groups. An early lesson that arose from the Nuremberg Trials highlighted the need to mould legal instruments to current problems: ‘[the] law is not static, but by continual adaption follows the needs of a changing world.’25 Do we thus need to adapt to meet the challenge of ISIS’s, Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s use of human shields?“ Drsmoo (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it absolutely is OR if the source does not connect the topics. That is the most basic understanding of WP:SYNTH. When AI specifically says this is not human shielding, you cannot use them to say that these are examples of Hamas using human shields. I will be correcting this misinformation. nableezy - 18:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "the source does not connect the topics"? Those are two consecutive paragraphs, they're directed connected, so much so that the second paragraph begins with the word "However." This is an adversative conjunction, that is, it's connecting clauses and establishing an adversative relation. This means that if you only use the second paragraph you're omitting context, since the word "However" loses its meaning. So it's not OR and they're definitely not unrelated, as you tried to argue. You have been refuted and I rest my case. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You might be better off making your case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, there is a blank space waiting there just for you:) Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Well they are connected in that the connection is explicitly rejected. You cannot take AI saying Hamas did these things that are not "human shielding" and then include it here following a sentence saying Hamas has been accused of using human shields by a number of sources. It is an absurd thing that you are attempting, and what Drsmoo is doing, to take a source that explicitly says these actions are not examples of using human shields and present it as though it were. nableezy - 19:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"do not necessarily" != "explicitly rejected". I'm curious to know your definition of the phrase "not necessarily"? Merriam-Webster defines it as "possibly but not certainly". When Amnesty gives a list of actions by Hamas involving firing weapons from amongst their civilian population, and then writes that this is "not necessarily" the specific violation of Human shields, they are saying that these examples are "possibly but not certainly" examples of that crime. Incidentally, a peer-reviewed academic journal from King's College (linked above), uses that same paragraph from that same Amnesty report as an example of the use of human shields by Hamas. Drsmoo (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

As I commented below, the allegation is often made without explicit use of the term. This is the case described by Gordon/Perugeni, they use the term "proximate shields" to describe humans being framed as shields merely due to their proximity to belligerents eg as above " 'very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.'" In other words, no coercion and not voluntary either, followed by a discursive segue...shields by virtue of proximity. I will put this opinion in the legal section shortly.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Palestinians

Obviously there's going to be argument on anything to do with Israel/Palestine so can we sort out key points here:

1. Amensty and the UN fact finding mission report and independent journalists seem to be the major sources supporting the idea that Palestinians do not use human shields whereas the IDF and ITIC say they do. Given AI and the UN are global independent organisations and the IDF and ITIC are not neutral on the subject can we give weight to the premise that Palestinians are not used as human shields while still presenting the IDFs and ITICs view (unless of course there is evidence to the contrary)
2. There seems to be a few different parts to this, can we keep them generally but not strictly separate from each other. The parts I see:

• Claims Palestinians were forced to stay as human shields
• Militants fighting from or near and using civilian infrastructure
• Volunteers (not necessarily Palestinians) like Rabbis for Human Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filter23 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Add "See also" link on the Hamas/Palestine section

The Wikipedia article about Hamas#Human shields has a great section about human shields. We should add a "See Also" link to it. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of it reads like an IDF/IMoFA press release. The usual, allegations of proximate shields, hospital shields etc being used to justify the response, said response frequently being disproportionate bombing of densely populated civilian areas, hospitals, etc. I have made a note to self to remedy some of the non NPOV there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Palestinians

As there a already some reverts here on the Palestinians section I thought here would be a good place to discuss rather than have an edit war or plain vandalism --2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filter23 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Add quote from Sami Abu Zuhri prasing human shields

“ In 2014, Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesperson, said, in an interview to their TV station, Al-Aqsa TV, that the tactic of using Gaza residents as human shields is praiseworthy and effective against Israel: “The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests in order to protect their homes has proven effective against the occupation,” he tells the interviewer. “Also, this policy reflects the character of our brave, courageous people. We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy, in order to protect the Palestinian homes.” ”

I think this could be added. RafaelJC12 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks. It reminds me of What King George and his wife did. The palace grounds were bombed 9 times: they refused to budge - and by doing so, the Nazis appear not to have attempted a direct hit on the palace itself - set an example for Londoners. As his spouse put it: “I am glad we have been bombed. It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face.” Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In short, using human shields stricto sensu means ringing in, mustering enemy combatants, civilians by force of arms and threats, to form a circle to protect their own enemy's assets. It does not mean, per those titles, a governing authority encouraging one's own people to face down the enemy and put their PR claim about caring to avoid civilian casualties to the test.Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A human shield is a non-combatant (or a group of non-combatants) who either volunteers or is forced to shield a legitimate military target in order to deter the enemy from attacking it. RafaelJC12 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally try to avoid WP:FORUM, but could you elaborate on the difference between putting "their PR claim about caring to avoid civilian casualties to the test" as opposed to, per the definition, "an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives"? By your logic, there are only two outcomes of the "test". Either the strike is averted due to caring to avoid civilian casualties, in which case, the presence of the civilians successfully shielded the attackers, and Hamas is able to fire rockets perpetually and with impunity. Or, those firing rockets from amongst civilians are attacked, civilians are killed, and, in your own words, it damages the "PR" of those who fired the strike. In both outcomes, the rockets are fired from amongst the civilian population with the aim of using the civilian's lives as either a shield or a PR tool. Choosing the location of your rockets to deliberately force your adversaries to make a moral choice, with civilians lives on the line, does seem to be a textbook definition of human shields. Particularly when, as Amnesty clearly noted, there is plenty of open space in Gaza from which they could have fired. Per the Red Cross "The term “human shields” describes a method of warfare prohibited by IHL where the presence of civilians or the movement of the civilian population, whether voluntary or involuntary, is used in order to shield military objectives from attack, or to shield, favor or impede military operations." Drsmoo (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

I addressed this already, the usual thing nowadays is not to use the term directly, instead to imply it ("near to"), not coerced. Occupier vs occupied is not armed conflict in the usual sense. The legal aspects are conceivably unclear (according to some) but application of the morality test yields a clear cut answer, two wrongs don't make a right.Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

copyvio removal

Per Earwig. —valereee (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)