Jump to content

Talk:Israeli war crimes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Human Rights Abuses

To be clear, does 'Allegations of war crimes against Israel' mean, Reports of crimes carried out by Israel, or, Reports of crimes carried out against Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.22.247 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Rename it

Renaming it will certainly focus on the confirmed war crimes. The unconfirmed can be labeled as such. 2003:ED:1F44:EA00:7DB4:78D9:271B:7ED8 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion above. It should have been closed yesterday, but no one seems willing to close it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Significant misrepresentation of citation in first paragraph of 2023 war.

"Numerous allegations of war crimes were levied against Israel for its actions against civilians during its 2023 war with Hamas. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory stated there was "already clear evidence" of war crimes and would share evidence with judicial authorities, including the International Criminal Court's authorities currently investigating war crimes committed in the Occupied Territories."

This paragraph clearly indicates that the UN commission had clear evidence of Israeli war crimes. Yet their statement does not state they had evidence of war crimes perpetrated by Israel. 37.29.154.115 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

“We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. ... “This amounts to collective punishment,” the UN experts said. “There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.”

There is already clear evidence that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violence in Israel and Gaza, and all those who have violated international law and targeted civilians must be held accountable for their crimes, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, said today ... The Commission is gravely concerned with Israel’s latest attack on Gaza and Israel’s announcement of a complete siege on Gaza involving the withholding of water, food, electricity and fuel which will undoubtfully cost civilian lives and constitutes collective punishment. nableezy - 03:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Manipulative misrepresentation and hiding of absolute facts

The initial paragraph initially said:

Over the course of several decades, the Israel Defense Forces, the military branch of the state of Israel, has been subject to various allegations of war crimes. The government of Israel has denied any wrongdoing, and neither Israel nor the IDF have never been formally charged with committing war crimes.[1]

This paragraph has been edited to remove the *factual* sentence that is key - IDF has never been formally charged. The entire paragraph was written in a non-neutral way, to make it seem as if IDF *has* commited war-crimes, while again, it has never been formally charged. It is manipulative and attempting to present the situation as different than it is, as if it is factual that the IDF has committed war crimes, while it was never formally charged nor have these allegations been proven. In fact, the entire page does not including any mention of this fact - that IDF has never been charged or proven to have committed war crimes. Wikipedia, please be neutral and display facts. Let people make their own opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advance512 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They haven't been charged because Israel is not a signatory to the icc, does not recognise the icc and therefore any charge against them is futile. What they are doing does not pass any pub test. 58.179.91.109 (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Israel, citing 'bias,' won't cooperate with UN rights team". Associated Press. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
What do you think formally charged means for war crimes? What state is "formally charged" with war crimes? Israel has however been accused of war crimes by UN fact finding commissions, by the International Court of Justice, by human rights organizations, by academic sources. But Israel is not a member of the ICC, so until Palestine joined there was no formally charging Israel with anything. nableezy - 03:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a false claim. Here's an example from the article showing why:
In November 2010, two Givati Brigade Staff Sergeants were convicted by the Southern Command Military Court of using a Palestinian boy as a human shield. The soldiers had been accused of forcing nine-year-old Majed R. at gunpoint to open bags suspected of containing bombs in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood.
The statement that the government of Israel has denied any wrongdoing is not true, and very much misleading. Convicting, in this case, two of their own soldiers, is an affirmation of wrongdoing. Moreover, if you're talking about charges from the ICC, they charge individuals, not nation states or entire militaries.
Lastly, that claim isn't supported by the source provided. Most of what it discusses are Israel's refusals to cooperate with international investigations into its wartime conduct and treatment of Palestinians. The line ignored what the source actually said and wrote something else. entropyandvodka | talk 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Numerically, there is a majority of almost 2:1 in favour of the proposal here. And when evaluating the arguments made by the nominator and others, particularly around consistency with the names used for this topic in other countries, due weight issues and the observation that almost all states have been implicated in war crimes in one way or another, there is a convincing case made. The opposition votes focus mainly on the disputed nature of many of the claims of war crimes by Israel... but that was countered with the observation that the same is true for many other countries' pages, yet we have a consistent naming convention across all. Hence I see a consensus to move to the proposed title of Israeli war crimes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of war crimes against Israel → Israeli war crimes – The current title is against MOS:ALLEGED and WP:UNDUE. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, the High Contracting Parties to the Convention and the most lawyers have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories, it means that Israel has committed a war crime by building settlements. Also, other articles about war crimes of other countries do not use "allegations"; Like United States war crimes, German war crimes, Russian war crimes, British war crimes and Soviet war crimes. Update: So Hirsch Barenblat and Isser Be'eri who were convicted, is Israel claiming against itself? Parham wiki (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Support The word "against" in the title suggests Israel is the victim of "Alleged war crimes"by another party. In the current context of Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this title is totally misleading and can easily be interpreted as being about the opposite of what the article appears to be about. Besides, the article does not just cover the allegations it also deals with how the allegation made were prosecuted, so the article has gone beyond the scope of the title, suggesting the title is too restrictive, too. In the process of moving the article, I would recommend the title be deleted by moving the article without leaving a redirect. If a title is to be left, I would suggest it point somewhere else. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Ben5218 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Virtually no state involved in a large scale armed conflict has NOT been responsible for any war crimes (just murdering or torturing 1 person would qualify). The current title suggests that it is substantially disputed in RS that Israel has committed at least two war crimes, but this is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Here is why this subject is tricky. A lot of civilians are dying during any serious military conflict. What really makes the difference is only the intention by the side (Israel in this case). There are 3 different general situations here: (a) the side has intentionally targeted civilians as was established by an international court or just obvious (consider something like Hroza missile attack or Kremenchuk shopping mall attack), (b) it simply did not matter for the side if they attacked civilians or military (this is known as Indiscriminate attacks), or (c) some care has been arguably/possibly taken to minimize the civilian casualties, but there were multiple allegations of war crimes. From what I read on this subject, this is mostly case (c). My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of the situation. The UN fact finding mission showed cases of deliberate attacks on civilian buildings, the deliberate killing of civilians unlawfully designated as military targets, indiscriminate attacks that killed civilians, the deliberate shooting and killing of civilians in areas the IDF fully controlled (in some cases while civilians were waving white flags and attempting surrender), denial of medical treatment and evacuation of wounded civilians, intentional missile strikes against civilians, the use of human shields, detaining civilians and depriving them of food, water and sanitation, the degrading treatment of captured civilians, beatings and torture of captured civilians, to name a few.[1]
Many nation-states, as policy, take care, or claim to, to minimize the killing of civilians. And those nation states also commit war crimes. It may not have been US policy to commit the My Lai massacre, but the war crime was nonetheless committed. With the nature of some of the crimes I listed, intent isn't a reasonable legal defense. It's hard to argue shooting surrendering civilians, torturing and degrading treatment of detained civilians, or using civilians as human shields wasn't intentional. Given the (a)(b)(c) framework you outlined, there are clear cases of (a) and (b), and likely also cases of (c).
I think a more accurate characterization is that the international system is not effective at prosecuting war crimes, regardless in many cases of clear, documented facts of their commission. As for what is statable in Wiki voice, pointing again to My Lai as an example (as I'm sure we'd both agree this is a war crime), the opening sentence of the article states, in Wiki voice: "The My Lai massacre was a war crime committed by United States Army personnel on 16 March 1968, involving the mass murder of unarmed civilians in Sơn Tịnh district, South Vietnam, during the Vietnam War." It doesn't state it was an allegation of a war crime against the US Army, but only an actual war crime of William Calley, the only one convicted. entropyandvodka | talk 05:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, I am simply reading the lead of this page under discussion. The lead summarizes this page well, and the content of the page is well sourced. It says:
Over the course of several decades, the Israel Defense Forces, the military branch of the state of Israel, has been subject to various allegations of war crimes. The government of Israel has denied any wrongdoing, and neither Israel nor the IDF have ever been formally charged with committing war crimes.[1] Since 2021, however, the International Criminal Court has had an active investigation into allegations of Israeli war crimes committed in the Palestinian Occupied Territories....
Allegations. My very best wishes (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, the My Lai massacre was a war crime. Of course. But it was not by Israel. Something like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That would be pretty much (a) - see above.My very best wishes (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd argue that the first sentence there may be a misleading summary of the facts. While true that Israel has been the subject of many allegations of war crimes, there are numerous documented cases by the UN fact finding mission that have been recommended for prosecution. The report I linked shows clear cases of both (a) and (b), with recommendations for prosecutions.
It is an inconsistent standard to name other articles about other countries X war crimes, but stress they are merely allegations with respect to Israel. Many of the war crimes discussed in other articles are also technically in the legal state of allegations, simply because the international system is ineffective at pursuing charges, and the governments responsible often don't prosecute their own soldiers.
It is reasonable to discuss the nuance of all this in the article, but insufficient to qualify a special exception for the article's name. entropyandvodka | talk 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
To drive this point home further, do a cursory reading of the article on Russian war crimes, looking at the language used in Wiki voice and the actual content of the sources. Multiple times in its lead it makes statements in Wiki voice that directly assert Russia is guilty of war crimes, or state as a matter of fact that Russia committed war crimes (some of which heavily imply that issued statements or accusations are actual legal rulings). The sources used to support these lines are often the same or similar that assert Israel committed war crimes (such as the OHCHR). entropyandvodka | talk 17:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
In short, Wikipedia can't be used in the following way: When HRW issues a statement that Russia committed a war crime, it's a war crime, but when HRW issues a statement Israel committed a war crime, it's an allegation. entropyandvodka | talk 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
"When HRW issues..." You seem to base your judgement on statements by a single source, which is just one of many sources on the subject. I believe that summaries on both pages were more or less correct, even though they were different, simply because the content of the page about war crimes in Ukraine and the content of this page are very very much different. To put it simple, if Russian forces are conducting genocide in Ukraine, it does not mean that IDF does the same in Gaza. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
That was a rhetorical example to illustrate the problem with the broader practice readily observable by comparing these two articles, and you haven't refuted my point; there are numerous other sources making accusations than HRW.
In my view, it would be very inappropriate for the Russia article to have the second sentence shift the article's focus to a Russian denial of the allegations, or stress how relative few convictions these allegations yielded, yet this is precisely what the Israel article does. This is not for lack of allegations or lack of sources, but for undue weight and POV focus, the overall manner in which the article describes the topic. If it is acceptable to say "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recorded Russian war crimes", then it follows that we should state "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recorded Israeli war crimes" when both have made damning accusations against Israel. You can't, in wiki voice, take those two sources as recording facts in one case, but merely making allegations in another, when they're all, in fact, allegations made by those two sources. And again, these aren't the only two sources. entropyandvodka | talk 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
You say: and you haven't refuted my point; there are numerous other sources making accusations than HRW. Yes, exactly, there are many other sources making accusations. This only supports my point. As about examples of war crimes committed by other countries (USA and Russia), they are irrelevant here.My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Two Israelis were convicted of war crimes. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights have been classified as illegal (and therefore a war crime) by the institutions I mentioned above, as well as several highly respected human rights organizations, academic sources, and many legal scholars. That these are just "accusations" is false and a violation of WP:POVNAMING. Parham wiki (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
What can be stated in wiki voice when the sources are accusations or allegations by human rights groups and international bodies is very much relevant here; it is the inconsistency with this article's name compared to others that is central to the discussion, and why they were pointed out for comparison.
And, as @Parham wiki just pointed out, it's no longer just an allegation when it results in a conviction. The name is incompatible with those facts and must be changed accordingly. entropyandvodka | talk 19:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, similar articles about other countries' militaries do not characterize documented war crimes as "alleged." CJ-Moki (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, the articles should be neutral and/or show a neutral point of view, therefore the word "allegations" in the title can be characterized as one-sided and should be removed. Nori2001 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. Most, if not all, other articles concerning war crimes by a specific country are in the format "country" war crimes and not allegations of war crimes against "country". ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, the criminal allegations against individuals can't be stated as a matter of fact until proven, and not only because of BLP, but also because of WP:NPOV (BLP is based on NPOV). Ideally, the same should also apply to groups of people and nations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. I’m surprised at the votes of support—there is obviously no scholarly/historical/political consensus on the reality of Israel’s alleged war crimes. It’s a hotly-contested matter… so the matter should be presented as a dialogue, which it is. Zanahary (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Most war crimes are hotly contested, yet the naming of this particular article (and frankly some of the writing, but let's focus on the title first) is inconsistent with how other war crimes articles are handled when the subject is another country. Wikipedia must handle them all in line with its principles of a neutral point of view.
The implication of the title is that these are merely allegations, when coupled with the naming of articles like United States war crimes, Russian war crimes, etc. It implicitly makes a judgement on the issue. Given that the article even includes a section on prosecutions, with punishments and convictions, it is inappropriate for the title to imply all allegations of war crimes against Israel were no more than allegations. entropyandvodka | talk 21:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I received an email summons to this thread. The email goes Subject: Important vote. Body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_war_crimes_against_Israel#Requested_move_11_October_2023 They want to remove the attribution (aka allegations). Could you please also remove the parts in article where sources don't mention 'war crimes'? Iskandar323 would do exactly that if it was an article on Palestinian war crimes -- This email was sent by user "Randy Atkins" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randy_Atkins>) on the English Wikipedia to user "Orgullomoore". I believe strongly in transparency on Wikipedia. If this is not a violation of policy, it's my opinion that it's inappropriate because it could unfairly allow a user to secretly hand pick users he believes will support his argument and !vote the way he wants. For that reason, I will not participate in the move discussion (which I was not even aware of before receiving the secret summons).--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    User:L235 worth looking at this along with the set of Yaniv socks spamming accounts to vote in AFDs? Shocking development that other users who appear to have come after the email notification there are showing up here, but Im sure thats just totally above board and not related to the email canvassing. nableezy - 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
When did you receive the email summons? User:Randy_Atkins is a confirmed sockpuppet account of יניב_הורון. I think some of the Oppose votes after that email's date might not be organic but biased. Plus we have already reached a consensus and more than 7 days have passed. DemianStratford (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
DemianStratford On 19 October 2023 at 12:44 a.m. (CST).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Its absolutely gobsmacking that a number of editors who happen to attend a number of discussions that have had email canvassing confirmed show up here after email canvassing. Just astonishing (shocked pikachu face and everything so you can tell how non-sarcastic Im being). nableezy - 18:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's not a coincidence, this innocent talk is being bombarded with 'Oppose' votes by users who got that email telling them about the vote. Isn't this against the rules? Also, they even opened a new topic below for some reason. There's lots of weird things going on. Hey, User:Parham wiki, what do you think? Brigading, sockpuppets, cherrypicking users to influence a vote. I don't think that's good. DemianStratford (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@DemianStratford: It should be reported. Parham wiki (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like all the effort is paying off - I'm finally the talk of the town. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose For the time being, there is no consensus on the matter. Therefore, also the lack of refs to justify it and we need to keep following the WP:NPOV. Please don't turn wikipedia into another news media, supporting one side or the other, cause it will slowly loose credibility that way and we don't want it to happen Sunshine SRA (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies.
@Sunshine SRA: WP:UNDUE tells us that consensus is not necessarily needed, especially since the authoritative bodies I cited above have all indirectly confirmed that Israel committed war crimes. Parham wiki (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marokwitz: See WP:UNDUE Parham wiki (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This policy does not apply to naming. See WP:POVNAMING. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue . Having said that, the article should be renamed to 'Allegations of war crimes by Israel' as 'against' has a double meaning. Marokwitz (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
There's United States war crimes, Russian war crimes, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Italian war crimes, etc. It makes prefect sense that 'Israeli war crimes' also exists. Frankly, I don't see any convincing reason to oppose the title (it already existed, in fact). DemianStratford (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Compare the first sentence of this article to the first sentence of the Russian war crimes article:
Israel:
"Over the course of several decades, the Israel Defense Forces, the military branch of the state of Israel, has been subject to various allegations of war crimes."
Russia:
"Russian war crimes are the violations of the international criminal law including war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide which the official armed and paramilitary forces of the Russian Federation are accused of committing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991." (Bold added by me.)
Both of these sentences roughly establish the same thing: the military of X country has been accused of war crimes. The lead for the Russian article explicitly defines the term "Russian war crimes" to not only include allegations, but to ultimately be allegations.
Further, read the rest of the lead in the Russia article. It asserts in wiki voice that the same independent groups cited in the Israeli war crimes article (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the OHCHR, etc) have "recorded Russian war crimes", "documented Russian war crimes", "found Russia guilty of war crimes" (that particular one cites an issued statement by the OHCHR, not a legal ruling from a trial), "published a report finding Russia guilty of war crimes", etc. The same groups have issued statements, published reports, made determinations and so on that allege Israel committed war crimes, but much of the language in this article, and the name of the article, put undue focus on the allegations aspect, despite the article having a section on prosecutions, which includes punishments and convictions. The preferential treatment this article, and its name, affords Israel on this subject is a screaming violation of NPOV.
This is something that opponents of this name change have not yet addressed. I would remind them that this isn't a vote. It is an issue to be settled by force of argument. I would say that, thus far, nothing has been put forward to justify this disparity. If Wikipedia applied the standards being requested by opponents of the move to all other X war crimes articles, many, such as the Russia article, would look radically different.entropyandvodka | talk 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • This is not surprising because the actions by Russian army in Chechnya, Ukraine and Syria were very different from the actions by IDF so far. Hence the pages are different. Russian forces would not warn civilians to leave. During their war in Chechnya, their target #1 in every city/village was the mosque, their target #2 was the hospital. This is all described in a book by Khassan Baiev, for example. Targeting the civilian infrastructure is a hallmark of their operations in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
    Countries can, and regularly have, committed war crimes regardless of whether they "intend" to commit them or not. I doubt the article on Russian war crimes would read differently (nor should it) if Russia told people to leave ahead of time before bombing civilian infrastructure. XTheBedrockX (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No, it does make a lot of difference because it proves intention. Consider something like Hroza missile attack. Russian forces attacked a memorial service to kill 59 civilians and no any military. That was a precision strike with a powerful missile, and they had good intel: they knew exact time of the service. This is exactly opposite to making a warning, and it proves the intention to kill civilians. This is very different.My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@My very best wishes Let me ask you this: if Russia claimed they were Actually aiming at military targets (and didn't intent to bomb civilians), would this make the act of killing 59 civilians with an airstrike less bad? XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
That is exactly what Russian government says. But it is irrelevant here. What is relevant in the context of the ongoing war? The fact that a significant number of civilians (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) did move from the Northern section of Gaza (which soon will probably become a wasteland) to the South after the warning by IDF. Sure thing, a lot of civilians will still remain in the northern section. But as soon as such effort has been made by IDF to minimize the civilian casualties (making such announcement, not hitting the civilians like Russian forces did during the Hroza missile attack or as Hamas attackers did in Israel, etc.), Israel can reasonably argue that the death of civilians was not a war crime. Therefore, we should use wording "allegations" in the title - the subject of this discussion. Will the civilians be safe at the South of Gaza? Of course not. The actual issue and a potential war crime is that they are not allowed to completely leave the area of warfare, i.e. Gaza Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
So when the Russian government says it was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques, it isn't relevant and shouldn't be given weight, but when the Israeli government says it was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques, it is not only relevant, but should be so heavily weighted as to be due in the name of the article?
We have human rights groups asserting Israeli war crimes, as well as UN rapporteurs and others. Israel will argue it hasn't committed war crimes, but they're not a reliable source for making that determination, just as Russia isn't in their own case, nor should they be given undue weight. Imagine if the article on Russian war crimes gave as much attention and weight to Russia's defenses for its actions as this article does for Israel. We would probably both see a huge problem with that. entropyandvodka | talk 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
How much due weight should be given to Israeli and Russian "defenses" depends on the coverage of such defenses in mainstream RS. These coverages are very different. Speaking on the "defenses" themselves, they are also very different. Russian MoD usually does not say it "was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques". It typically says that they simply never strike any hospitals, mosques or any other civilian targets. Period. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Usually does not? After Russia launched the Mariupol hospital airstrike:

...the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence claimed that bombing of the hospital was justified by the supposed presence of Ukrainian armed forces at Mariupol Maternity Hospital No 1...

And after the Mariupol theatre airstrike:

Russia denied the allegations and instead accused the Azov Battalion of blowing up the building.

And after the Kremenchuk shopping mall attack:

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said that "Russian Aerospace Forces delivered a strike […] against hangars of weapons and ammunition from the United States and European countries in the area of the Kremenchuk road machinery factory." He also said: "The detonation of the munitions for western weaponry in storage led to a fire in a non-functioning shopping centre next to the factory."

And after the Serhiivka missile strike:

A spokesman of the Russian Presidency, Dmitry Peskov, denied that Russia was attacking civilian objects in Ukraine and said that the targeted buildings were used for military purposes.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what is your point. Yes, Russian MoD lied. There was no Ukrainian military presence in the Mariupol theater or Kremenchug Mall. But it is completely irrelevant to this page. This is a different state and a very different army. Such argument rather serves as an indication that you guys are on the wrong side of the dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Please stop talking about Russia, it has nothing to do with anything about this page. nableezy - 03:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, my bad. This definitely got sidetracked a bit. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Strongly support - for all of the reasons listed by others above, Israel's war crimes are not a "question" CurdyKai (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC) information Note: Struck per WP:ARBPIA4 restrictions
  • Strongly support - For a variety of reasons, all of which have been mentioned above. It's been interesting to read the arguments (or lack thereof) put forth by those in favor of keeping the article name as it is... DonBeroni (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support there isn't anything else I can add that hasn't been said already. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support to be consistent with equivalent titles like American war crimes and the others, to follow WP:NDESC, and because the sourcing is good enough to do so. I'm not convinced by !oppose arguments based on sourcing concerns, since the sourcing is at least equivalent to other articles in the genre. But I would think that all post-canvassing comments should be ignored, including mine, since that's likely the best way to prevent such stealth canvassing from recurring by removing the incentive and the benefit to doing it. DFlhb (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There might well, in Israel's 70-year history, have been incidents and events that are widely reported as war crimes by RS. But the article currently is dominated by alleged war crimes. If it's renamed, it would remain a catch-all article for any reporting about alleged war crimes, especially if we don't create a new correspondingly-titled article. If anything, the article could be split (but I would be opposed to that too, as it would involve some really fraught arbitrary line-drawing). --Tserton (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Tserton: The United States war crimes article is also full of accusations. Also, the fact that the article does not mention settlements does not mean that the name of the article should not be changed, because it can be included later. Parham wiki (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, I would say that article's title should also be changed, along with most broad articles about ongoing conflicts. Unqualified "war crimes" articles should be reserved for more focused articles (I'm more comfortable with War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, for example). Not sure why you're pinging me about settlements, though? Tserton (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    To read my reply Parham wiki (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Israel page is filled mostly with allegation, with most international body investigation either unresolved or still in progress. The page is not analogous to Russian War Crimes, or German War Crimes, etc… pages. I think the title is appropriate as it is.Mistamystery (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Mistamystery: So Hirsch Barenblat and Isser Be'eri who were convicted, is Israel claiming against itself? Parham wiki (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
    Just because the war crimes are different in nature from prior atrocities committed by Germany or ongoing crimes by Russia does not make them not war crimes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

War crimes obviously did happen, but the discussion above misses something fundamental. This is not just a renaming, this would also change the scope of the article. If the article is about *allegations* then it should include all notable allegations even if they haven't been verified. Parham wiki, in your opinion, if the article is renamed, what should the inclusion criteria be? Alaexis¿question? 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Only a tiny fraction of the world's war crimes have actually been confirmed in the sense of someone having been prosecuted. Most remain at the level of assertion and assessments from human rights bodies and legal experts. This is mainly because the ICC, the only body really equipped to deal with such things, is a stagnant institution. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
In answer to the inclusion criteria, it should broadly reflect other similar articles, which rest largely on determinations by major groups that war crimes were committed, not solely on convictions. Look to the language used in Wiki voice and the sourcing for the articles about United States War Crimes and Russian War Crimes. A consistent standard should be applied on this issue across Wikipedia. As I pointed out elsewhere in the discussion, the My Lai massacre resulted only in one conviction, but the Wikipedia article does not limit discussion to that one individual, and it would be egregious to do so. entropyandvodka | talk 07:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this article does discuss at least some convictions and punishments. entropyandvodka | talk 08:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, we should be consistent with other "X country's war crimes" articles. To be more concrete, consider this example from the article
So what should be done with this, especially if the article is renamed? Alaexis¿question? 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Including statements like that is still appropriate, provided they're accurate descriptions of what the sources say. The topic of the article is Israeli war crimes (which some here seem to argue translates to "Proven Instances of Israeli war crimes" rather than the name of the topic). When the source is saying a specific instance is conditionally a war crime, the article should accurately summarize or attribute a statement reflecting that conditionality, when sourced and relevant, without taking a view on it in Wiki voice.
The name of the article should be compatible with covering documented instances of, findings and determinations about, and allegations of Israeli war crimes, which it currently is not. entropyandvodka | talk 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
An additional note that has more to do with the content of the article than the title, if parts of the article are found to be giving undue weight to the defense of why something might not be a war crime, while not providing sufficient weight to the event the allegation is about and the merit of the allegation, those parts of the article should also be brought in line with Wikipedia standards of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:WEIGHT. As I and others have discussed already, the very name of the article raises those concerns. I've noticed instances of this in the article, but that's for a separate discussion. entropyandvodka | talk 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Like the rest of the articles Parham wiki (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Relisting comment: contentious discussion. extending for additional constructive inputs. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Closed
As is said below, this is best served as a later proposal pending results of the RM as proposed.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of war crimes against Israel → War crimes in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Per WP:POVNAMING, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue... Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." - The proposed scope change would adhere better to WP:NPOV. Marokwitz (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - Indeed it would seem to be preferable to include context that is relevant to both parties. I think your title: War crimes in the Arab-Israeli conflict, suggestion will reflect this in a better manner. I think you're right, neutral titles would encourage different viewpoints and better more responsible writing. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: We have War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine but also Russian war crimes, so I do not see any reason against having this article. In addition, the discussion above to move this page has already reached consensus. I think an article dedicated to the war crimes of Israel makes much more sense than a combined one. One that attempts to draw equal weight between both sides runs a strong risk of inadvertently violating WP:NPOV by comparing the crimes of militant groups and individuals with those of a nuclear-armed superpower. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a. wait till the current move request is closed before opening a new one. B. This is its own topic. C. See a. again. Should be speedy closed as an abuse of process. nableezy - 13:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    I support closing this. It distracts from the current discussion, and should be handled as a separate discussion after close of the first. entropyandvodka | talk 18:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
    Agree. It's nothing more than a distraction from the original topic. DemianStratford (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and agree with CarmenEsparzaAmoux, combining and equaling two completely different entities makes no sense, and seems like an effort to downsize the Israeli crimes. - Ïvana (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: I also completely agree with CarmenEsparzaAmoux's views. Israel should have its own page dedicated to war crimes, just like any other nation involved in modern wars. Also, this is another discussion. The original proposition was for having the page retitled "Israeli war crimes" and its 7 days have already passed and a consensus was reached. DemianStratford (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose That would require an enormous expansion of the article, blowing up length as it would need to focus on numerous other nations. It would be better if each had their own "X war crimes" articles. Such a title would also give the appearance that Wikipedia is going way out of its way to give Israel biased treatment on this subject.
entropyandvodka | talk 18:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Aside from the fact that the proposed title would have an INSANELY large scope (like really?! multiple countries, dozens of conflicts, over 70 years?), that's not what this article is , which is a country-based article about military misconduct, just like United States war crimes, German war crimes, Russian war crimes, British war crimes and Soviet war crimes, as mentioned in the nom's original statement. It's likewise not about a single, discrete war. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please add the following two sections to the article. Thanks in advance.

==2006 Lebanon War==

Main article: Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

In a 249-page report regarding the 2006 Lebanon War, the Human Rights Watch asked the secretary-general of the United Nations to establish an international commission of inquiry to investigate reports of violations of the laws of war by Israel, including possible war crimes.[1] In a report, Amnesty International also said that during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes.[2]

==2021 Israel–Palestine crisis==

In 2021, Amnesty International which documented 'four deadly attacks by Israel launched on residential homes without prior warning', asked the International Criminal Court to immediately investigate these attacks that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.[3]

Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli strikes during 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis that killed 62 Palestinian civilians where there were no clear military targets in the vicinity, concluding that Israel violated the laws of war and its actions apparently amounted to war crimes.[4]

==Israeli settlements==

See also: Israeli settlements and international law § Rome Statute

According to Michael Lynk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, "the Israeli settlements violate the absolute prohibition against the transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population into an occupied territory". He therefore asked international community to designate the Israeli settlements creation as a war crime under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[5]

==International Criminal Court investigation==

See also: International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine

In 2021, Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, launched an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories since 13 June 2014.[6] 39.34.146.93 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians". hrw.org.
  2. ^ "Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes". The Guardian. 23 August 2006.
  3. ^ "Israel/ OPT: Pattern of Israeli attacks on residential homes in Gaza must be investigated as war crimes". amnesty.org.
  4. ^ "Gaza: Apparent War Crimes During May Fighting". hrw.org.
  5. ^ "Israeli Settlements Should be Classified as War Crimes, Says Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in OPT". un.org.
  6. ^ "ICC launches war crimes probe into Israeli practices". Associated Press. March 4, 2021.
For reference, I used <nowiki> tags to remove the second level headings as they were disrupting the talk page structure; remember to remove them when implementing the edit.
As for the edit itself, I don't see any obvious sourcing issues, although given the current structure of the article, it may be better for consistency to put the statements in the second section into the existing sections wherever possible, and retitle whatever that remains as "Other". Liu1126 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 Partly done: @Liu1126: Please reformat the section for Palestine so it can be integrated into the current structure of the article. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added the section on the 2006 war. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
There's already a section for the 2021 events, but anything novel and sourced should be added. The Goldstone report pertained to the 2008-2009 conflict; not sure why it would be in a see also for the 2021 events. entropyandvodka | talk 00:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@ARandomName123: I have restructured the section on Palestine into three separate sections so it can be integrated into the article. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done @ARandomName123 and Pirate of the High Seas: I've added the remaining material to the article. The Human Rights Watch information had already been included in the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis section, so I only addd the Amnesty International paragraph. The two other sections seemed rather short, so I put them as third level headers under a second level header called "Other incidents".
Also, don't know if there may be confusion over this, but for the record, I did not originate this edit request. It was requested by the IP 39.34.146.93, and I made a comment below it because I didn't have time to implement it at that moment. Liu1126 (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing it! Sorry about the confusion, I missed that it was the IP who requested it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for adding the 2006 Lebanon War section. Have a good day! Liu1126 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Small proofread

In the second paragraph of the section on Jabalia air strikes, the sentence "The Gaza Interior Ministry stated the camp had been "completely destroyed," and the following day reported 195 people and 777 injured, with 120 more missing beneath the rubble." is missing a "dead" after "195 people". I can't edit the article, so I'm giving a heads up here. 2601:C2:1600:2A70:861E:A49C:C313:9E6F (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, ty. nableezy - 17:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This link isn't working: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/live-updates-death-toll-gaza-passes-27000-south-106861226

Maybe let's replace it with this one: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/death-toll-in-gaza-passes-27-000-as-south-africa-says-israel-is-ignoring-court-ruling-1.6751269 ? It also says, "Death toll in Gaza passes 27,000 as South Africa says Israel is ignoring court ruling." Niepodkoloryzowany (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I added an archived version of the URL to the page. Thanks for bringing this up! CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Report by Hamas not mentioned as such, under "Forcible transfer"

The sentence "Israeli airstrikes reportedly bombed and killed civilians complying with the evacuation order" need to be qualified that these reports come *only* from the Hamas (to which the Gaza health ministry belongs). Please correct this. 2A00:79E0:49:200:2D63:EAE0:4A1D:A3EE (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done, Gaza MoH is considered reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't from the MoH, the cited AP article cites "Hamas' media office". I'll add the appropriate qualification. XDanielx (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
To somewhat correct myself, the MSNBC tweet does mention the MoH, but a (live?) video doesn't seem like a very good source, and better sources like the AP article don't seem to corroborate it. Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City doesn't mention the MoH. XDanielx (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hamas sympathizer?

Is this article made for sympathizing with hamas terrorists and saying that their war crimes on 7th of october was legitimate ? 2001:4DF4:131A:7400:A4D4:585C:7C0E:B3DA (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it was made to inform the public regarding what is actually happening, rather than systematically trying to hide the truth out of genocidally egotistical and empathy-deprived supremacist tribalism. All humans should have the same rights, not just specific artificially divided factions of them. David A (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I just wanted to address your concerns with this article.
Wikipedia is first and foremost a collaborative project that seeks to collect and share information with the world (see WP:About). There are millions of contributors that take part in editing this project, as anybody with an internet connection is able to edit it. One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that all editors must adhere to a neutral point-of-view. We take biases in edits very seriously. We have no agenda, and we have ulterior motives.
In order for content to remain in an article, it must be properly properly cited. This ensures that the information on these articles is accurate and verifiable. This is important, because it allows readers to see where the information is coming from, giving transparency.
By having this information here, we're ensuring that information is free and open to readers. We're not making a statement about the subject matter, nor are we endorsing any particular views. If you feel like an article is biased, then by all means, please express those thoughts, and we (as in any interested party) can have a discussion about it.
I hope this cleared up any problems you may have had.
Sink Cat (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Must be added to the article

according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers.

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

Crucial report by Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham who interviewed israeli officers from the war in Gaza published by the israeli magazine +972 Magazine:

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Chafique (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Heard about this this morning. It seems highly relevant to the general section on indiscriminate attacks. I haven't looked much into this particular magazine, but, given that they don't name the sources, if the information is added it would have to be as an attributed statement to the magazine. entropyandvodka | talk 20:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Also in https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israels-rules-of-engagement-seem-looser-than-ever-if-they-are-followed-at-all Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


UNRWA school airstrike edit request

"UNRWA school airstrike Main article: October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike On 17 October the IDF carried out an airstrike on the UNRWA school in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing 6 and injuring dozens. The school was sheltering 4,000 refugees. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, stated the attack was "outrageous, and it again shows a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians." "

This may also need the UNRWA source from the (same) commissioner-general: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/serious-allegations-against-unrwa-staff-gaza-strip regarding the possible involvement of several UNRWA employees in the october 7th attacks. Current wording makes it seem like it's done without reason. 213.93.30.23 (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done, the commissioner statement is in January this year and does not mention the UNRWA school airstrike. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, the involvement of UNRWA employees in Oct 7th was highly contentious, and may be simply part of a campaign to deprive Palestinians of aid or to cripple organizations that provide it. Later reports emerged of torture and coercion to establish such allegations. 13 employees were accused of involvement (out of 30,000 in the organization), but Israel has killed at least 177 UNRWA employees throughout the conflict, and repeatedly attacked aid convoys and Palestinians seeking aid. As AP pointed out: "The Israeli document, which has been shared with U.S. officials and was obtained by The Associated Press, lists 12 people, their alleged roles in the attack, job descriptions and photos. The findings detailed in the document could not be independently confirmed. The document said intelligence gathered showed that at least 190 UNRWA workers were Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, without providing evidence."[4]https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-29-2024-4c49c2fb89c3bfd4963f2260b34943c1
I would agree that the UNRWA school airstrike, and other strikes that killed UNRWA employees were not done without reason, but the reasons the Israeli government states can't be taken at face value. entropyandvodka | talk 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What the hell is a forcible transfer?

Has that term ever been used before? Sounds as absurd as "Ideological gentrification" when the Guardian was describing Settlers taking home. Why can't we use Ethnic Cleansing? That's the literal definition, the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.2.98 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

See Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. Note also that this is not a well-formed edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The correct wikilink should be Forced displacement, not Population transfer so I changed that. The latter refers to Israeli settlers, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

In this section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes#Dense_inert_metal_explosives_(DIME) the last paragraph seems to be out of place, and referring to something completely unrelated and should probably either be moved or removed. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it doesn't seem to be out of place. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

In this section, the last two senteces are "After Israeli forces fired shells near a UN school in Gaza killing around 30 people, Israel's military said the shelling was in response to mortar fire from within the school and asserted that Hamas were using civilians as cover. They stated that the dead near the school included Hamas members of a rocket launching cell. Two residents of the area confirmed that a group of militants were firing mortar shells from near the school and identified two of the victims as Hamas militants." They have nothing to do with DIME and they have no source, also nothing in them seem to include anything about DIME. They just seem to be about a different situation, and have been misplaced. Should be removed. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The entire section on DIME needs to be removed because as the section itself says " DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law," I will do this shortly Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The last two sentence should not be removed ftb but tagged for a citation, as the IP says, they seem not DIME related. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
the whole section needs to go because using DIME weapons is not a war crime Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The last two sentence are not about DIME so tag them cn rather than remove therm. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you not reading what I am writing? We have a fairly lengthy section about the use of DIME weapons - none of it belongs n the article because using DIME is not a war crime. If the two sentences at the end are not related to DIME but an allegation of a different war crime, move them to a relevant section. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I can read fine, thanks. I have made a reasonable request, ball is in your court. Are you just a deleter rather than an encyclopedia builder? Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Part of building an encyclopedia is ensuring it is high quality, by removing inappropriate content, which the DIME section is in this article.
This article has editing restrictions which prevent me from doing this now, but I will remove that section in a day or two. If you want to preserve the last two sentences (which lack a date and a source), I suggest you find a proper source for them, and then move them to an appropriate section. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: You added those two sentences here (and all the DIME material as well, care to comment?) Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, Selfstudier.
I moved the text from Gaza War (2008–2009) on 9 October 2023 to this page, at which point those two sentences on the original page were in a DIME section under "Controversies regarding tactics" [5]. They are now completely removed from that section and exist only under "Criticism of Palestinian factions." Full transparency, my understanding of IHL was much weaker in October 2023 than it is now.
As KentuckyRain points out, the DIME section itself does cite the Goldstone Report, which clarified that as of October 2009, DIME weapons weren't prohibited under international law. The Report's full quote: "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands, but do raise specific health concerns," so I'm actually not opposed to the section's removal from this page.
The article was created by bringing over a lot of text from preexisting pages (none of which I wrote myself), so huge apologies for causing confusion here. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No need to apologize, and thanks for clarifying. I'll remove the DIME section from this article. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Fleeing Soldiers

Killing unarmed soldiers who have not surrendered is not a war crime. This is the relevant Article 47 : "Rule 47. Attacks against Persons Hors de Combat Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is: (a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party; (b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or (c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender; provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20long%2Dstanding,international%20armed%20conflicts.%5B4%5D

Note subsection c- you must lay down your arms, express an intention to surrender and the protection stops the moment you attempt to escape. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What do our (secondary) sources say? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
They say the same thing as Article 47c- e.g. "3) He must abstain from any hostile act and may not attempt to escape.
https://www.moore.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2021/Spring/pdf/10_Montazzoli_Down.pdf Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Or if you prefer; "Specialists in military law said today that the rules of war clearly permit the United States and its allies to attack retreating Iraqi troops" https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/27/world/war-in-the-gulf-the-rules-experts-back-us-on-rules-of-war.html Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Are those the sources in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it is up to those who want to claim that killing fleeing soldiers is a war crime to bring sources for that, not the other way around. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
So you didn't check the sources in the article, right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I actually did - did you? This is the source used for the claim that it was a war crime to shoot fleeing Egyptians soldiers in the Six day war- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/30/israel-six-day-war-film-censored-voices
It does not even mention fleeing soldiers, let alone call it a war crime to do so. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't check them, that's why I asked if you had, save me the bother. I will go back and have a look at when it was added tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, this material was added by @Entropyandvodka: on 29 October last year and with an edit summary saying that most of the material came from the linked article, not sure which but I can't find it in Six day war.
The Segev material, the relevant para from there says""It was perhaps the crudest possible war, from our point of view," Uri Chizik later said. "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn't even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them." Hmm.
So I'm thinking I might delete the first fleeing soldiers unless Entropyandvodka has something to say about it and amend the second to show the actual crime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The linked article was Controversies Relating to the Six Day War, section "Allegations that the IDF killed Egyptian prisoners".
Seems like it would be best to expand the existing paragraph with the fuller quote. The last couple sentences are pretty explicitly criminal. The key crime described here isn't killing fleeing soldiers (though that can also be criminal depending on the circumstances), but attacking persons hors de combat. Gonna make a quick edit:
Allegations that Egyptian soldiers fleeing into the desert were shot were confirmed in reports written after the war. Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, in his book "1967", quotes one soldier who wrote, "our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape".
to
Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, in his book "1967", quotes one soldier who wrote, "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn't even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them."
Think we can just lose the first sentence, since the fuller quote is self-explanatory. Gonna also expand the quote in the controversies article. Not sure why it stopped short. entropyandvodka | talk 18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The question is, does Segev (or his interviewee) refer to the shooting of fleeing soldiers as a war crime. He does not, as far as I can see from what you quoted above. And for good reason - because it is not a war crime to shoot a fleeing soldier if he has not surrendered, as the sources I provided above show. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Pretty sure getting sources for the obvious war crime won't be that hard. Selfstudier (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You are under the false impression that shooting fleeing soldiers is a war crime. It is not, as the sources I have shown you, both the primary ones and secondary ones using them, demonstrate. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I never said that shooting fleeing soldiers was a war crime, Idk where you got that idea from. I am referring to the shooting of soldiers "lying on the ground with their heads on their hands". Selfstudier (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I got the idea from the fact that this section is titled 'Fleeing Soldiers' and was started by me after an edit of mine removing references to fleeing soldiers as war crimes from the article. If you agree that this is not a war crime - how about restoring my perfectly valid edit to the article? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. The passage referred to allegations of shooting fleeing soldiers being confirmed later in reports after the war. It didn't state that shooting fleeing soldiers was a war crime. That sentence was from an article describing controversies about the war. It may be the case that there was a controversy over whether fleeing soldiers were scouted out and shot, but I could see how the use of the term allegation in this article implies that it was a war crime. Whether it's a war crime or not depends on other factors, as we've already discussed, but I removed that sentence altogether.
However, the full quote that Selfstudier provided describes the war crime of no quarter. Your earlier edit removed the partial quote entirely, which is not a satisfactory resolution. Do you have any objections to the section as it is currently written? entropyandvodka | talk 00:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I should amend that, I only saw your second reverted edit, not the one from the first sentence of the section. It might be preferable to rephrase 'fleeing soldiers' to something else. In the quote we discussed, the soldier is describing killing persons fitting the hors de combat criteria, whether surrendered or wounded. entropyandvodka | talk 01:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I made 2 edits - one to remove the reference to "fleeing soldiers" sourced to a Guardian article that doesn't even mention fleeing soldiers, the other to the passage referencing Segev's book. Both were reverted by an editor who mistakingly thinks (per their edit summary) that shooting unarmed fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is a war crime.
I have the following objections to the way this section is currently written.
  1. "During the Six Day War in 1967, the IDF was accused of killing captured Egyptian soldiers, fleeing soldiers, and civilians." - this is sourced to a Guardian article that doesn't even mention fleeing soldiers, and killing fleeing soldiers is not a war crime - so the reference to fleeing soldiers needs to be removed.
  2. the Segev passage contains a lengthy quote, much of which does not reference anything which could be considered a war crime. Specifically, this part - "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot." does not describe any war crimes, and is not called a war crime by either Segev or his interviewee. It needs to come out.
  3. The rest of the Segev quote is more debatable - it could be the crime of "no quarter"- but it is not described as such in the source, and reliable sources, including the US Field Infantry Manual state that an option to surrender is not a requirement- see the ICRC document I linked to above - "there is no obligation to offer an opportunity to surrender before an attack." "No quarter" in IHL refers to either pre-declaration that no quarter will be given, or the refusal to accept an offer of surrender. It does not typically refer to a situation where armed fleeing troops were not given the chance to surrender. In the absence of a source clearly describing these actions as a war crime, I'd leave it out, too.
Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Removing all references to killing fleeing soldiers doesn't make sense. When murders/war crimes are committed in that context, in this case chasing down soldiers fleeing into the desert, the context should be given. I agree that stating in Wiki voice that killing fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime would be a problem, as there are additional criteria required to make such killings a war crime (for example, finishing them off on the ground when they're wounded, or when they've surrendered, or they're "laying on the ground with their heads in their hands"). The full quote in this case shows both. The fact that they were fleeing isn't completely irrelevant, either, as it can go to their intent to surrender, which the quote later showed. The guy's describing chasing down and killing people that had no intention to fight, and in some cases had surrendered or in other ways become hors de combat.
But we're discussing two different points of the paragraph here. I'd be open to modifying the first sentence, or clarifying the language such that it doesn't imply shooting fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime (though the context should later be given vis a vis the quote). I don't see any compelling reason to remove the Sergev quote, or arbitrarily cut it down.
You're not making an argument that shooting soldiers laying on the ground with their heads in their hands is not a war crime, are you? entropyandvodka | talk 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I left that last bit in, because it is at least debatable. It is certainly a war crime to shoot soldiers who are clearly communicating an intent to surrender- e.g by waving a white flag, or by raising their hands in the air.
Is laying on the ground such a clear communication of an intent to surrender? I don;t know.. What does 'laying on the ground with their heads in their hands " even mean? Were they sleeping on their hands? That's what I meant when I wrote that In the absence of a source clearly describing these actions as a war crime, I'd leave it out, too. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
So, while there's a firefight going on, maybe these guys being shot while on the ground were just sleeping through it all? entropyandvodka | talk 21:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Who said there was a firefight? Is that in the quote? I think the quote describes a scenario where these soldiers were fleeing, so there was no firefight. And repeating, ad nauseam, shooting fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is not a war crime, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
At least some of them were still armed, and they were at least being shot, but I guess it doesn't qualify as a firefight if one side isn't shooting back. Sounds an awful lot like surrender, or incapacitation. Or were they just sitting still without surrendering? Or all asleep? I'm not seeing a reasonable way to read this quote where the bit about shooting people on the ground with their heads in their hands isn't explicitly a war crime.
And for the last time, no one is arguing that shooting fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime. Please stick to the arguments we are making: shooting people hors de combat is the war crime. The soldiers fleeing was a small part of the larger context.
If you want more context, they were desperate, many dying of thirst and already out of combat. Many of them were, in fact, surrendering en masse, due to lack of water. Some were surrendering and approaching Israeli soldiers just to beg for water. Here's a snippet from a few paragraphs before in 1967, quoting the same soldier, for context:
Chizik saw them in the Sinai. “Thousands of soldiers wandered on foot in the direction of the canal, all at risk of death from dehydration. All the abandoned cars along the road had empty radiators. The Egyptians had taken the water to drink.” The captives began to take up an increasingly central role in Yehoshua Bar-Dayan’s war experience. “The Egyptian soldiers who hadn’t been killed and hadn’t abandoned their tanks took off their shoes and started running across the sand,” he wrote to his wife. “If they had any sense, they turned themselves in immediately as POWs, and there are several thousand of them. But the ones who tried to escape on foot, or who weren’t taken prisoner during the battle, kept moving barefoot toward the canal. The heat and the thirst finished them, and they started streaming toward our cars, our tanks, flocks upon flocks of people coming down from the sandy hills.” In his diary, Bar-Dayan wrote, “Good Lord, what are we going to do with them?” They looked depressed, apathetic; some crawled on all fours; he saw them in the internment camps too, fainting from thirst, even dying. The low point came on Friday. “After five days of hunger and thirst, the soldiers and officers were calling out from every hilltop, they had no strength— water, water, water.” According to Bar-Dayan, the soldiers gathered the prisoners, searched them, and took their papers. He heard some of them say, “Water—get it from Nasser, he’ll give you some.” He wrote, “They see our water canteens and lose their minds. It’s a terrible thing to see.”
Here's more of the paragraph the quote we've been discussing was taken from, which is a couple paragraphs later (most of the section is about POWs, and involves plenty of war crimes with them as well):
“It was perhaps the cruelest possible war, from our point of view,” Uri Chizik later said. “Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn’t even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them.” Chizik recalled that the men talked about this even as the war was still going on, trying to explain to themselves why they had to kill Egyptian soldiers who were trailing them just for water. “They may not have been dangerous militarily, but they were desperate and dying, and a dying man is capable of anything.” They found it difficult to define for themselves the moment when a soldier became a prisoner, and they knew that sometimes Egyptian soldiers surrendered but then attacked their captors.
I don't see any reasonable reading of "And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands" as not describing shooting someone hors de combat, in this context. He even says they weren't a threat, militarily, and explains that he and the other soldiers had to rationalize these kinds of killings, or rationalize the non-acceptance of surrendering soldiers. entropyandvodka | talk 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
IHL requires a clear indiction of an intention to surrender - waving a white flag, raising your hands, saying "I surrender". Sitting around or lying down doesn't cut it.
Similarly hors de combat has specific meaning in IHL - you need to be injured or ill beyond the ability to fight back, knocked unconscious etc.. - sleeping or sitting around not seeing the enemy, or fleeing, is not enough. See https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/} "the fact that an enemy is laying still on the ground is insufficient to determine that target has fallen out of the fight. "
It doesn't really matter if it "Sounds an awful lot like surrender" to you - you need a source that explicitly call the situation described in the quote a war crime. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
It matters very much if it sounds like surrender or incapacitation to me. In this particular case, he describes both. Read the passages. Incapacitation from dehydration is pretty obviously in the category of hors de combat.
You're bringing up other things that aren't described in the source, ie, the idea that they might have just been sleeping. Does the source say they were sleeping? Or knocked unconscious? No. The source describes the enemy as suffering extreme, sometimes lethal dehydration, thousands surrendering from it, then describes going out and shooting many of them, in some cases just finishing them off while they were on the ground with their heads on their hands. Do you think they were "finishing them off" from the naps they started? He then talks about how they rationalized killing people who were attempting to surrender, who admittedly were not military threats.
Those are war crimes. To interpret it differently, you have to ignore aspects of what the soldier is saying. entropyandvodka | talk 02:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit. You might not be familiar with WP practices on this type of thing, but you shouldn't reinstate your edit while it's the subject of a contentious debate with other editors. Instead, you should seek consensus. Failing consensus, there are further steps like dispute resolution.
I would also ask you to self revert your other edit, the one to the first sentence of that section, until we reach an agreement on it. entropyandvodka | talk 02:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter, because we write articles according to what the sources say, not by what something "sounds like" to an editor with limited understanding of IHL. The quote you have re-added does not mention dehydration or any of the other things you raise here, and specifically talks about shooting armed soldiers. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It matters in that it takes reading comprehension and common sense for editors on Wikipedia to function as such. You've been debating hypotheticals that are also not in the exact quote—and there's nothing wrong with that either. The term 'hors de combat' doesn't appear in the section, but it's very much relevant to the discussion we're having. The passages I've shown you provide more context. To further this point, the next paragraphs in that book describe summary executions, though we use other sources for those (and the subject isn't comprehensively covered yet either). We don't refuse to include an account of what is very obviously summary execution on the basis that the witness describing what they saw didn't explicitly state it to be a war crime. If that was the criteria, war crimes articles would have very little content, and few to no quotes from firsthand accounts.
I do think the section has problems that our debate here touches on a bit, which is lack of structure and context. Rather than the article being an index of quotes about war crimes and instances of them, it should offer a functional understanding of the context in which war crimes were committed. The Sabra and Shatila massacre article is a great example of this when the focus is on a single event. Each section in this article obviously can't go into that level of detail, but should adequately summarize. The 1982 section of this article is a good example of this, IMO; there's a huge article on that subject, but in this article it summarizes the context adequately and describes the war crime and subsequent relevant events. The 1967 section currently does a poor job at this. We're told about the execution of POWs, and in the case of this we're told about soldiers driving out into the desert and ostensibly murdering people, but we're given no context, and the order of a lot of the section is messy. It also leaves out relevant information in the sources it does use.
The solution here is expansion, additional context, more sources, and sound restructuring where necessary, not to be deleterious. entropyandvodka | talk 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No, we don't go by editors' "common sense", we report what reliable sources say. Which sources class this a war crime?
You added to the quote a part that says armed fleeing soldiers were shot. That is not a war crime. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It says "if" as well, which means not all of them were armed.
Regarding the NPOV you added, can you specifically state what in the paragraph is not neutral?
Regarding the dubious tag you added, what exactly is dubious about the quote? It is sourced. Are you arguing that the book with the account doesn't exist, or that it is being misquoted?
what's dubious is that this is claimed to be a war crime, without any source saying so. Which source calls this a war crime?
And this may be a language issue , but a sentence that says " If they were armed, they got shot." means just that - you shot people if they were armed, It does not mean, or even imply, that you were also shot if you were unarmed (putting aside the fact that shooting unarmed solider who did not surrender is also not a war crime) Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, shooting armed soldiers isn't a war crime. But I don't agree that it makes sense to remove that part of the quote. Chopping the quote down to just the final part, ie, shooting people laying on the ground with their heads in their hands, has other problems. In what context are these shootings happening? To POWs? Context. entropyandvodka | talk 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I left that part in because, as I wrote, it is at least ambiguous or debatable - it is not clear what the context of the event is - even if you include the part I removed and you restored.
Were these POWs? It doesn't say that. Were they armed? Not clear. Were they trying to surrender in some unusual way (laying down, head on hands) or caught sleeping? not clear.
The simplest solution is to remove the entire quote, which doesn't add anything to the section - the section already has multiple, well sourced claims of instances of actual war crimes involving the shooting of POWs or soldiers who had surrendered- what does this highly ambiguous quote which mixes perfectly legal actions (shooting armed soldiers) with ambiguous scenarios (shooting people who had laid down) add? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The better solution, as I discussed above, is to expand the section to include the IDF hunting down and murdering Egyptian soldiers who were incapacitated or dying of thirst, and provide more context. It was also in this context that they acquired many of the POWs they ended up killing. entropyandvodka | talk 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Thus far, your objection has been that the quote isn't relevant, or doesn't describe a war crime, not the veracity of the quote itself or the source. entropyandvodka | talk 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I don't dispute that the quote exists, I think it does not belong in an article about war crimes, because it is not about a war crime. Do you have a source that describe the quote, or the actions it refers to, as a war crime? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's one calling it murder. Took all of ten seconds to google:
https://www.newarab.com/opinion/who-was-responsible-israels-1967-massacre
"In Israeli historian Tom Segev's definitive work on the 1967 war, he says that Israeli soldiers witnessed "tens of thousands" of Egyptian soldiers wandering the desert dying of thirst and hunger; or being hunted by special Israeli army units whose mission was to kill such soldiers when they found them. Between deliberate murder and dying of thirst, it seems the number of dead might have reached such a large number." entropyandvodka | talk 19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
1. That's a different quote.
2. It's from an opinion piece, in source of questionable reliability, written by an activist who is neither a war crimes expert nor a historian Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, you should start a separate topic specifically summarizing the tag concerns rather than expecting any passing editor to find it in this particular section. entropyandvodka | talk 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
We should look at Six-Day War#Allegations of atrocities committed against Egyptian soldiers, many sources there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
We do use at least one of those sources (the 1995 NYT article), though it has more stuff in it that should probably go into the section. Reading the section again, I was thinking maybe some of it could be reorganized, like putting all the descriptions of mass executions into one area, then the stuff with the mass graves. entropyandvodka | talk 21:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by blocked sockpuppet struck. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_war_crimes/Archive_1&oldid=1253407739"