Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead image

I know WP:NOTCENSORED, but I think the the Be'eri massacre image might go against MOS:SHOCK, which says, "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The images that accurately represent the topic of the war crimes against Israel are going to be horrific; these were the brutal massacres and kidnappings of civilians, and the only way we can accurately represent the topic is by showing that, at least in part - we are not using the more horrific images in the lede, such as the mutilated and burnt bodies of civilians including babies. Images like this one are sanitized, and don't properly reflect the topic in the way that images like the two currently in the lede do. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the images here are going to be horrific. But I do think we can find an image that doesn't sanitize, while also not repulsing people away as soon as they open the page. Most of the page as it stands now are legal arguments and statements from human rights organizations. I think the most appropriate image would be one that reflects the topic, matches the page's tone, and importantly doesn't shock most readers. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Child soldiers

@BilledMammal I will look for some more serious investigations into child soldiers now. I shouldn't have instantly just reverted your edits, so I apologize. I just clicked on the sources provided, and they were not reliable. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding news.com.au, while it isn't on the same level as the New York Times or the BBC it is a reliable source. However, I have to apologize; the Mirror is listed at RSP contrary to my statement - I saw the Daily Mirror listed at WP:RSP (listed as "no consensus"), but didn't realize they were the same source. I've now added a note at that RSP entry.

There has been a lot of coverage of this before the war; I suspect there will have been some more since it started. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I really did look and couldn't find anything for 2023. A bunch of stuff from 2021, and a ton from 2004.. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

They are reporting that an Israeli organization is making a claim. Thats as far as the article can go. nableezy - 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't even go that far. This is Telegram WP:RUMOUR at present, as well as an exceptional claim, so the bare minimum we should be expecting here is multiple WP:RS supporting the material. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, that would be multiple WP:RS related to this conflict, i.e. 2023 Israel–Hamas war, not material about child soldiers from 2004, which seems to be a thing that was reported on. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

More Israeli war crimes.

Israel has (a) Faked Hamas plans, conversations etc. and (b) allowed soldiers and settlers to blind, burn, beat, photograph, strip urinate on, and attempt to sodomize 3 Palestinian civilians, despite them saying "we only attack terrorists/Hamas". The war crimes are: (a) an attack on dignity, (b) a clear attack on non-combatants, (c) blinding people, and (d) sexually assaulting citizens. Should these be added to the page? I'm not sure I should do that, so I'm instead putting this here if you want to. P.S Israel has also released a bunch of disinformation and misinformation, although I don't think those two are war crmes 2001:43F8:754:2020:40:4E3F:C80E:EF18 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources saying those things to include them. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

“CEO of Europe’s largest tech conference resigns over Israel-Hamas comments”

"War crimes are war crimes, even when committed by allies"

https://www.politico.eu/article/paddy-cosgrave-web-summit-ceo-europe-tech-conference-resign-israel-hamas-comment/ Chafique (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Indiscriminate attacks

I believe we should remove the last four paragraphs from this section; this information is covered in the sub-articles, and it would be consistent with War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Massacres, hostage taking, and allegations of genocide, where we don't add paragraphs for every one of the massacres and instead cover them in the general.

The alternative is to add such paragraphs, but I believe it would be excessive detail to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. There's nothing wrong with it as it is, noting the most notable and high-profile incidents. Those two sections are off roughly similar length. Also, most of the sub-pages for both of these sections are basically joke-level in terms of quality, so we definitely shouldn't be looking to default back to the disastrous sub-pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is right. The longest paragraph of the four here is on al-Shati, but the majority of the text there is actually explaining Rome Statute policies on violations against attacks on protected categories (i.e. places of worship). For the most part, these paragraphs are just brief mentions of the most notable incidents, which we're also doing with the Re'im music festival, Be'eri, and Kfar Aza. There have been so many airstrikes in Gaza with graphic narratives and details coming out, I could absolutely write volumes about them here. Mentioning just a few of the most notable though seems appropriate. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

USB drive

The cited source does not discuss war crimes and the section should be removed. nableezy - 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I self-reverted as requested, maybe now you can look to see why material that does not mention a war crime should not be included in an article on war crimes? nableezy - 09:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

And I removed again, not only as synth, but as gov-sourced synth. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestine is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention; any production would be a crime. I won't argue strongly for its inclusion until we see use, however. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

GENEVA – The Director of the NY Office of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in protest over the organizations inability to stop the genocide in Gaza.

"The European colonial project has entered a final stage to destroy the remnants of indigenous Palestinian life"

"Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it,"

“The current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs … leaves no room for doubt or debate… Across the land, Apartheid rules. The situation in Gaza “is a text-book case of genocide,” he continued, with the aim of the “expedited destruction of the last remannts of indigeous Palestinian life in Palestine”

He said.

someone add that, and especially the first quote.

Sources reported: Aljazeera, LBCI Lebanon, Sada El-Balad, Jordan News, Middle East Eye,The Gaurdian Chafique (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

In my opinion, there are serious NPOV issues with this article - every segment of "By Palestinian militant groups" states the actions taken confidently in wikivoice, at times even without attribution. See "Such rocket attacks [...] constitute a war crime," "[Hamas] kidnapped approximately 200 people," "[Hamas] targeted civilians [and] carried out massacres," all stated confidently without attribution in wikivoice, as though Wikipedia is making the determination. Contrast this with the segment "By the Israeli government" every single action is "alleged," "described as," "denied," "characterized as," videos "appeared to show," etc.

These NPOV violations are so serious and so integrated with the text, I'm not sure how best to edit the content to conform to NPOV without outright removing a lot of information, so I'll tag the article instead and make minor changes that do a better job of maintaining neutrality.

If we're going to observe an exception to MOS:DOUBT for this situation (something I don't see as unreasonable, as the actual determinations by the UN, ICC etc. have not occurred yet), shouldn't we also observe WP:NPOV when doing so? PriusGod (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod I just addressed many of these concerns. There were huge issues with the writing, in addition to the ones you listed. Many of the assertions made in the "By militant groups" section were not supported by the sources. I included qualifying language, attributed statements to organizations and individuals, and removed material unsupported by sources. Hope this addresses the most significant concerns. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal there are really serious issues with the writing that you reverted. A lot of what I removed is NOT supported by the sources. They're serious misreadings of the sources. I think more could definitely be added with legitimate sources, but the writing there has really fundamental issues, which I don't see anybody else addressing. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, BilledMammal continues to edit under the belief that Hamas crimes must be presented with greater prominence and additionally given more space in the article. Whereas sources that cover war crimes in the conflict do exactly the opposite. He also did not deign to address any of the issues with SYNTH or V or NPOV in the revert. Ive reverted. nableezy - 04:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, please stop these repeated personal attacks. They've both inappropriate and inaccurate - I've been very clear that I believe they should be given equal prominence, and I've presented copious evidence for this at various points.

Further, you've now removed sourced content, as I detail below. Please restore it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Some have merely lost their sources in various restructurings; you shouldn't be removing the content, you should be restoring the sources; for example, The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory said that "Reports that armed groups from Gaza have gunned down hundreds of unarmed civilians are abhorrent and cannot be tolerated" and that "Taking civilian hostages and using civilians as human shields are war crimes", which you removed, is sourced to this article.

Elsewhere, you removed content that was supported by extant sources. For example, you removed armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare"; this is supported by the following sources: Amnesty International, CNN, and the Atlantic. BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The war crime is taking hostages and targeting and killing civilians. We include that part. nableezy - 04:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As simple and dry facts, without detail. If we pursued that policy throughout that article it would be appropriate to do there, but we don't - we go into considerable detail regarding the allegations against Israel.

Why do you believe these details are inappropriate to include? BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The allegations regarding Israel dont include things like "the baby was incinerated by the bomb that leveled the apartment block and killed 43 members of her family". nableezy - 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes.

Further, we now introduce Hamas' arguments for why it isn't a war crime, such as On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners." We don't do that for any of the allegations against Israel, despite the arguments against those being war crimes being far stronger and having received far more coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They have not received far more coverage, cribbing from a comment elsewhere: Lets look at for example the word counts in a source covering human rights violations over the course of the conflict. Amnesty International: Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza; contains 2 paragraphs and 123 words about Hamas war crimes. Contains I cant count how many paragraphs and 3,255 on Israeli war crimes. Because you can sum up Hamas' war crimes in 123 words. Targetted and killed civilians, took hostages, launches indiscriminate rocket attacks. There isnt anything left to say. Israeli actions however get more space because there is more to cover. Its summary of things each party should do: Israel - 5 bullets and 118 words. Hamas - one line and 21 words. As far as "neither did the previous version detailing Hamas' crimes", um you quoted it: armed men were later seen parading a half-naked 22-year-old female hostage through the streets of Gaza as bystanders spat on her, in images that Amnesty International described as a "scene from a nightmare. Now as unseemly as that might be, the war crime was the targeting and killing the civilian and taking hostages. And we include that. What you want to include are the details that you decline to include for the crimes committed by Israel. Theres a whole list of them at AI if you want to go through them and add details on this family or that family wiped out in an attack on a civilian target with no evidence of military targets nearby. I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way. nableezy - 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

They have not received far more coverage Please, read my comment fully before replying. I'm not saying the crimes as a whole have received far more coverage; I'm saying that arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes have received far more coverage than arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes. However, we only include the arguments that Hamas has not committed war crimes and do not include the arguments that Israel has not committed war crimes.

I also seriously dispute we are introducing Hamas arguments for why they are not war crimes, and I have no idea how you read it that way.

Read the full sentence; On 12 October, Jens David Ohlin argued Hamas's attacks potentially violated Articles 6-8 of the Rome Statute.[17] Ohlin asserted the attacks might violate Article 6, if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent."[17] On 7 October, however, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas Political Bureau, stated the intent of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, noting, "We want to liberate our land, our holy sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque, our prisoners."

The quote from Hamas is very clearly an attempted rebuttal in this context; however, regardless of how you see it, we don't include similar Israeli justifications, despite those justifications having received far more coverage, and being given far more credence, in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it is an argument against the intent ascribed to it. It certainly is not calling it not a war crime, it is saying Hamas does not view the motivation the way that Ohlin does. Im happy to add sources rebutting the accusations against Israel where they are reliably sourced and relevant. nableezy - 05:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that intent is part of that war crime if it could be proved the perpetrators had "genocidal intent.", an argument against the intent is a rebuttal. Further, what is the evidence that this is WP:DUE? The only source we have is a primary source transcribing a speech by Haniyeh. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We should be including details, but we don't need to include colorful depictions of all the terrible things that happen, especially ones whose accuracy are actively in dispute, as is the case with Shani Louk.

The biggest issue, in my mind, is not whether details are present, but that we are saying things like "Hamas did this and that, which is a war crime," at the same time we say "Israel miiiiiiight have done maybe something that looks kind of like this, and those nasty Palestinians said it was a war crime, but nobody really knows for sure, and Israel said they weren't war crimes too." This was the state of the article when I tagged it.

Wikipedia should not be making assertions like this while things are so difficult to pick apart, when the international organizations tasked with making these determinations barely starting their processes, with new information arriving every day, and with the people of Gaza unable to even make their own case because of the communications blackout.

Outside of that, we should include information proportional to their coverage in RS, as @Nableezy describes. I wouldn't be opposed to a bit more detail in the Palestinian militant group section, but like I said, we should be providing simple, factual descriptions instead of parroting witness statements and random allegations and presenting them as truth. PriusGod (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference in presentation is that it is undisputed that Hamas committed war crimes; there are no reliable sources arguing that it is not a war crime to go into a civilian settlement and deliberately massacre civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see a source claim that cutting off food water and electricity to a captive population is not a war crime. Even Israel’s allies have said it not consistent with international law. nableezy - 14:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Lieber Institute and Reuters were some of the first results; given that I suspect there are many more who are not saying it is a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the Reuters source supports what you say. And the Lieber source says "Because not all lines of questioning can be addressed with this post, I will limit my analysis to the prohibition of starving civilians as a method of warfare" and says "Article 54, paragraph 1 of AP I and Article 14 of AP II prohibit using civilian starvation as a method of “warfare” or “combat” respectively." So maybe you were reading something else? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters says A siege can be considered a war crime if it targets civilians, rather than a legitimate means to undermine Hamas' military capabilities, or if found to be disproportionate. It's not saying it is a war crime, it's saying it is possible is one if it is found to be disproportionate or to target civilians.

Lieber goes further, and says In conclusion, sieges themselves are not per se prohibited by IHL. Some military advantages are to be gained by the temporary implementation of a complete siege as ordered here. It is also clear that Hamas’s attacks within Israel’s territory and its population need not go unanswered. However, siege must be a temporary measure, dependent upon how the complete siege of the Gaza Strip is, in fact, carried out. When looking at its own interpretation of the prohibition to starve civilians, it seems likely that Israel could itself only consider the “complete siege” lawful for such time until conditions require access to humanitarian aid or the immediate evacuation of the civilian population. It's saying that it's not a war crime, although it may become one if Israel doesn't end the siege in a timely manner. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The first also assumes that Gaza is not occupied, which is a minority position. The first does not in fact say it does not violate international law, it says it per se does not as a rule. It also said that Israel, even if not a state party, apparently believes the prohibition on the starvation of civilians is indeed customary international law and as such bound by it. And it is also by a PhD student. Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. But Lieber is not saying it is not a war crime, it is saying a siege by itself may not be a war crime. It does not say that this one is not. nableezy - 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters, as Selfstudier says, does not support the view at all. Reuters discusses the siege in the context of IHL, and declines to call it a war crime instead presenting a more nuanced position.

I think our interpretations of Lieber differ; my interpretation is that it is saying it was legal at the time of writing, and would continue to be so conditional on Israel relieving it at an appropriate time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters does not say it is not. And a PhD student with no relevant publications in a non scholarly outlet is nowhere close to an established expert in the field, like Tom Dannenbaum. nableezy - 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: You appear to take up issue with "simple and dry facts". I find this a bizarre complaint to make on this platform. Another word for this is just "encyclopedic tone". Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's slightly misleading to leave off the last half of that sentence; without detail. I take issue because we don't do it in both parts; if we treated the allegations against Israel in the same manner I would have no issue, but doing so only for one is an NPOV violation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can try to add some more to balance things out or whatever that Wiki rule is, I am not sure I am good at Wiki voice. Here’s a list of war crimes: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Balasp cannot be used to create a false balance, it just means a balanced reporting of the sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Selfstudier, that makes sense. I did notice some war crimes in the Geneva list that were not explicitly listed in their own categories under the Palestinian militant groups like torture and sexual assault/ rape, but I do see rape listed under the “Massacres” section. Also, do you think you maybe want to protect the Criticism of Amnesty International page? There’s been some recent edits there that may be related to contentious topics, and I saw your username in the edit history. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Completely Agree. this is one of the most blatant pro-zionist biases observed on wikipedia in general, not just this article. Chafique (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Like Russian war crimes VS Allegations of war crimes against Israel. Like Lol seriously ? Try reading the first few lines of the leads in both articles, This is hilarious Chafique (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion by an author of war crimes statutes: David Scheffer interview – SJ + 00:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Rocket range

Please update to reflect that the rockets have not only reached Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but have reached all the way north and south as well. 2A02:14F:174:5405:75CC:7E8E:567D:4EA9 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in Medical Facilities

We have a sentence that reads, "Hamas has been documented to use hospitals and other medical facilities such as ambulances." What's the source for this? Every source I've read notes these are IDF allegations, not internationally verified reports, documents, or investigations. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

We're also saying, "the IDF released videos showing Hamas fighters firing from the Sheikh Hamad Hospital." But it seems in dispute that these videos do actually show that. Can we really say in Wikivoice that's what the videos show? CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Are the lead pictures really necessary?

Not every article needs to have featured pictures as soon as the page is opened, especially when it comes to downright discomforting ones. NocheLluviosa (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I think in general images add a lot to an article, but I'd 100% agree about finding an image that is less discomforting to somebody just opening the page. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The picture we currently have in the lede of the massacres is comparatively tame; to tame it down further would be whitewashing and a WP:NOTCENSORED violation. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SHOCK you are right; the more shocking image is valuable but shouldn't be the first thing you see when you open the article. Swapped the image with a less gory one from further down the page. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 20:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Red-link at the "Further information" section of the "Massacres" section of the article. The article "Hamas beheading incidents" appears to have been deleted. This link should be removed from the further info section. Frojas798 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Another editor has removed the link. Liu1126 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Improper Use of the Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the Adversary to list of crimes Hamas has commited

Missing Hamas war crime: Improper Use of the Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the enemy.

Article 23(f) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:

“It is especially prohibited … to make improper use of … the national flag or military ensigns and uniform of the enemy.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(f)[1][1].

according to multiple news source, Palestinian terrorists used IDF uniforms to assist in the attack:

"In one pair of videos that were screened, Hamas terrorists are seen dressed in IDF uniforms, flagging down passing cars and then shooting their occupants."[2]

"According their statements, delivered by the IDF spokespersons unit, the terrorists they found in Kibbutz Be'eri adopted a deceptive tactic by wearing IDF uniforms and opening fire on the approaching IDF forces."[3] 79.177.5.13 (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support the addition request, also add that Hamas, released other videos on social media groups, supporting the claim that some of the terrorists dressed in IDF & Police uniforms to assist the attacks. EmbeddedReason (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Title of the article

Why would we not use "Alleged war crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" for this article's title? According to WP:NDESC, articles that deal with the topic of "actual accusation[s] of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law" are best titled using the word "allegations" or similar.

As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is the only body with the authority to rule on war crimes; if any other person or governmental organization decisively terms something a "war crime", that doesn't make it so. Could anyone shed some light on how a definitive ruling of what IS a war crime is made? Because unless we have such definitive rulings for this conflict, the article should probably be renamed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

So the difference between war crimes and other crimes is that only a miniscule fraction of war crimes have ever been prosecuted, basically because international law is largely toothless. As a result, if articles on war crimes were to follow the same standards as normal crimes, where the designation follows convictions, almost every piece of content about war crimes would be couched in the language of 'accusation'. For practical purposes, instead of hanging around for the often unlikely possibility of prosecution, there is a trend to default to the opinions of legal experts and their predictions of whether certain acts would be considered a war crime in the hypothetical event of the airing of the grievance in court. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also a "bothsides" article so not an NPOV problem as such. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I get most of that. After posing the question, I read up on the topic, and that's largely the same conclusion I was coming to. And it seems fine - it really is a quite different topic than most crime. I guess as long as articles contain attributions to who is calling what a war crime, and disclaimers like "reportedly" and "allegedly" are used rigorously, the title of the article doesn't matter quite as much.

Though, it still seems odd that this whole topic area would get a carve-out to not comply with WP:NDESC, yet there's no template or maintenance tag or anything directing readers to why war crimes are treated this way... Even the article on War crimes doesn't do a great job explaining why war crimes are treated this way. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also have a look at Use of human shields by Hamas, same "carve-out". Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

On that Talk page, you argued that such a "carve-out" would be incorrect, citing the same WP:NDESC I did. However, in this discussion, you supported applying the exact same carve-out, to another article which more explicitly deals with the topic of "War crimes by X". Should we not be consistent in the way we title articles across this topic space? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There are different cases going on, some articles are both sides, others are one side only but this factor does not seem to influence editorial opinion. I have concluded for the time being that even though NDESC is part of policy, it seems that a local consensus argued by way of weight of sourcing may either override or comply with it. If that is going to be the norm then the policy might need amending but I am not going to involve myself with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think either that policy needs amending to get specific mention of war crimes, or we need some other policy or template created. If war "crimes" aren't to be treated with the same policies other crimes get, there should be clarification somewhere. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier and @PhotogenicScientist, See WP:IAR Parham wiki (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at by citing that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist, @Selfstudier and @Iskandar323, If a rule [such as a such as a WP:NDESC] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It is clear that a war crime has occurred Parham wiki (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that a war crime has occurred Which judge said so? Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty International, the United Nations, an Israeli human rights organization whose name I don't know. There is no need for a judge. Parham wiki (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

According to comments made by yourself and others at Israel and apartheid and Israel, there is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall saying apartheid should not be included in the Israel article. Parham wiki (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, when you have other editors who feel the change you want to make is not plainly an improvement, WP:IAR is not a good policy to lean on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect descriptions and overused sources

"Mohammed Zarqout, a local official responsible for Gaza's hospitals"

source CNN article fails to observe that Mohammed Zarqout is the Gazan Health Ministry’s general manager for hospitals, i.e. he is employed by Hamas. Hence, should be corrected from local to Hamas official.

2. You can't have such a over-the-top sensitive topic locked down to edits while also covering it all with mainly 1 source or sources referring to that 1 source - that proven time and time again it is biased, does not fact-check and funded by interest party in the conflict

Talking of course of the 50+ times Al-Jazeera is overused on this page for a source of quotes or facts or any other types of information.

This in turn creates a very unbalanced, one might even say biased/one-sided, presentation of the subject - one that IMO you'd agree demands credibility & verification for all information published on all the parties.

Suggestion to verify or include multiple sources per crucial statements, quotes, and data & also, suggestion to reduce usage of Al-Jazeera as a credible source of information all-together for covering Israel EmbeddedReason (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on sources credibility in regards to above concerning Al-Jazeera:

1. Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) is a Qatari state-media conglomerate headquartered at Qatar

2. Qatar is key financial backer and ally of Hamas. more than $1.8 billion to Hamas

3. NYPost Published Nov. 7, 2023: "The terror group’s three top leaders alone are worth a staggering total of $11 billion and enjoy a life of luxury in the sanctuary of the emirate of Qatar" EmbeddedReason (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

1) "Mohammed Zarqout is the Gazan Health Ministry’s general manager" - sounds like he's employed by the Gaza Health Ministry. #2) mediabiasfactcheck is not a reliable source. #3) Al Jazeera is widely used because it actually has on-the-ground reporters. #4) All media sources are bias and backed by someone with some sort of opinions. Irrelevant. Qatar also helped negotiate the ceasefire. So clearly Israel considers it adequately neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

::1. Gaza Health Ministry "is the government agency" "operates under the administration of the Hamas authority"

Sounds like a disingenuous attempt by you.

2. mediabiasfactcheck: "has been regarded as accurate enough to be used as ground-truth for e.g. media bias classifiers, fake news studies, and automatic fact-checking systems."

Watchdog: "criticizes Al-Jazeera English for lack of ‘basic standards of accuracy and accountability’"

NewsGuard: "Al Jazeera fabricates news and distorts facts"

3 & 4. Your 'personal opinion' on Al-Jazeera reporting and credibility isn't relevant. This page information cannot rely 50+ times on the same 1 media source, especially when it is known that this source is linked to 1 of the conflicts parties, is biased and has credibility issues. EmbeddedReason (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed—I was shocked by the degree to which alleged Israeli crimes are sourced to Al Jazeera—and it's utterly disingenuous to claim that they're "neutral" on this topic. Sure, all sources have bias—which is a great reason not to base so much of the article on a single source with tremendous bias when it comes to the subject of the article. "Qatar also helped negotiate the ceasefire. So clearly Israel considers it adequately neutral."—this is truly bizarre. Few negotiations during war involve "neutral" actors. Israel allows Qatar to negotiate on behalf of Hamas because they fund and support Hamas and thus have leverage—not in any way because Israel believes Qatar to be a "neutral" actor who will fairly adjudicate disputes. ElleTheBelle 16:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As a non EC editor you are only allowed to make editrequests on this page per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I've clarified that Zarqout is an official of the Gaza Health Ministry. Btw I think it's actually Zaqout and not Zarqout (زقوت) [2]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that AJ is over-cited to the extent that it violated WP:DUE. What exactly would you suggest to change? Alaexis_¿question? 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Citing an RS cannot be undue per se. That which it is cited for can be. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBECR, as noted above, I have removed one comment not replied to and struck others that were replied to, users may present edit requests if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Statement of "880 scholars of international law and genocide" is misleading

Edit request to remove the following sentence:

On 17 October, 10 days after the start of the war, 880 scholars of international law and genocide signed a public statement saying: "As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

A quick check revealed that 7 out of 10 signatories sampled could not reasonably claim to be "scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies.", raising concerns about the overall credibility of this statement and the validity of the claims made.

The high number of unqualified signatories in the sample suggests that TWAILR conducted insufficient vetting and calls their claim of "over 800" signatories into question.  

In matters as serious as genocide, it is crucial to uphold the highest standards of accuracy and credibility.

For this reason, the sentence should be removed from the article.

7 cannot reasonably claim to be "scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies, and genocide studies":

<nowiki />

1. Aanchal Saraf, Dartmouth College ----> Research Associate, Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies
2. Aaron Seymour, Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney ----> Lecturer, School Of Design [Graphic Design, IT]
3. Aasiya Lodhi, Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster. ----> Senior Lecturer, Westminster School Of Media And Communication
4. Abdullah Omran, PhD student, Indiana University ----> Graduate Student, Digital Islam, Contemporary Muslim Thought, Religious Knowledge Production.
5. Abigail Balbale, New York University ----> Assistant Professor, Middle Eastern And Islamic Studies
6. Adalmir Marquetti, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS). ----> Teaches At Economics Department
7. Adam Elliott-Cooper, Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London ----> Lecturer In Public And Social Policy

2-3 can reasonably make that claim:

<nowiki />

1. Abdelghany Sayed, Assistant Lecturer, PhD Candidate, Kent Law School. ----> Postgraduate Research Student, Human Rights And Humanitarian Laws, Violence, Popular Culture.
2. Adrian Carrillo Gomez, PhD student, Deusto University. ----> Works For "Inclusive Humanitarian Action" [The organisation ensures that disability issues are taken into account in public development policy]
3. Adil Hasan Khan, Melbourne Law School ----> Postdoctoral Fellow, International Law

AcrophobicEagle (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done. No secondary sources provided querying the validity of the material. Even if it were the case that those 7 fail, based on your personal opinion there are a very large number of obviously good sources in the list that would individually constitute an RS on the basis of their expertise. 880 - 7 = 873. This has all been discussed already at Palestinian genocide accusation and the material kept.

As a non EC editor, per WP:ARBECR, you are permitted to make straightforward edit requests. That does not extend to engaging in OR and making speeches. Selfstudier (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and acknowledge your expertise in editing. However, I respectfully hold a differing perspective regarding the dismissal of my argument. My intention is to align with Wikipedia's policies, and I would like to address any potential misunderstandings. I refer to the principle of WP:NOBITE in fostering a collaborative environment.

In reference to WP:ARBECR, which outlines that "Non-EC editors may use the 'Talk:' namespace only to make edit requests, provided they are not disruptive," my interpretation is open to discussion. I believe that engaging in a good-faith discussion for verifiable accuracy, especially in the context of a controversial topic (as emphasised in WP:5P2 and WP:5P3), remains within the spirit of Wikipedia's principles. Additionally, I question how this interpretation conflicts with WP:OR, specifically the provision that "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Could you guide me on the policies that restrict non-EC editors from participating in a good-faith argument regarding the reliability of sources?

Your clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated. AcrophobicEagle (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your interpretation of ARBECR is simply wrong. The preceding sentence in the ruling says "only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions", and the allowance to make edit requests is an isolated exception to that blanket prohibition. You can't just grant yourself extra exceptions. If you want to discuss it with the Arbitration Committee, the place to go is WP:ARCA, but I guarantee that you won't get anywhere. Zero^talk 10:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I let the facts speak for themselves. Best, AcrophobicEagle (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sexual humiliation and degrading by Israeli forces

First, the cited source [3] does not discuss the sexual nature of the IDF's misconduct, and the section should be removed;

Secondly, the characterization of the conduct of the IDF soldiers with the Palestinian militants as "sexual humiliation", when there is no mention of "sexual" or even "humiliation" in the source cited, joined together with the reports of horribly violent and deliberate rapes of innocent women by Hamas under the unifying title "By both sides" is tantamount to blatant SYNTH/POV pushing. Deerove (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you do the change? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaexis fixed it. Deerove (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out, and pointing out issues :). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

WEIGHT

This article gives more weight to crimes by Hamas, by placement and emphasis, than it does to crimes by Israel, despite the overwhelming amount of coverage being directed to crimes by Israel. This isnt an article War Crimes committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023, and as such the article needs to give due weight where the coverage does. The argument on chronology is cute but not in keeping with any policy I am aware of. Due weight however, is core policy. nableezy - 15:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also been confused by the arguments about chronology and if they adhere to any actual policy. I think giving due weight makes more sense. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Chronology is the usual case... If you look at articles on wars usually you'd have events per chronology. Here is an example from WW2 article: Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935) - Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) - Japanese invasion of China (1937) - War breaks out in Europe (1939–1940) - Western Europe (1940–1941) ... etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to MOS:SNO, the argument of sorting the sections according to the events' timeline is a very strong one, since most Wikipedia articles that describe a series of events are organized that way.

Furthermore, the events' timeline order is probably the most neutral one, thus fits better with WP:NPOV. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree, article seems to place more emphasis on Israel. Just look at the length of section on War crimes by Israel compared to length of section on Hamas. And the Both Sides section also places more emphasis on Israel. Look at the length of each Genocide accusation (Spoiler, Israel accused of genocide section is longer), Homerethegreat (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think exact the opposite. The article puts too much emphasis on Israeli war crimes and not enough on Hamas. Dovidroth (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the current article gives more weight to "crimes by Hamas" - the section about the crimes by Israel is much longer.

I also think that the separation of "crimes by Hamas" and "crimes by Israel" is problematic. It makes more sense to order the entire article according to the events' timeline. As I mentioned earlier, it fits MOS:SNO and WP:NPOV. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems the text dedicated to Israel is actually *longer*, and the order is simply due to chronological reasons, not indicative of providing more or less weight. Marokwitz (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It is longer because there is more coverage of it. nableezy - 14:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Targeting of journalists

Currently, we say Reporters Without Borders conducted a preliminary investigation into the killing of Issam Abdallah, a Reuters photojournalist killed in Lebanon, and found that the strike on a clearly marked vehicle marked "Press" was purposely targeted and that the fire had come from Israel. However, this doesn't align with the source, which outside headlines (which, per WP:HEADLINES, are not considered reliable) only says is that there was precise targeting and that It is unlikely that the journalists were mistaken for combatants.

Nableezy, I see you added this; can you align it with the source? BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m mostly on mobile rn and it’s kinda hard to edit like that but if I made a mistake by all means correct it, I won’t call it a revert. nableezy - 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Amnesty recently published a statement about this incident, after reviewing evidence and investigating witnesses, and has called for it to be investigated as a war crime. entropyandvodka | talk 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Mutilation of Dead Gazans / Misconduct within the IDF?

Can we add this to the current list? I have seen this reported by reputable news sources such as Haaretz, perhaps we should also add reports of looting and misconduct by the IDF

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/graphic-videos-and-incitement-how-the-idf-is-misleading-israelis-on-telegram/0000018c-5ab5-df2f-adac-febd01c30000 TuaamWiki (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of mutilations in the article, nor of other war crimes. Alaexis_¿question? 22:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if there are no (minus israelis driving over Hamas fighters) reports of mutilations the actions in the article are still certainly in the field of misconduct within the IDF. So, I do think that Looting and Misconduct should be put here because that is indeed a warcrime.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-soldiers-gaza-viral-videos-idf-072894147302535cc9632863888e53a4

(Same source)

https://themessenger.com/news/israeli-soldiers-set-fire-destroying-toy-store-in-gaza-videos-appear-to-show TuaamWiki (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the article about war crimes, I don't think we should add things that reliable sources don't call war crimes. The right place to mention these events would be the article about the Israeli invasion, keeping WP:DUE in mind. Alaexis_¿question? 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Demolishing of Gaza cemeteries and confiscates dead bodies of Palestinians

Kindly add report of alleged Demolishing of Gaza cemeteries and confiscation dead bodies of Palestinians in the By the Israeli government sections. Reference is below:

https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6032/Israel-demolishes-Gaza-cemeteries,-confiscates-dead-bodies-of-Palestinians

Adding New reports: More reports have emerged now about damaging or destroying 6+ cemeteries in Gaza by IDF -- an act that could be judged a war crime. A latest article by new york times is below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/14/world/middleeast/gaza-cemeteries-damage-israel.html

The IDF's destruction of cemeteries in #Gaza has been noted before, including yesterday by Channel4News's lindseyhilsum here:

- "Today, Israeli soldiers drove their tanks" through a cemetery in #Jabalia, "breaking graves and disinterring bodies."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c288Hgyit2M--Sam6897 (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sam6897 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Israeli hostages by IDF

The sources say that the hostages were killed by mistake and none of the sources call them war crimes. Therefore this doesn't belong to this article Alaexis_¿question? 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That the sources haven't got their yet is pertinent, but the logical fallacy is not. If they were mistaken for unarmed Palestinians waving a white flag that's needless to say still a war crime. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This would depend on the context, e.g., what was the likelihood that this was a deception. But let's not engage in OR. There is no deadline, we should wait for RS to qualify these events. Alaexis_¿question? 09:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

tank accident

a month ago there was an accident were a tank shot a civilian car which is not mentioned here [4] Braganza (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Reports of alleged executions of Gazan civilians by IDF

Kindly add reports of alleged executions of Gazan civilians by IDF in the By the Israeli government sections. References are below:

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2023/12/13/civilians-sheltering-inside-a-gaza-school-killed-execution

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-turns-schools-military-centres-conducting-field-executions-and-mass-killings-enar

https://www.newarab.com/news/bodies-families-executed-israel-found-gaza-school

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2023/12/359535/muslim-council-urges-biden-to-respond-to-execution-style-massacre-in-gaza-school

Sam6897 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

While I do agree we need to add this as more news comes out, do we have any indication of this from other news sources? I see aljazeera but I am unsure about the credibility of newarab and whatnot TuaamWiki (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's see what more reliable sources say about it. Alaexis_¿question? 22:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Now United Nation- Human rights office has also mentioned incident of alleged executions of Palestinian civilians by IDF in gaza war so this should be added in the article. Reference is below:

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/un-human-rights-office-opt-unlawful-killings-gaza-city Sam6897 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TRT world has published news about United Nation's report on alleged executions of Palestinian civilians by IDF.

[5]https://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/un-asks-israel-to-investigate-execution-of-11-unarmed-palestinians-16329373 Sam6897 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Alleged Murder of a pregnant women by IDF bulldozers

On Al-Jazeera, A Eyewitness from the Tel al-Zaatar area in northern Gaza Strip claimed that Israeli bulldozers ran over pregnant women, killing them, as they were on their way to give birth at Al-Awda Hospital.

https://twitter.com/AJArabic/status/1738401543945130221

--Sam6897 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP Al-Jazeera is a partisan source and its Arabic version is considered less reliable than the English one. This is an exceptional claim, are there any other sources that confirm it? Alaexis_¿question? 18:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Using bulldozer to bury refugees alive

There was an NPR story about a video that appeared to show israeli bulldozers burying people alive at the Kamal Adwan Hospital. I think this covers it. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-calls-for-investigation-of-deaths-at-hospital-israel-says-was-hamas-command-center-7c02ac1d Fanccr (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that we need to wait until this is characterised as war crime by reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"IDF accused of atrocities: Israeli soldiers raiding a hospital in northern Gaza desecrated the bodies of dead patients with bulldozers, let a military dog maul a man in a wheelchair, and shot multiple doctors even after vetting them for terror links, according to allegations by staff and patients. The IDF did not address the allegations directly when approached for comment by CNN, but acknowledged that it had carried out an operation at the hospital." https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-12-23-23/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/middleeast/kamal-adwan-hospital-gaza-israel-abuse-allegations-intl-cmd/index.html "UN humanitarian affairs coordination office OCHA said in an update that on Saturday Israeli forces withdrew from the hospital and according to media reports “an Israeli military bulldozer flattened the tents of a number of internally displaced persons outside the hospital, killing and wounding an unconfirmed number of people”. " https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144887 Fanccr (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel and allegations of genocide

• 800+ Legal Scholars Say Israel May Be Perpetrating 'Crime of Genocide' in Gaza
• A Textbook Case of Genocide - Raz Segal ( Holocaust and genocide studies professor at Stockholm University)
• The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal - Chris McGreal (was a reporter during the Rwandan genocide)
• Gaza: UN experts decry bombing of hospitals and schools as crimes against humanity, call for prevention of genocide
• Israel's Gaza war rooted in dehumanizing, genocidal language
• Going all-in for Israel may make Biden complicit in genocide

This needs to be explicitly addressed. XTheBedrockX (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@XTheBedrockX: The crime of genocide is often characterized slightly separate to other war crimes in international law, for example in the Rome Statute, which places it in its own category, though the Genocide Convention obviously came first. Nevertheless, the most pertinent place for this type of material may be at Genocide against Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 That's true, yes. But considering this still directly pertains to the 2023 war, and that genocide is still a war crime, I think something that directly addresses these allegations should be somewhere on this article, too. XTheBedrockX (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

A population does not increase by 1 million in the last decade under a genocide.

As for the current war, no numbers are known as to hostiles and noncombatants. All the numbers that are posted are from Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. These numbers are not differentiating between civilians and terrorists, who are often times in civilian clothes, as has been heavily documented.

This page needs to be monitored by actual lawyers and international law, because going through what is currently posted, there is so many misleading information. And sometimes down non-factual information. NetanelWorthy (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Fighting in civilian clothing a war crime?

I cannot read the NYT source (££$$€€)), but the text in the 'Fighting in civilian clothing' section reads: "Hamas militants often disguise themselves as civilians which is a violation of the international law." This seems ridiculous, implausible and unlikely to be a 'war crime'. Hamas, I imagine, don't have or wear a uniform (not being a national army), the Geneva convention protection provisions might not apply consequently - I'm not sure - but not wearing a uniform is extremely unlikely to be a war crime. I can't read the source, but can someone check this out. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The NYT piece says: "The second responsible party is Hamas. It hides weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, and its fighters disguise themselves as civilians, all of which are violations of international law." The paragraph is somewhat of a generalising and throwaway one that seems to take a number of axioms for granted, and none of this is explained or examined further in the piece. As you note, it's unclear if proscriptions against combatants wearing normal clothes rightly applies to non-state fighters. It's not really assumed in the first place that guerrilla resistance forces should abide by formal dress codes, is it? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much as I thought. "Violations of international law" is a hugely generalised description, but they aren't inherently war crimes AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

[6] Yes, it's a war crime. You can't disguise a terrorist as a medical or religious transport unit. Read Article 18 or Article 39. There are all kinds of rules about this, it is not a "Dress Code." Maybe you should actually study international law before you make wild speculations about what is or isn't covered by it. Edited: Everyone should make sure to read material on international law prior to making assertions about what it may cover, as some of the assertions made here are inaccurate. This is not intended to be a personal comment on anyone, and I apologize for the snippier earlier wording. [edited Andre🚐 20:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)] Andre🚐 09:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The source in question only mentions civilian disguises in general, not anything more specific. What you are mentioning is unrelated to the source in question, and, within the context of this discussion, unsubstantiated. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fully substantiated by both the NYT and the Geneva Convention which I linked to. Andre🚐 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hospitals have special protections under international humanitarian law. It is illegal in nearly all circumstances to attack hospitals, ambulances or other medical facilities, or to interfere with their ability to provide care to the wounded and sick. That is true even if some of their patients are wounded fighters as well as civilians. Attacking a protected hospital is a war crime that can be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court. Using civilians, like those in a hospital, as human shields for combatants is also prohibited. But there is an exception under which hospitals lose that protection: A hospital or medical facility can lose its special legal status if it is used for a military purpose that is “harmful to the enemy,” rather than just for medical care. For example, if an armed group uses a hospital building as a headquarters, it cannot use the special hospital protection as a shield for that military operation. [7] Andre🚐 09:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Why are you citing an NYT that discusses the military use of medical facilities as a hypothetical? This is A) tangential to this thread, and B) related, as a hypothetical area of speculation, to Shifa hospital, whose only proven military use appears to be propagandistic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical. It's an article about Al-Shifa, and quite relevant to both this thread and the revert I made on this article. Andre🚐 18:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What revert? Does it relate directly to the original topic here? Iskandar323 (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

[8] Andre🚐 22:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Article 37(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Convention, outlaws "Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with the intent to betray that confidence". This means that soldiers in a regular army can't pretend to be civilians by removing their uniforms. However, in a situation where the combatants have no uniforms and customarily wear civilian clothing the situation is one for the lawyers to argue about. The USA met this question regarding the Taliban and adopted an interpretation that much of the world disagreed with. What is absolutely clear, contrary to the NYT writer's apparent implication, is that nobody is allowed to kill people presenting as civilians on suspicion that they might be combatants. Zero^talk 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to get into the hypotheticals. We simply write what the sources say. To the original point, the NYT is accurate, and there's no need to second-guess an apparently good and reliable source. It is indeed a war crime to hide weapons in schools and hospitals, or disguise a fighter as a medical worker or civilian. Is it also a war crime to kill those people? Probably, but that wasn't the question asked. Andre🚐 11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear that the NYT is accurate. This particular point is not the focus of the piece, but merely a single throwaway point made amid it. It is also the case that no expert is referenced, and there is no reason to believe the particular NYT writer are themselves an international law expert. In the context, WP:ECREE considerations apply, and we should really be looking for multiple RS stating the same, and preferably doing so in a less trivial manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing exceptional about the claim that human shielding and pretending to be a civilian or medical worker is a war crime. Using human shields is one of the acts classified as a war crime by the Rome Statute and by the International Criminal Court. [9] International humanitarian law lends hospitals special protections during war. But hospitals can lose their protections if combatants use them to hide fighters or store weapons, the International Committee of the Red Cross said.Nonetheless, there must be plenty of warning before attacks to allow for the safe evacuation of patients and medical workers, ICRC legal officer Cordula Droege said. Even if Israel succeeds in proving Shifa conceals a Hamas command center, the tenets of international law remain in place Andre🚐 18:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is another source which mentions the use of civilian clothes by Hamas on page 155. Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The only question asked in the thread was about the statement on the page about civilian dress. The thread is not about hospitals at all, and I don't get all the sidetracking on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a related issue, the civilian dress is also addressed in this thread. If there are no further issues to discuss, we can let it rest. If we need to continue discussing, we can. I submit it is not controversial that fighters disguise themselves as civilians, all of which are violations of international law per NYT and a war crime, a violation of the conventions and the criminal statutes. Further, second-guessing the NYT in this instance is not helpful since there are other sources. If you require more, I will provide them. Andre🚐 22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The present text and some discussion here appears to depend on substantial WP:SYNTH. A combatant actively pretending to be a civilian or medical worker is not the same thing as simply not wearing a uniform. AFAI can see the source doesn't say that Hamas members/sympathisers are committing war crimes by not having uniforms, certainly other sources have not made this claim AFAIK. The PBS source says quite clearly that a protected place can lose its protected status if proven to be being used substantially militarily - but it doesn't say it is a war crime to misrepresent/misuse a protected place, building ambulance etc. Removing a legal protection is not the same as saying someone is committing a crime (anymore than removing someone's hat is the same as hitting them on the head)! PBS also says explicitly that the burden of proof lies with the attacker to prove that a target has lost its protected status ("And the bar for evidence is very high"). An attacker claiming misuse of a protected place isn't a "get out of jail free" card.

Simple question, does the source used say explicitly that war crimes are being committed in Gaza by Hamas or others not wearing uniform? Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a talk page, so it's not SYNTH to have a discussion about what we know. As far as what's in the article, I believe it is sourced adequately and couched in such a way to describe the war crimes as accusations, not proven ones, which is how sources describe them. I expect we'll have to wait a while for them to be stated as proven crimes on either side. Andre🚐 21:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that SYNTH is not allowed on talk. Here people don't appear to understand the difference between removing a legal protection and becoming a war crime. Simple question, does the source used say explicitly that war crimes are being committed in Gaza by Hamas or others not wearing uniform? is still unanswered. I wasn't asking whether they had proved it yet, merely where they say it explicitly, because no one has quoted text that does so. Also, if they are the only source that does, why it isn't attributed? The accusation is not couched in such a way to describe the war crimes as accusations … "Hamas militants often disguise themselves as civilians which is a violation of the international law." is asserting in WPVOICE that not wearing uniforms is a war crime - otherwise why does it have a section in an article about war crimes? Pincrete (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is what the NYT says, so it's not OR or SYNTH, it comes straight from a reliable source. Andre🚐 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What does it say and where? violations of international law - even in war time - aren't automatically 'war crimes'. That's like claiming that failing to pay a tax is the same as a capital offence, and even if the source says 'war crimes have been committed', why isn't it attributed, since NYT is the only one saying it? Pincrete (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

NYT is NOT the only one saying it. [10] AP [11] PBS [12] CFR [13] an article from JHU and that's just 5 Google results. This is well-attested, not synthetic, and not needing attribution. Andre🚐 21:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What is this talk page section about do you think? It isn't about war crimes in general, nor about attacking hospitals etc. It's about whether Hamas members being in civilian clothes is - in itself - a war crime, which this WP article currently claims in a dedicated section. None of the sources you give mention 'clothes' nor 'uniforms' nor anything similar AFAI can find. The only question asked in the thread was about the statement on the page about civilian dress. The thread is not about hospitals at all, and I don't get all the sidetracking on this but I suspect that it is a desperate attempt to imply that bombing/attacking protected places and shooting protected groups of people magically becomes 'legit' when the 'other side' isn't in uniform. No source I have seen yet even implies the claim currently made in this WP article, nor many other claims made here on talk. Pincrete (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, I reverted a removal of the section from the article pertaining to the hospitals and being a war crime, since that is also in this article. I suppose I could have started a separate section on that. The articles above also discuss the related topic of conducting military operations from a civilian location. Your statement on "desperation" is not appropriate. I'll update the article with additional sources. Andre🚐 07:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that the 'Fighting in civilian clothing's' claim that Hamas not having uniforms constitutes a war crime is simply untrue? Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

What? No, not at all. not even the slightest. I've gone ahead and added more sources and explanation to the article so it's clear that this is unequivocally a violation of international law and belongs here[14] Andre🚐 07:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The only source there AFAI can see that mentions clothes/uniforms is the first (New Lines) which says that adopting the enemy's uniform deliberately (as some Hamas were accused of doing on October 7th) is a war crime. Still no mention of wearing civilian clothes being a war crime.

"Violation of international law" is not a synonym of "war crime". Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The NYT source as well, and again, the sources do explain it in depth. WP:IDHT. Andre🚐 08:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources make the fundamental claim that "Hamas militants often disguise themselves etc". The nearest any source gets to saying this is that Israel claims this to be so. Ditto the "fighting from hospitals/human shielding" claims - these are IDF claims not corroborated by independent sources AFAI can see. The whole discussion becomes moot if hospitals don't hold military headquarters etc. Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not correct at all. The NYT source states it outright along with the other source added by Alaexis above which is now in the article. That's 2 sources making this explicit claim plus another 7 making related claims. Since they're complex topics, we could probably expand that sentence into about 2 paragraphs using the same sources that are currently all on that one sentence. But your fundamental assertion that no source contains the statement that Hamas often disguise themselves as civilians is plainly in the NYT which was acknowledged by you and Iskandar earlier in the discussion. A violation of international law, is a war crime in many circumstances, and this is one of them. Andre🚐 08:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas’s role The second responsible party is Hamas. It hides weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, and its fighters disguise themselves as civilians, all of which are violations of international law. This approach both helps Hamas to survive against a more powerful enemy — the Israeli military — and contributes to Hamas’s efforts to delegitimize Israel. The group has vowed to repeat the Oct. 7 attacks and ultimately destroy Israel. Hamas’s strategy involves forcing Israel to choose between allowing Hamas to exist and killing Palestinian civilians. Hamas is simply not prioritizing Palestinian lives.

per NYT - 12/7, Leonhardt By the way, a paywall is never an excuse not to read sources, when we have Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library's fantastic free ProQuest subscription. It's an amazing educational resource. Instead of repeatedly making baseless claims on this page, why don't you type in a few search terms and peruse them. There are instructions on that page to sign up. Andre🚐 08:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Our text says 'often' - even the NYT text does not say this, and it doesn't speak of 'war crimes'. Most of the other sources simply don't cover the issue, (some are generalised discussions of what is/isn't a war crime) - or cover it as an Israeli claim. Iskandar can speak for themself, but I have not acknowledged what you claim. Not wearing a uniform is not a synonym of "being in disguise" - which is clearly about deliberate intent to deceive. A violation of international law, is a war crime in many circumstances, and this is one of them, the first half of that sentence is clearly true, the second appears to be pure invention, or at least so far unsupported by a RS saying that this is so.

I have no objection to covering this topic, now it's got beyong the (frankly silly) claim that insurgents wearing civilian clothes are committing a war crime, but there is a misuse of WP:VOICE here IMO and a failure to distinguish between what is simply outside international law and what is a recognised war crime. Also a failure to point out that most sources say that the burden of proof for ignoring giving protected status is very high. A war party can't just claim it at will or for weak reasons. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't just keep repeating things that are contrary to sources. I'll remove "often," but yes, it's a war crime to disguise military units as civilian. No matter how many times you say it is not, that does not make it true. And it's not an "israeli claim." it is said in RS voice. 37(1). Since civilians are not lawful objects of attack as such in armed conflict, it follows that disguising combatants in civilian clothing in order to commit hostilities constitutes perfidy. [15] when fighters intentionally disguise themselves as civilians to lead soldiers on the opposing side to believe that they need not take defensive action to guard against attack, they commit perfidy [16] Andre🚐 09:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your quote is an abstract statement, it doesn't say that Hamas is doing this. Indeed, the first ref is about a "2008 Israeli operation that killed Hezbollah’s Imad Mughniyah in a Damascus parking lot" while the second is wholly abstract. It takes quite a number of leaps of logic and WP:SYNTH-ing of disparate claims to get from "these deeds can constitute war crimes" to "Hamas is committing these war crimes in the present conflict". Using the NYT source you might just about come up with an attributed accusation, if indeed the NYT made an explicit 'war crime' accusation.

Do you really believe that the majority of sources actually accept the "Hamas HQs are embedded in hospitals/disguising themselves" claims as fact? The 'embedded' claim is one of the most disputed things about this conflict (and presumably Hamas fighters also disguise themselves as middle-aged/elderly women and embed themselves in Catholic churches). In my experience far more sources are treating these 'embedded' claims as a 'fig-leaf' than are treating them as fact. With such a partisan and contentious claim, it is reasonable to expect that a broad consensus of WP:RS endorse that hospitals etc are regularly being intentionally mis-used by Hamas, to such an extent that they are committing a war crime, not simply a handful of sources implying it. The sources need to explicitly say that Hamas is committing a war crime by mis-using protected places/disguising themselves.

The currently used sources may say all sorts of things about war crimes, but they don't endorse that the majority of independent sources say that Hamas is actually committing a war crime in this way, because most of them don't even mention 'embedding' or 'disguise' in the present context. The claims need to be attributed at least, because I recognise that it is an accusation made, even if the surrounding facts are hotly disputed. Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you just spent the whole thread arguing that no source even accused Hamas of doing this, and that it wasn't even a war crime? Can we just linger on that for a moment? Are you going to admit you were completely wrong? The sources are completely adequate. The statement in the article is fully supported by the sources. Still, I've added 3 more sources, from professors Irwin Cotler, Luke Moffett[17], and Louis René Beres who are experts on international law, human rights, and political science, discussing why perfidy is a war crime and that Hamas does it. Andre🚐 10:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've said no such thing. I've said that the sources are not explicitly saying that Hamas are committing war crimes by wearing civilian clothes. Nor AFAI can see are they explicitly saying that Hamas are committing war crimes by embedding themselves in protected spaces (partly because many sources don't believe that they are substantially or deliberately doing so). Not one source has been presented saying either thing explicitly.

Proving that intentional deception by a belligerent can constitute a war crime has no bearing on whether Hamas has done so. Proving that mis-using a protected space can constitute perfidy and justify attacking that protected space has no bearing on whether anyone (other than IDF AFAI can see) says this IS happening. Even if a few sources do say such misuse is happening, - which may be the case - it has nothing like the level of agreement from sources that would justify WP:VOICE. The sources presented at present simply don't support the text they are attached to and all (more sceptical) counter-sources, which attribute these claims, are ignored. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

actions violated IHL: its misuse of ambulances and civilian dress constituted perfidy, and its exploitation of civilians and civilian areas as cover[18] Andre🚐 11:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Errr that source is discussing a different war entirely! This gets ever more abstract! Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Use of civilian facilities for military purposes

I believe that the section should be removed as unsourced because the sources either do not say anything about war crimes or when they do it does not refer to the use of civilian facilities. Also, I have been unable to find any rule in IHL that says that such a use is a violation. This is what the sources in the section say:

UNRWA does not call the use a war crime but say "Witnesses reported that Israeli Forces then struck the two health centres with artillery fire" and "Directing attacks against civilian objects is a serious violation of international law." So the UNRWA is referring to attacks, not the use.

The Guardian has no mention of war crimes, but the they say the use "raises serious concerns", citing the UNRWA report.

Al Jazeera has no mention of war crimes, but the they say the use "raises serious concerns", citing the same UNRWA report.

I could not find any article with the headline "Al-Shifa Hospital resembles Israeli 'military barracks,' Gaza Health Ministry says" at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/17/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-palestine/ . Nor could I find at the Internet Archive. I searched Washington Post's website for articles by one of the authors, Hazem Balousha without finding the article. However, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/17/israel-gaza-hamas-aid/ , an article where Parker and Balousha contributed contains a similar quote: "According to Gaza Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra, the hospital complex now resembles a “military barracks, with the army stationed outside and free access to enter and exit.” That article refers to IDF forces entering the hospital in search of Hamas, and does not make the claim that using the building is a war crime...

Reliefweb does not call the use of civilian facilities a war crime, but mentions killings that took place at the facilities. That would, if true, make the killings a war crime but not the use itself. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You might want to refer to the above discussion as well. This is a case of the Israelis being accused of using civilian facilities for military purposes, prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. There is a parallel discussion playing out above involving the facts that Hamas do similar things which are war crimes - storing caches of weapons in hospitals and stuff. Yeah, it's a war crime. No matter who does it. Andre🚐 09:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That section is about something else and is not relevant to the section about simply using facilitities. Above you discuss feigning civilian or other protected status to avoid being attacked, but this section is about the use itself. To start with, do you agree that none of the sources call the use itself of these facilities a war crime? Sjö (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sjö, I agree that, whilst the UN disapproves of such use of its facilities, nowhere does any source say that such use is a war crime. Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Tuffa graves

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: Do you have a better source for this? The content you added is not supported by the source you provided. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Report on Israel's treatment of prisoners

"Israeli soldiers subjected Palestinian detainees to electric shocks, burned their skin with lighters, spat in their mouths & deprived them of sleep, food & access to bathrooms until they defecated on themselves."

Grim investigation by #Israel's @972mag

Reference is below:

https://www.972mag.com/israel-torture-camp-gaza-detainees/

Add findings from this report in "Abuse and humiliation of detainees section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam6897 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Iran 'child recruits' and whole "Use of children" section.

The text "Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been attempting to recruit volunteers, including children, to fight alongside Hamas against Israel." is cited to a France24 piece and has a number of issues. Firstly, the France24 piece only uses the word 'children' in its heading and sub-heading, thereafter it refers to "young Iranian men and boys", nowhere saying how old these would-be young recruits are and strongly suggesting that the campaign was fairly unsuccessful anyway. AFA we know there have been no ""young Iranian … boys", and certainly no reason to think there were any under-15s - the age under which it is a war crime to use someone as a soldier. The most you get from the source is an IRG willingness to recruit unspecified "youth" to send to Palestine.

The whole "Use of children" section is a bit desperately hypothetical - a single Israeli source says a single interrogation revealed a "Hamas militant captured by Israel testified that Hamas used children to carry explosives" - no indication of whether this is alleged to have happened in the present conflict and AFAI can see, no source saying that such 'courier' use would be a war crime anyway.

So overall, we don't even have a clear accustion of a war crime in the present conflict. The section SYNTHes its way to saying maybe Hamas - or maybe just their pals in Iran- are prepared to use under-15 year olds, which if they did would be a war crime! If Hamas had nuclear weapons and used them would that also be a war crime? Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added an additional source, and I've changed "children" to "both men and boys".

Regarding nuclear weapons, it's debatable, but use alone probably wouldn't constitute a war crime. BilledMammal (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If the France24 source doesn't specifically say that IRG is recruiting under-15s (which it doesn't) and if this is done by Iran's IRG (not Hamas), this isn't even theoretically a war crime by Hamas. It wouldn't actually be an accusation of a war crime until/unless someone made the specific accusation that Hamas was actually using IRG's under-15s as soldiers in the present conflict. Otherwise it's all just hypothetical. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the source again, and I've switched it back to "children"; it's not a sub-heading where France24 uses "children", it's an article summary, to which WP:HEADLINES doesn't apply.

As to the hypothetical nature of it; attempting to recruit children is relevant, regardless of whether they succeed or not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say how old the sought recruits are, (child can mean anyone under 25/21/18/16/15 etc depending on context) they aren't being recruited by Hamas, and no one has been recruited by anyone AFA we know - let alone fought as a soldier in Gaza. How hypothetical do you want the 'crime' to be? Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We know a side has been trying to recruit children; that is sufficient.

As for the various possibilities of what child can mean, we have rejected including that clarification elsewhere even when we have reliable sources to support exactly what is meant in a specific context. Considering this, trying to include it here, where we don’t have those sources, feels inappropriate; it is better to align it with the sources and allow readers to interpret it as they would the source. BilledMammal (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We know a side has been trying to recruit children; that is sufficient except the 'side' alleged to be recruiting is IRG, not Hamas. You happily admit that you don't know whether they are (legally - ie under 15 year old) children being sought. None have actually been recruited according to the source and no one except editors here have said there is a war crime that even could, theoretically, be occurring in the present conflict as a result of IRG's actions. It's frankly a waste of time discussing this further. I'll see if other editors chime in here. Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole section should be removed per WP:ECREE. It makes no sense to have an entire section dedicated to theoretical war crimes. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s an exceptional claim that a state would try to recruit children to fight alongside a terrorist force - but we have strong sources to support that, particularly France24. There’s no WP:ECREE basis to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph: Israeli Telegram channel South First Responders has accused Hamas of training children to fight, and, according to Ynet, a senior Hamas militant captured by Israel testified that Hamas used children to carry explosives. Fails WP:ECREE. Second paragraph: Theoretical war crime. Doesn't belong. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of the first sentence fails ECREE? In particular, why is a Hamas militant admitting to using children and published in a reliable source insufficient?

As for the second, attempting to commit a war crime belongs in an article on war crimes - we’re not talking about an Imam spouting off or a minor department with no influence, we’re talking about the IRG seeking to recruit children. BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Accusations from a Telegram channel and IDF claims about a military interrogation don't hold water for this level of charge. 2) The IRG is not a belligerent in the conflict. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

IDF interrogations are sufficient, so long as they are attributed - there is no basis to exclude them.

I note that "terrorist group that has previously used children uses children again" isn’t an extraordinary claim.

And? They’re attempting to commit a war crime in relation to this conflict in support of a belligerent; it is relevant to a page about war crimes in this conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"terrorist group that has previously used children uses children again" isn’t an extraordinary claim, no it isn't 'extraordinary' in the WP sense. Nor is it unusual for 'irregular' groups - especially in insurrectionary circumstances, to use adolescent boys for various functions, including 'courier' and 'messenger' and sometimes even 'soldierly' functions - it's almost normal. The point at which that becomes a war crime is debatable, and, AFAIK has only even been alleged in the most extreme manifestations.

The problem isn't that the claim is in itself extraordinary, it's simply that no WP:RS has actually made the claim that Hamas is presently using under 15-year olds in roles that the source thinks would constitute a war crime. It fails WP:V, it is reliant on synthing-together snippets of information to imply that, since Hamas probably would be prepared to use under-age combatants - (if they could, and needed to and were actually engaged in combat at present) - then they are committing a war crime, or at least would be prepared to commit one, if they did so! It ropes in an ambiguous IRG ad campaign in a desperate attempt to make the case.

Hamas HAS committed well documented, universally agreed, war crimes - use of children isn't one of them. Pincrete (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas HAS committed well documented, universally agreed, war crimes - use of children isn't one of them.

If that was the standard we applied the section on Hamas would be half its current length, and the section on Israel would be almost empty. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You wish!

You are effectively admitting that the section isn't adequately sourced and is simply an attempt to impose your own notion of 'fairness' or 'balance' to the war crime coverage. Pincrete (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My point is that we don't require allegations to be proven or universally accepted to be included; we shouldn't try to apply a different standard to this section than we do to the rest of the article.

Although, if you prefer, I have no strong objections to cutting the entire article down to allegations that are proven and universally accepted? BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No war crimes accusations have been proven - many are widely accepted, but none have been proven so your proposal is absurd. What I am saying is that in this instance, (use of children - contrary to war crimes laws), no accusations have been made - except by WP editors, or seemingly except by BilledMammal stitching together several weak sources to imply a war crime is occurring or imminent. no WP:RS has actually made the claim that Hamas is presently using under 15-year olds in roles that the source thinks would constitute a war crime. is what I wrote and is fairly clear.

A non-trivial accusation from a competent source would seem to be the minimum threshold for inclusion, attributed if not general. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Some have been proven, such as the massacres on October 7.

Regardless, I've added additional sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) The use of "children" in the France24 piece is uncitable per HEADLINES. Note that WP:HEADLINES refers to "News headlines—including subheadlines", and a subheadline is exactly what this is. Subeditors write that stuff, not the journalist who writes the article. (2) This article defines its topic in terms of Israel and Hamas, making Iran off-topic anyway. (3) The dailyo (who?) article is an obvious rip-off from the France24 article, not an additional source. (4) Anyone who knows Iran can see this is just typical Iranian government bluster. Three million recruits, pull the other leg. How are they going to get those three million kiddies into Gaza; kites perhaps? The only evidence that they have recruited anyone at all is the Iranian government's claim — since when did the Iranian government become a reliable source? Zero^talk 13:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) - It's not a subheading, it's a summary.

(2) - The scope of the article is the war; crimes and attempted crimes by other parties in relation to the war are on topic

(3) - I'm not convinced.

(4) - Reliable sources have supported Iran's claim that they are attempting to recruit children. The fact that no one seems eager to fight, and even if they were they couldn't get to Gaza, isn't particularly relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) Regardless of what you call it, stuff like that is written by a subeditor so it comes under HEADLINES. It's a subheading anyway. (4) Since it is impossible for Iran to send children to Gaza, the claim they have any such intention comes under WP:EXTRAORDINARY and your evidence is nowhere near enough. Zero^talk 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(1) I see no basis in WP:HEADLINES to treat article summaries as headlines.

(4) That's WP:OR; we have sources saying that Iran is trying to recruit volunteers, including children, to fight alongside Hamas. Our personal belief that such a plan is impractical is not relevant; maybe it isn't practical, or maybe Iran knows something we don't. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This change, far from resolving the SYNTH and lack of sources for ANYONE actually accusing Hamas of using children illegally during this conflict, doubles down on the SYNTH, removes the clear attribution in the source (to an obscure Israeli Telegram channel - not even an IDF spokesperson), renders the claims in WP:VOICE:(For a number of years both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have run "summer camps" where children have undergone military training. only later adding "According to the IDF …".. The determination to double down on indefensible, implied, implied war crimes (misusing sources) persists!

we have sources saying that Iran is trying to recruit volunteers, including children, to fight alongside Hamas, no we don't. We have a single source saying that a militant organisation in Iran (which is another country) is advertising to recruit un-aged young people, mainly for its own purposes, using the Gaza conflict as a 'draw'. None have been recruited AFA we know. Up to and including the point at which Hamas is accused by a WP:RS of actually using under 15-year olds as soldiers, this is all purely speculative at best. We are not in a position to say this source accuses Hamas of doing precisely this, to this extent and frequency, because no such source exists. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Check the new source I added in the linked diff; it should address your concerns about synth and V there. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So now finally we have a recent source in which IDF accuses Hamas of using child soldiers in this conflict - it doesn't support any of the other text which precedes it, which is still based on a telegram channel. This is text book writing of PoV content and then - in this instance timely - finding a source. IDF has, eventually, accused Hamas of using child soldiers. The rest of the section is still twaddle/synth'off-topic.

Ignoring that 'a pre-pubescent teenage boy' is almost a contradiction in terms, (by the source, not you, but he's certainly baby-faced) IRG can wrap a toddler in a Palestinian flag if it wants to and thinks it would be an effective advertising campaign SO WHAT? Using a child in an ad isn't any kind of crime, besides Iranian RG is still not Hamas and you clearly remain indifferent not only to the distinction, but are happy to imply that Hamas are somehow guilty of IRG's "thought-crimes". Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Attempted crime, not a thought crime.

Further, this article isn’t limited to Hamas’ war crimes or Israel’s; it’s about war crimes in the Israel-Hamas war. If the Houthi’s commit war crimes as part of their participation in the conflict (and thinking about it, they might have with their attacks on neutral civilian shipping) then it belongs in this article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No source describes IRG's actions as a crime or an attempted crime - only you do. No source even says IRG are attempting to recruit under-15s - only by synthing a baby-face on a photo + a single use of the word 'children' in a sub-heading do you get to there being even a potential crime. The section is about Hamas + allied groups crimes, it isn't about hypothetical crimes by groups in other countries sympathetic to Hamas. To make it so would be as absurd as blaming Israel for crimes America once thought of committing in Vietnam.

I intend to prune the section down to the IDF direct accusation + the reported 'telegram' claims and the reported interrogations - attributing all.

I've no objection to the 'Houthi shipping' content as the source is fairly explicit that HRW consider the actions are war crimes "if carried out deliberately or recklessly" and it explicitly says that HRW "spoke to sources who said it is unclear whether the crew is being held hostage or is being arbitrarily detained", so we can say they are being detained, but not that they are 'hostages'. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

What aspect of the first paragraph do you consider insufficiently attributes at present? My impression that it all is. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already made my objections clear and it is increasingly difficult to assume good-faith. Only a short time ago you were acknowledging that "while it is disputed whether children have been used, if they have it Is unambiguously a war crime" - the first part of which I wholly endorse, the second part of which is not up to editors to decide.

But what we have with rewriting from you is the unambiguous statement in WPVOICE: "For a number of years both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have run "summer camps" where children have undergone military training." The single source for this clearly attributes it to that well-known authority "Israeli Telegram channel South First Responders", who posted a series of images of children, which even they described thus: SFR said the children were taking part in what appeared to be ‘military-style training camps’.

I've pared the text down to the three specific sourced accusations - personally I think the Telegram channel one so weak as to be near-worthless - but gave included it anyway. The Iran stuff doesn't even rise to being an accusation made by anyone except WP. Pincrete (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, check the new source I added; it supported the new wording. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The new source doesn't support ANYTHING in WP:VOICE, though it does move the 'training camp' accusation from being a Telegram group one to an IDF one. Apologies for not spotting that, I will adjust the text accordingly. Pincrete (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It says, in its own voice, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have for years openly run and promoted summer camps in the Gaza Strip where children undergo military training. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost every sentence is preceded by an attribution to IDF. Finding one sentence that isn't attributed from a single source in a paper in a country which is party to the present conflict hardly makes it factual. If we weren't attributing to IDF, we'd be attributing to ToI. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that paragraph they put in their own voice. I also see no basis to disqualify the source based on its country of origin.

I had thought this would resolve the issue, as it had seemed your objection was that the source didn’t support the claim in its voice, a belief that I have now proven to be mistaken? BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A non-trivial accusation from a competent source would seem to be the minimum threshold for inclusion, attributed if not general Actually no sources accuses Hamas of a war crime - IDF/ToI says that child soldiers are being used and have in the past attended training camps - then we say that such use is a war crime. So we are still being fairly SYNTHy. B does not necessarily follow from A, otherwise those organising Boy Scouts camps would be war criminals. But now there is an actual potential crime, not a purely speculative one.

The ToI source is ambiguous as to whether it is attributing that claim to IDF, but even if it isn't, it's the only source so would need to be attributed to ToI. The country of origin has no bearing, but that country's role in the present conflict is an additional cause for caution, no one has suggested disqualification. Pincrete (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like edit warring and bludgeoning by BilledMammal. 1RR violated here [19]

Note that this user also removed the section "Organ harvesting", about allegations against the Israeli government, with edit summary "WP:EXTRAORDINARY; requires far better sourcing to even make this allegation than is currently provided" [20], even though the information was well sourced:

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I've found more material that seem of focal benefit to assess, extending to Yemen's Houtis children-soldiers. Though since noon working on this, Iran's involvement was removed, I still of course would like to show to think further. First, my assessment for raised concerns above is that the scope is allies-inclusive, dealing with this war-crimes by whoever is involved in this war; reinforced by describing Hamas-led attacks across articles and as this article's chapter suggests: "By Hamas and its allies", logically correlates to other regions (and not solely militias from within Gaza), and which in turn are widely described as Hamas' proxies (e.g from Iran, Yemen etc'), assisting and themselves leading Hamas and its led militias. Reinforced with sources at the end of my comment.

That's also to say, that if the US or other Israeli allies (now or later) are discussed and/or alleged in sources for war-crimes - support including those materials as well within the Israeli-side. Alternatively, we can think of adding a separate chapter discussing other regions allies involvement with proven/alleged crimes; or storm such kind of ideas. I do not have the capacity for the moment to read through Israel's side if already exists. I also recall during this article's building - White Phosphorus was first added while unclear where and how used, per sources coverage and "if true" - constitute a war crime. Same should apply for alleged children.

Looking at "france24" source - I find that "boys" within the source's main-body, alongside and in differentiation from "young men", points to both highlighting very young-aged militants on top of young men, which reflects as synonymous to the headline's "children"; and by the authors' choosing of placing an Instagram-add with the child-fighter, which in turn shows Iran's invite for children - else they would use a men for this add. And I concur with BilledMammal that the children" title here is a summary to echo the article's main content and meaning, per se.

As for further material - (sorry again if included or discussed somewhere else): Iran International's publication , referencing The Times article about Iran's involvement, inclusive of Houtis' assist and operations, and specifying Houties' child-soldiers at the 2nd round of missiles attack and Red Sea blockade on Israel. And this New York Times elaborating on a Syria-Lebanon-Iran-Yemen-Iraq proxi-cooperation analysis under Iran with statements by analysts and Houties+Opposing Iranian leaders; at value to enrich for this discussion and article. אומנות (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The main objections to the 'Iran' claim were that no one - except a WP editor - said this would - even hypothetically - be a war crime, (if IRG had actually recruited boys and had sent them to function as soldiers - neither of which it did - as even the source makes it clear that this was more an internal propaganda tool than an actual recruiting drive). There is a key difference between a source or political/legal etc figure saying " we believe this to be happening and - if true - then it's a crime" and WP editors saying the same by stitching together a series of shaky claims. Otherwise we end up arguing absurd speculated war crimes. Would Hamas use nuclear weapons if they had them? One of their key backers has been accused of trying to acquire them after all! Pincrete (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Talking about france24 one (haven't checked the others for Iran), "children" summary, "young man and boys" + child poster + sentence link "not first time Iran wanted to recruit children" and that many people gathered to go fight, makes the article speaks for itself; and because of this I view the arguments to maybe 20+ year old and headline-body, a weaker editorial stretch. So we'll remain in disagreement for this source with respect to each others views. I was also following what I recalled for adding White Phosphorus while unclear how/where, with a separate source discussing that being a war crime - if used on people, so I can agree on your point about hypothetical arguments, that this also fell into this back then when it wasn't clear.

With that, I can understand you're concerned and careful about "france24" not pointing "under 15 yo" and that you and to find legal experts quoted in such manners, and I can agree we keep the article focused on actions and not intentions - for all sides then. As for the source about the Houties actual recruit, thoughts? I would be happy to know and think here together if and how this can be added. אומנות (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"not first time Iran wanted to recruit children" is talking about recruiting children for its war against Iraq, 30+ years ago, nothing to do with the present war in Gaza. Would IRG have any qualms about using Iranian teenagers in Gaza? Probably not, but as it happens they haven't, and no one says they have. We can't document hypothetical crimes. Pincrete (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

30 years ago definitely doesn't count, 30 years ago homosexuality was illegal in a lot of the western world. Were Hamas even a militant group then?

Irtapil (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I find the very young kids in posters creepy, but I think the only thing it indicates is long term goals. There's no evidence to show the intention is anything beyond "when I grow up"? or possibly even deliberately being a bit incongruous for an attention getting ad? Really we should have an article on Hamas propaganda (or several), it's a huge topic, but seems to hardly be mentioned anywhere on wiki? The only thing I've seen on here is a page about the stolen Bollywood tune with the threatening lyrics in Hebrew? Irtapil (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete I definitely agree that whole section was a mess last time I looked. We need to differentiate the 15 to 18s, morally questionable and still worth including, from the under 15s, which is a definite internationally recognised war crime. If the source doesn't specify, then we need to find a better source. (Personally I think we shouldn't have any teens at war, anyone under 25 seems way too young, but 15 seems to be the rule.) I'll have a closer look at it before I get to my other point. Irtapil (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Irtapil a new source came along on Jan 6th-ish, which we now use for an IDF allegation that children are and have been used. The 'Iranian' youngsters allegation has now gone as it was all very hypothetical and vague. Pincrete (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that was the version I saw, it still didn't specify whether they're more than 3 years younger than Israel's? I'll see what it says now. Irtapil (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been mentioned at the administrators' noticeboard here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Execution of 15 Palestinian men

There is new report of execution of 15 Palestinian men by IDF. Kindly add it in section "Execution of Palestinians civilians". Reference is below:

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/1/18/video-shows-aftermath-of-a-summary-execution-of-15-men-in-a-gaza-apartment/

--Sam6897 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I created a new section and have added that. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks.

Kindly check my above edit request as well. Sam6897 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References