Talk:Use of human shields by Hamas

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

use of statements made under potential torture

When mentioning statements made by Hamas members (or other Palestinians) during interrogation, it should be added that Israel has tortured Palestinian detainees, and so the reader should use caution in accepting such statements as fact. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Torture_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war#:~:text=In%20March%202024%2C%20a%20UNRWA,tortured%20to%20extract%20forced%20confessions. Fullerwollman (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Original research and MOS

I believe that this edit violates WP:OR. The sources cited do not discuss the specific revelations published in the Jerusalem Post and so should not be added to that section. If I've missed something, please explain why you believe they are related.

Also, this is a minor quibble but MOS:SAID discourages the use of words like "claimed" when "said" can do the job. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Both the sources accurately reflect the information, namely that these human rights organizations (HRW, Amnesty and PHRI) have criticized these taped alleged confession videos released by Israeli for likely involving the use of torture, not giving due process rights to detainees, and violating international law. And they were published after the Jerusalem Post piece, so include the claims in that piece regarding the credibility of those alleged confessions.

Moreover, additional reporting including on testimonies from detainees who were interrogated with the use of torture while being accused of Hamas membership and forced to say things that were by their own admission upon release not accurate, confirms that we cannot just cite these claims in these videos as fact without adding this crucial context.

That is essential to ensure NPOV.

It is either that, or the entire paragraph should be removed. I opted for the establishing NPOV option.

However, I agree that placing it within the paragraph itself isn't needed, so I have moved the NPOV point to a separate section after that paragraph, and added additional sources published after the Post piece on selective editing, use of torture, violation of rights re these alleged taped "confessions", and false allegations of Hamas membership.

Also I agree that "said" is better than "claimed", so I have changed that. However, using phrasing like "admitted", "disclosed", "terrorists" and referring to those who made these alleged confessions as "Hamas", with the context just provided, is a gross violation of NPOV, as it reproduces allegations as fact from interrogations that have been widely criticized as including the use of torture, violation of due process rights and false allegations of Hamas membership, by credible mainstream human rights organizations and media reports.

We don't publish as fact allegations made by Israeli hostages in taped videos released by Hamas, but if they are referenced, the crucial context that hostages have been subjected to torture and are likely giving these statements under duress and all their statements are "alleged" and not "disclosing" certain facts about Israeli use of military force or anything else, must obviously be included to ensure NPOV.

It is no different here, and I was actually shocked the paragraph was even there in the first place.

If you disagree and want to revert it to include the allegations as fact and remove the NPOV context added, please gain consensus here first as it is highly controversial. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You're right that words like "admitted", "disclosed", "terrorists" also violate the guidelines. The right way to fix it is to replace them with more neutral ones. I'll respond to the rest a bit later. Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Raskolnikov.Rev. We wouldn't use statements from Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity as stating facts about alleged Israeli military activities or anything else, and we don't need a specific report on that specific hostage being subjected to torture for that. That's absurd and strongly violates NPOV. The same applies to interrogation videos of alleged Hamas operatives released by the Israeli government, which has been widely reported for systematically torturing Palestinian detainees, including during interrogations, and forcing them to admit to false claims, such as Hamas membership. See for example the recent reports by B'TSelem, and Haaretz on Palestinian detainees being forced to become human shields.

As noted by Raskolnikov.Rev, human rights organizations have specifically highlighted that these alleged 'confession' videos likely involve the use of torture, deny detainees due process rights, and violate international law, making them inadmissible as evidence. These concerns have been raised both before and after the publication of the Jerusalem Post article, which relies entirely on these selectively released interrogation videos for its claims.

I actually think that paragraph should be deleted entirely as we would never cite even as possibly credible allegations statements from Israeli hostages in Hamas captivity that repeat claims detrimental to Israel and favorable to Hamas. - Ïvana (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus to merge this article into Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Post-close edit: I have been informed of a previous merge discussion at Talk:Human_shields_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#Merge_proposal that didn't find consensus to merge. Thus, a new merge discussion will be required to generate enough consensus. Vpab15 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations that Hamas use human shields – The current title puts increasingly controversial claims in wiki voice. After 4 months more evidence, it is worth discussing this title again. Since the first two discussions there has been strong expert criticism of the IDF claim that civilian casualties are human shields, particularly by Francesca Albanese, but also by others.

Even if some of the past allegations are credible or proven, the current title somewhat implies that human shield use can explain a substantial proportion of recent casualties.

Adding "allegations" is the simplest and mildest thing we can do to fix the bias in the current title. "Allegation" might be a more acceptable compromise for some people who rejected "accusation", and this proposal is hopefully less confusingly phrased than previous suggestions. FourPi (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that - though your reasoning is sound - is that we have an article entitled Gaza genocide. In that discussion, if I remember correctly (I don't remember if I participated there, probably not), it was noted that a title does not necessarily imply that genocide is taking place. By a similar logic, this title does not necessarily mean that Hamas uses human shields: it simply refers readers to the argument regarding that topic. My point is that there is an interconnection over articles and that we are obliged to struggle for coherence. A change of title in one, to 'allegation' would automatically require we change the other. One could suggest something like Gaza and genocide/Hamas and human shields as a third way, if the reasoning above is seen as inadequate. The important thing is that consensus on one page should mirror a consensual approach to the issue where 'allegations' is the keyword. Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a sensibly titled Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which in my view (although not upheld) is where this material should be. This article (again in my view) was a POV creation designed to match the Israeli narrative during the ongoing war. We now have proof of human shield use by the IDF and there is no article Use of human shield by the IDF, again that should rather go in the top article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree this material should go to that other article, and that we have here a POV fork.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also agree that this is a POV fork. We should either 1) create Use of human shields by the IDF and move the Israeli section of the parent article there or 2) merge this one and redirect it to Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Use by Hamas. The resulting article would have a little bit over 8500 words which per WP:SIZESPLIT almost reaches the limit where it should probably be divided or trimmed (and it will certainly be expanded in the coming months), so take that into account. - Ïvana (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating a new matching fork isn't constructive, that just splits and duplicates further. It doesn't solve balance because public opinion isn't determined by number of articles, if anything that makes things more likely to get lost and never seen. You could turn that one into just IDF and this one just Gaza, but that doesn't seem to really solve anything? FourPi (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The only useful thing I can see to do with two pages is if we have one about specific incidents and another about whether human shield use is a valid explanation for the death toll. Both sides maybe use human shields, but only one side claims that the other using human shields explains civilian casualties? FourPi (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 💬 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We should probably have a proper discussion about this instead of hijacking this one. I think either option is an improvement compared to the current situation but I would like to hear more opinions. - Ïvana (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, in hindsight, moving to Gaza genocide was partisan and a mistake, and it sets a bad premise for other articles

Kowal2701 (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Allegations unnecessary as evidence exists for use and this article is anyway a POV fork of Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and if it can't be resolved in informal discussion should be AfD'd with a view to redirect/merge.Selfstudier (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’d support a merge there if others agreed Kowal2701 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo in "History of alleged usage"

The first sentence's last word 'shield' should be plural. Teegrube (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Apropos my revert

of this. See Neve Gordon, Israel has Taken Human Shields to a Whole New Criminal Level CounterPunch 23 October 2024 Gordon has a strong publishing record on this theme. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is one of the problems in having different articles for each party here on the same topic. We had Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, then Use of human shields by Hamas was spun out. I think the overall topic should be covered in a single article, or, and this is a BadIdea™, make Use of human shields by Israel a spin out from the main article as well as that can likewise reach the same size of this article. nableezy - 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The concept is the use of human shields in the IP conflict. That was a unified topic. To split off a Hamas-specific page, while ignoring balance, is way out of whack with the evidence. In all of these articles, given the POV pushing, we should try to eliminate as far as feasible 'claims' 'reactions', 'responses' and stick to ascertained facts. The factual record gives us no serious empirical evidence for the contention that must underlie the creation of a Hamas-specific page, i.e. that, unlike its adversary, Hamas typically uses human shields. To the contrary, and the Israeli practice, like virtually everything else in this theatre of endemic war, goes back to the precedent created by the British, who adopted a policy of using Palestinians as human shields in their repression of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Unlike Israel, no court has convicted Hamas of using humans as shields. Israel has been so convicted on more than one occasion,mor caught out on videos in numerous occasions, of doing precisely this. One can indeed argue that Hamas is tactically organized within the urban civilian population, but to infer from that that this is interpretable in terms of the usual sense of using human shields is technically and historically difficult (the guiding assumption is that Hamas to clear its name should establish military strongholds in clear view of its adversary, distinct from townships and cities in the Strip, and fight 'fairly', fight fairly against an army that has immense capabilities to shoot anything that moves on the ground, which is under microscopic surveillance, from the comfortable distance of the sky or via precision artillary way beyond those borders. I.e. commit suicide). We don't write as historians of the Siege of Leningrad, the Siege of Gush Halav or that of Jerusalem in 7=CE, or the Siege of Yorktown, of of Delhi in 1857 or of Jerusalem in 48 in terms of the defenders using the civilian population as shields. The term in the modern IP use has been overworked to caricature Hamas, as opposed to what the besiegers do and the use of the term 'human shields' now almost automatically evokes Israel's chronic adversary's tactics, which however makes military history, were that designation functional in this sense applicable to every historical events where sieges take place, regardless.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

An editor has made changes (again) to the first sentence of the article which are gratuitous and biased. This editor added language to the first sentence to mention that "Hamas, like Israel, has been accused of using human shields in the Gaza strip." The mention of "like Israel" should be deleted. This is an article about use of human shield by Hamas, not Israel. There is no reason to gratuitously mention Israel in this sentence. Also there are already plenty of paragraphs in this article which attempt to argue against the proven claim that Hamas uses human shields, so this gratuitous addition is not for balance. Nishidani's most recent changes should be reverted (again) and "like Israel" should be deleted from the first sentence. Apndrew (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for reporting this. It's a standard misuse of the lead to subvert WP:NPOV, and I've reverted the edit. Nishidani, please get consensus before making a major contentious change like this, and be wary of lead-stuffing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nato Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence

This organization defines itself as a military organization. As a state-funded, military-affiliated outfit, it is hard to see how this qualifies as an independent, reliable secondary source. I would in fact classify it as a source presenting primary research that should only really be quoted if lent weight in reliable, secondary sources. Are there any contrasting perspectives? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

NATO

Was just added by שלומית ליר citing this chapter in Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint. They provide no page number, but the book is available through the Wikipedia Library (here), and I searched the PDF and the only NATO I can find are the three times it says "Explanatory", and I can find no mention of the word shield anywhere in the book. Can שלומית ליר please say exactly where in that source it says NATO has supported the accusation? nableezy - 20:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to ask @שלומית ליר why they readded a citation to Per Bauhn, despite @Smallangryplanet having just removed it. I also don't think a single philosopher's opinion should be given equal standing to that of several human rights groups. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also, also like to ask @שלומית ליר why they added a photo to the lead that is not a picture of Hamas using a human shield (failing MOS:LEADIMAGE, to say nothing of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY)? I've gone ahead and removed it, but just thought I'd mention it here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hamas placing weapons in civilian homes constitutes the use of human shields, as it deliberately places civilians at heightened risk of harm from explosions, exploiting their presence to deter attacks and shield military assets. I wonder why you refuse to put the image the demonstrate the phenomenon? שלומית ליר (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t what human shielding is. nableezy - 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As @Nableezy said that is not what Human shielding is. Additionally, the photo provided no way to validate who put the weapon there or where the location was, especially not one provided by an independent entity. I do not think we should have images that (1) do not provide any verification for their contents and (2) do not demonstrate the phenomenon in question. Especially not in the lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this quote is essential to understanding the issue, and I found that there was no reason to delete it, as without it, the article is unbalanced—failing to highlight scholarly work that points to Hamas' violations. There are others who think along the same lines, and I can add them if needed. Let me know. שלומית ליר (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@שלומית ליר Pretty much the entire article is highlighting scholarly work that points to Hamas' violations? It is the name of the article. If anything here is WP:UNDUE it is that the article treats a number of unverifiable allegations as encyclopaedic fact, but it's already flagged as non-neutral. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. שלומית ליר (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m waiting for an answer to my question on NATO. where in that source does it say any such thing? nableezy - 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references. שלומית ליר (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The other reference also does not support the material. Can you please say what exactly in this mentions human shields or NATO? nableezy - 16:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hybrid Threats: Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza has been published by NATO Stratcom. Is your concern that it doesn't constitute the official position of NATO? Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I understood from the earlier thread that the answer is yes. But why remove the reference? Alaexis_¿question? 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Stratcom says they do not speak for NATO. If we wanted to include Stratcom has said this then sure that reference works for that. Not for saying NATO does. And I dont know why Stratcom would merit being in the lead. nableezy - 21:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, it could be moved to the body. But why did you remove the EU and US? The sources seem to be alright. Alaexis_¿question? 21:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I dont really see it as due weight to cover state views in the lead when we're only saying who has supported the accusations. nableezy - 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there countries that deny the accusations? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

revert

We previously discussed the NATO StratCom material here, as well as the general structuring of the lead of not opening with a series of partisan actor's accusations. Ive reverted the restoration of those problems by שלומית ליר, along with some blatant misrepresentations of the sources they cited. nableezy - 16:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Bauhn

Why was this removed? The edit summary says that "experts" is misleading, but then it should be simply properly attributed, rather than removed altogether. Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I also removed the other individual views from the lead here. There isnt a reason why these individuals should be highlighted in the lead. nableezy - 18:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Human shields in Gaza" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Human shields in Gaza has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8 § Human shields in Gaza until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)