Misplaced Pages

Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:54, 10 January 2024 editBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 edits →Organ harvesting← Previous edit Revision as of 11:10, 10 January 2024 edit undoIOHANNVSVERVS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,460 edits →Organ harvesting: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 268: Line 268:
::::::Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post aren't high quality? I'm not familiar with Euronews and the others. ] (]) 09:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ::::::Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post aren't high quality? I'm not familiar with Euronews and the others. ] (]) 09:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::::They’re the {{tq|few higher quality sources noting that the claim had been made}} ] (]) 09:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC) :::::::They’re the {{tq|few higher quality sources noting that the claim had been made}} ] (]) 09:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly. Multiple reliable sources discuss the claim and so Misplaced Pages should mention it as well.
::::::::But that has already been established and discussed and we're going in circles at this point. It seems to me that you are ] the process here.
::::::::"Example : Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tag team) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate." ] (]) 11:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
====Arbitrary break==== ====Arbitrary break====
This was originally reported in November 27 by the Euro-Med Monitor, an organisation whose ] has ties with Hamas. While it doesn't make it automatically unreliable, more than a month has passed since the original report and it would be good to know whether any other sources confirmed it. If not, this should be either removed or trimmed and put in proper context. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) This was originally reported in November 27 by the Euro-Med Monitor, an organisation whose ] has ties with Hamas. While it doesn't make it automatically unreliable, more than a month has passed since the original report and it would be good to know whether any other sources confirmed it. If not, this should be either removed or trimmed and put in proper context. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:10, 10 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war at the Reference desk.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
WikiProject iconCurrent events
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHuman rights
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: Law Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Israel and allegations of 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)
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. 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. 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)
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 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. 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. AP PBS CFR 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 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 Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages 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. 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 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, 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 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

  1. Leonhardt, David (2023-12-07). "The Civilian Death Toll in Gaza". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-12-26.

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)

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 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 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

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" , 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)

References

  1. "International committee must investigate Israel's holding of dead bodies in Gaza". ReliefWeb. Euro-Med Monitor. 27 November 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  2. Askew, Joshua (27 November 2023). "Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group". Euronews. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  3. "Israel harvested organs in '90s without consent". NBC News. 21 December 2009. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
  4. Martial, Thomas. "Harvesting Vulnerability: The Challenges Of Organ Trafficking In Armed Conflict". Lieber Institute. West Point. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  5. Zanger-Nadis, Maya (2023-12-28). "Did Israel harvest organs from corpses of Hamas terrorists in Gaza?". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
  6. "Gaza media office: 80 bodies returned had their organs stolen". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 December 2023.
  7. "Houthis Threaten To Target Red Sea Naval Coalition Amid Recruitment Drive". Iran International. 8 December 2023.
  8. "Iran Looks to Houthi Proxies to Escalate Fight With Israel". New York Times. 25 December 2023.

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)

Organ harvesting

I've restored the section titled "Organ harvesting" about allegations agains the Israeli government/military. This content was removed here with edit summary "WP:EXTRAORDINARY; requires far better sourcing to even make this allegation than is currently provided."

On 27 November, the Euro-Med Monitor stated it had received reports from medical professionals in Gaza who found evidence of organ theft, including missing cochleas and corneas and organs such as livers, kidneys, and hearts. According to West Point, international humanitarian law prohibits organ harvesting during armed conflicts. On 26 December, the Government Media Office in Gaza stated Israel had "stolen vital organs" from dead Palestinians, after the return of 80 deceased Palestinians that had been taken into Israel and then returned. Allegations were also raised by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and the Qatari-run Middle East Monitor that the reported organ theft was a continuation of Israeli methods, citing The Chosen Body: The Politics of the Body in Israeli Society by Dr Meira Weiss and reportedly Dr. Yehuda Hiss who was accused of stealing and selling organs in the late 1990s.

If there are objections to this material let them be discussed here. @BilledMammal. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My edit has already been reverted by BilledMammal. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
See my edit summary; we need better sources for this, particularly given how close it comes to blood libel. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you should be making the decision to remove the content unilaterally and without discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:BRD.
Do you have any reliable and independent sources that actually suggest any of this is true? Absent such sources, we should not be including antisemitic canards on this page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It is not an "antisemitic canard".

"The Israeli Ministry of Health acknowledged that "skin, corneas, heart valves and bones" had been removed during autopsies of Israelis, including IDF soldiers, Palestinians and foreign workers in the 1990s." -From the article Abu Kabir Forensic Institute

Furthermore, the section is not stating that Israel has engaged in organ harvesting during the 2023 war in Gaza, it is only stating that those allegations have been made. Why should such allegations not be mentioned or included in the article? If reliable sources mention the allegations then Misplaced Pages should mention them as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
That's talking about a different incident, where over two decades ago organs were harvested informally without consent without differentiating between nationality or religion. It's shameful, but irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
It is definitely not irrelevant. Also, regarding your citing of WP:BRD to my objection that "I don't think you should be making the decision to remove the content unilaterally and without discussion", remember that this is an extremely sensitive WP:CTOP, where all editors are advised:

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia.

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I think you may want to reflect on those quotes and how they apply to your own actions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
How so? When I restored the content I started a discussion on the talk page so it could be reviewed and discussed. When you removed the content and it's sources/references you did no such thing. You also seem to engage in bludgeoning and at least borderline edit warring, as I pointed out / objected to in the above discussion Talk:War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Iran 'child recruits' and whole "Use of children" section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong place for this discussion, but consider how those quotes apply when there are two editors in disagreement over the addition of newly added content. What is the "careful" and "cautious" approach? BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You made an addition of new content when adding the "Use of children" section, and you edit warred over the content (I believe this is a violation of the WP:1RR) and bludgeoned the discussion singlehandedly against three other objecting editors. I don't want to be uncivil or to focus on contributors rather than content but I do think your editing here has been disruptive.
Regarding the "Organ harvesting" section, you may be right and maybe it doesn't belong on the page, but it is definitely sensitive content and definitetly not obvious that it doesn't belong. In my opinion the content and its sources and references, which someone spent time to add to the article, should at least be posted to the talk page for visibility, review, and discussion, rather than simply deleted and buried in the page's edit history. When I restored the content you removed I pinged you to let you know and to give you a chance to object to or to discuss the change that I made. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding focusing on contributors rather than content - for future reference, as a relatively strict rule you should not discuss behavior on an article talk page.
Also for future reference, the initial implementation doesn't count as a revert. For coming to a consensus via editing, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS; if you feel you can address the expressed concerns, and there have only been a few reverts to date, you can re-implement your edit doing so; perhaps you add an additional source, or perhaps you explain a straightforward misunderstanding of policy.
When you don't feel you can address their concerns, or when there have been a few reverts, then you need to have a discussion - I'll note that there is no obligation to try to achieve a consensus through editing, you can always jump straight to a discussion, and sometimes it is better to do so.
Regarding the section under discussion, if you hadn't opened this discussion at the same time I reverted I would have done so. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The fact of the accusation seems fairly widely reported and our phrasing fairly concise and neutral. Maybe the 'backstory' element in the second half could be trimmed and more sources reporting the accusation used. The original Euromed report is relatively cautious in framing the accusation. I think the accusation is implausible, but it has been made and covered by WP:RS. Pincrete (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to wait for strong sourcing.
First, it comes incredibly close to blood libel, and we should wait for solid evidence before spreading antisemitic canards.
Second, the specifics of the claim are genuinely WP:EXTRAORDINARY:
  1. They claim that Israel dug up or retrieved dead bodies and then harvested vital organs including hearts, livers, and kidneys. The thing is that those organs would be useless; for them to be viable the individual has to have died in the hospital.
  2. They claim that Israeli authorities has kept the dead bodies of Palestinians in subfreezing temperatures in order to ensure that they remain undisturbed and to possibly hide the theft of organs. Storing bodies in subfreezing temperatures preserves evidence, it doesn't hide it - it's why morgues are cold.
The claim is utterly unbelievable, and given that as well as the antisemitic canards I don't think we can include this without high quality reliable sources endorsing at least some part of the story in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of these claims seem extremely unlikely scientifically, but it isn't the truth/otherwise of the claim that we are reporting, rather the fact of the claim having been made - if supported sufficiently - which I believe these to be. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that it doesn't distinguish between statements made in Wikivoice and attributed statements; either way, such claims need strong evidence.
For example Russia claims that Ukraine is harvesting organs from Russian soldiers - but we make no mention of this WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim in war crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The allegation is correctly attributed and has been circulated in global media. Whether it's true or not is a different story, but no reason to remove it. The article, generally, lists accusations only. — kashmīrī  08:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your recent restoration; the source you provided is insufficient to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
If you can't find high quality reliable source that give the story any credibility, please don't restore it without formal consensus. There is no obligation for us to include every nonsense claim that Hamas throws out, and given how ludicrous this claim is combined with how antisemitic it is we simply shouldn't be including it - see WP:VNOT. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah sure. Whoever accuses Israel of a crime, instantly is made into an antisemite. Get a break. And stop censoring Misplaced Pages from anything critical of Israel please. — kashmīrī  08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
As to whether it's ludicrous or not, see 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. — kashmīrī  08:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal, is this not edit warring? CarmenEsparzaAmoux added the content and you removed it. I restored the content and you removed it. kashmīri restored the content and you removed it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The claim WP is making is not that Israel has harvested organs - it is that sources have reported such accusations, based on doctors reporting signs of such acts. The coverage includes multiple sources reporting these accusations, including some who cover them principally to 'debunk' them - such as Jerusalem Post. I suspect some may even make the 'blood libel' claim, which could be included.
While a degree of caution/sensitivity is apt here, there is no policy or practice on WP which excludes material because some interprete it as a 'blood libel', nor would it be practical to do so. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
What is policy is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and that is triggered by things such as claims that are extremely closely related to conspiracy theories. Here, all we have is a couple of low quality sources making a claim, and a few higher quality sources noting that the claim had been made.
For a claim like this, that isn't sufficient to even report on the claim. There is no harm in waiting to see if high quality sources suggest that any of this is true; if they do, then we can include it in an appropriate and policy-complaint manner. Until then, it is best we exclude it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Al Jazeera and Jerusalem Post aren't high quality? I'm not familiar with Euronews and the others. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
They’re the few higher quality sources noting that the claim had been made BilledMammal (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Multiple reliable sources discuss the claim and so Misplaced Pages should mention it as well.
But that has already been established and discussed and we're going in circles at this point. It seems to me that you are stonewalling the process here.
"Example : Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tag team) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This was originally reported in November 27 by the Euro-Med Monitor, an organisation whose founder and chairman has ties with Hamas. While it doesn't make it automatically unreliable, more than a month has passed since the original report and it would be good to know whether any other sources confirmed it. If not, this should be either removed or trimmed and put in proper context. Alaexis¿question? 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not following why you think the content should be removed. What exact reason or policy suggests the content should be removed? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I said that if no reliable sources have reported on it, and the only source (not counting the Hamas Media Office) is EMHRM, then it should be trimmed or removed. The relevant policy is WP:V: we should not give much weight to claim with such weak sourcing. Alaexis¿question? 09:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources have reported on it. That has already been established, and that has already been addressed in this discussion. So I don't see how your objection is logical. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
an organisation whose founder and chairman has ties with Hamas that's borderline libelous. Would you care to elaborate or rephrase? Nothing on 'his' page suggests anything other than him being a Palestinian academic, and - implicitly - committed to Palestinian rights. Do we exclude organisations sympathetic to Israel? Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "International committee must investigate Israel's holding of dead bodies in Gaza". ReliefWeb. Euro-Med Monitor. 27 November 2023. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  2. Askew, Joshua (27 November 2023). "Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group". Euronews. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  3. "Israel harvested organs in '90s without consent". NBC News. 21 December 2009. Retrieved 23 December 2023.
  4. Martial, Thomas. "Harvesting Vulnerability: The Challenges Of Organ Trafficking In Armed Conflict". Lieber Institute. West Point. Retrieved 19 December 2023.
  5. Zanger-Nadis, Maya (2023-12-28). "Did Israel harvest organs from corpses of Hamas terrorists in Gaza?". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
  6. "Gaza media office: 80 bodies returned had their organs stolen". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 December 2023.
  7. Kevin Flower and Guy Azriel, Israel harvested organs without permission, officials say, CNN, 2009-12-21. Retrieved on 2009-12-24.
  8. Anne Barker, Israel admits organ harvesting, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2009-12-22. Retrieved on 2009-12-24.
  9. Simon McGregor-Wood, Israel Took Organs of Dead Without Permission, ABC News, 2009-12-21. Retrieved on 2009-12-24.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Categories: