Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Organ harvesting

I've restored the section titled "Organ harvesting" about allegations agains the Israeli government/military. This content was removed here [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 [and] 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 [2] 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 s, 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 ^TALK 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 Wikipedia from anything critical of Israel please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As to whether it's ludicrous or not, see 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 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 Wikipedia 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 [of stonewalling]: 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)

He was the assistant director of Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation tied to Hamas [3]. More recently he was positively ecstatic about the October 7 attack, calling the attackers "elite young men" (صفوة شبانها) and "heroic knights" (فرساناً أبطالاً). Alaexis_¿question? 22:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The second - fairly dubious - source accuses someone else of having been linked via past associations. But I take your point, he is far from impartial. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I plan on restoring the content as it is both well sourced and attributed. Unless either @Alaexis or @BilledMammal have a clear policy-based reason to oppose its inclusion, which has not been provided so far. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve presented a number above. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean they don’t exist - the burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion, and there is no consensus here. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are WP:STONEWALLING. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've filed a report about my accusations of disruptive editing here [4] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: and agree with the points made by Alaexis or BilledMammal|BilledMammal. @IOHANNVSVERVS: you do not have WP:consensus for your edit and the WP:ONUS is on you.  // Timothy :: talk  09:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  What point(s) made by Alaexis are you referring to? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also please fix your removal of the word "revert" from this discussion [5] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

My question was whether there are other sources claiming that this took place during the current conflict, in addition to the Euro-Med Monitor and Gaza Health Ministry. If there are none, we should either wait to more neutral sources to confirm it, or give less weight and more qualifications in the article. The reader who sees a section called "Organ harvesting" would assume that there's solid evidence of it, and I think it's important for us to convey the appropriate level of certainty - assuming we decide to add it to the article now. Alaexis_¿question? 14:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a good reason to support the wholesale removal of this content, but we can change the section title to "Allegations of organ harvesting". Does this address your concerns? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Also please don't revert simply due to "no consensus" as in this reversion [6] with edit summary "the discussion is ongoing and the source is quite problematic; the WP:ONUS is on those who want to include content." As for your objection that "the source is quite problematic" [7], that has been addressed and the sources are Al Jazeera, Euronews, Jerusalem Post and Euro-Med Monitor. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. All these sources attributed the organ harvesting claims to the Euro-Med Monitor or Gaza Health Ministry. I understand that no other sourced have made these claims ever since. This means that we need to determine the proper weight for these claims in the article, which may or may not be zero.

Other reliable sources should guide us here. Here's the latest HRW report. They are hardly sympathetic to Israel and mention all kinds of human rights violations but say nothing about organ harvesting. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Thanks for the response" - Likewise

I think you make some good points here.

Regarding: "We need to determine the proper weight for these claims in the article, which may or may not be zero" - I really don't see how it would be zero. I can see how an entire section could be excessive but on the other hand it's probably best not to just mention the claims but to give them context as well - as the sources cited do - including both the background of previous Israeli government organ harvesting as well as any criticisms of the claims (re: implausibility, potential antisemitic motivation, etc)

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In another context (allegedly bulldozing cemeteries), Hamas accuses the IDF here of "stealing 150 bodies of recently buried martyrs". I agree that the plausibility of this being intentional organ harvesting is near zero, but the accusations exist and need to be given context. Pincrete (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

According to recent news reports, the context is that Israel is searching for the bodies of hostages. We already cover the exhumations and destruction of cemeteries at War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war#Destruction of cemeteries and other religious sites, I don't think we need to add the badly supported and WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim of organ harvesting in addition to that. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been mentioned at the administrators' noticeboard here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Alaexis. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is about "War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war", not about unsubstantiated claims of possible events mentioned by enemies of Israel and reported on the internet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, claims that Jews are harvesting biological material from individuals is a (historically and currently) extraordinary claim. Extreme unsubstantiated claims made by one side of a conflict is not encyclopedic content.  // Timothy :: talk  21:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  The claims were not made by "enemies of Israel" and they were not made against "Jews". The claims were made by "medical professionals in Gaza" and Euro-Med Monitor, and made against the state of Israel - This is in contrast to blood libel which is defined as an antisemitic canard which falsely accuses Jews as a people.

  The claims are not being presented as factual or substantiated in the text here disputed. If reliable sources describe the claims as unfounded or antisemitic that can and should be included in the article as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Edited IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've been thinking a lot about something Alaexis wrote, "The reader who sees a section called "Organ harvesting" would assume that there's solid evidence of it, and I think it's important for us to convey the appropriate level of certainty". I think what's made part of this discussion so frustrating is that even a qualified mention of organ harvesting was removed, nearly simultaneously while we were having the discussion regarding child soldiers. The child soldier claim relies exclusively on IDF claims, while the organ harvesting allegation is based largely on reports from the Gaza Media Office and the Euro-Med Monitor.

  To me, it just doesn't make sense to altogether remove any mention of one due to "bias", while allowing the other with no questions asked. It's the double-standards that are still not sitting well with me. Using Alaexis's (sound) logic, won't a person who comes to this page see a section on child soldiers and also assume there's solid evidence for it? I haven't seen any evidence outside of the IDF claim about "summer camps for child jihadis". Is that not an extraordinary claim? Why are we automatically accepting the Israeli claims as more reliable than Euro-Med's or the Gaza Media Office's?

  We're now getting reports of similar allegations from unrelated West Bank officials ("Israeli forces kidnapped the bodies of four of the men as well as some body parts of Yazan al-Najmi" [8]), so I think a carefully worded and qualified inclusion of such claims is the best way forward. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"disguise themselves as civilians"

Can we look at this exact wording, in #disguising military units? Hamas aren't a regular military force as such (and not all combatants aren't necessary "Hamas fighters" per se anyway). If they're "carry[ing] arms openly" at the time of taking action, this is arguably legitimate per the Geneva Conventions on this. "Wearing a tracksuit and carrying an AK74" is very different from a deliberate attempt to misrepresent themselves as non-combatants to carry out an ambush. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Israeli soldiers dressed as Medical staff and civilians kill 3 sleeping Palestinians in hospital

According to multiple RS an Israeli death squad dressed as medical staff and civilians executed 3 sleeping Palestinians including a paralyzed man in a hospital in the west bank.

Not sure if this should be added as violating medical neutrality, executing noncombatants and/or disguising military units so I thought I'd leave it up to other editors to add.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68137050

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/30/israel-troops-kill-three-palestinians-in-west-bank-hospital-ministry

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227832688/israeli-forces-raid-west-bank-hospital-jenin

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-west-bank-ibn-sina-hospital-raid-3-palestinians-killed-jenin/

ArthropodLover (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevant: 'Was Israel’s West Bank hospital raid a legitimate operation to thwart Hamas, or a war crime?' https://www.thestar.com/news/world/was-israel-s-west-bank-hospital-raid-a-legitimate-operation-to-thwart-hamas-or-a/article_a8ccdd98-bf5a-11ee-9cc0-1713bc020e9f.html - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Bani Suheila cemetery - CNN report that Israeli commanders failed to prove their claim

Selfstudier reverted my edit,reinstating the claim of the reporter on the ground this is an opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that IDF partially destroyed the cemetery, claiming it as a collateral damage to its fighting actions.

This is not a math problem and "failed to prove" in this case is not a fact but an opinion, of a specific reporter. This is an active war zone so what did the reporter expect to get as proof? Other sources cite a tunnel of networks near and under the cemetary. And the fact is that other reporters have taken seriously the explanation of the IDF (e.g. AP news). So - opinion and not a fact, namely a non-NPOV and the claim of the CNN reporter should be removed. Selfstudier, please undo your revert. GidiD (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here, my initial edit sourced to a CNN investigative report was reverted by way of the addition of a ref from Jerusalem Post, whose report merely parrots everything the IDF said to them versus what CNN said:

"A week after a CNN investigation found that the Israeli military damaged or destroyed at least 16 cemeteries in Gaza since the beginning of the war, the Israeli military invited CNN into Gaza to explain why it partially destroyed one of those cemeteries.

But Israeli commanders failed to prove their claim during a three-hour visit to the Bani Suheila cemetery and the surrounding area. (my bolding).

The article goes on to explain in detail why that was the case. If there is an RS disputing what CNN found, we can look at that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The AP recent report portrays a different story, giving much more credibility to the claims of the IDF. [9]
2. Easy to ignore it, but the Jerusalem Post is a credible source.
3. I further call to reason: All reporters saw the tunnels near the cemetery. Fact that even the CNN reporter mentions. Hamas does not deny that it dug extensive tunnel networks in the Strip, spanning in total hundreds of kilometers. Many of them run tens of meters below ground. So why is it so unreasonable to accept the possibility that there was such a network under the cemetery?

GidiD (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

CNN:

"However, IDF commanders declined to show reporters the tunnel shaft they said emerged inside the cemetery, claiming there was sensitive machinery underground and that the structure was unstable." and

"A spokesman for the Israeli military said they would provide video of the tunnel shaft in the enormous hole, but never did.

Instead, the IDF provided drone footage that showed two other tunnel entrances – one of which CNN entered – near the cemetery. CNN geolocated the tunnel entrances using footage filmed on the ground, as well as satellite imagery, and found that neither was in the cemetery grounds."

Seems pretty conclusive to me, it is take the IDF's word or not and they have a track record for fibbing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between synth and a summary

@Nableezy, I believe to have appropriately summarised what the cited sources says. If you disagree, I am happy to debate a different phrasing, but you cannot have a source make statements like “Though commonplace, the employment of undercover units raises difficult questions with regard to law and ethics. In the context of armed conflict in particular, the lawfulness of using undercover forces has been questioned, as it might be perceived to be a violation of the prohibition of perfidy or other forms of treachery tantamount to war crimes. Military operations can fall either under the law-enforcement or combat paradigms. Law-enforcement operations are subject to international human rights law (IHRL) and combat operations are subject to international humanitarian law (IHL, also known as the laws of armed conflict). Within IHL there are several differences between international armed conflict (mostly referred to as classic inter-state conflicts) and non-international armed conflicts (mostly known and referred to as situations of civil war). One of the main and relevant differences between international and non-international armed conflicts is the lack of combatant status in non-international armed conflicts. This means that there is no combatant immunity or prisoner of war (POW) status in such conflicts.” (https://en.idi.org.il/media/6191/combatants_dressed_as_civilians.pdf, in the Abstract!) and then characterise me writing “The legal applicability of perfidy to policing actions, non-international armed conflicts and the legal distinction between military and policing actions is controversial” as Synth is not in accordance with the policy. FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It is SYNTH because there is no relation in the sources to the point your making and the topic of this article. You may not use material unrelated to the topic to imply a connection the sources do not make explicit. You may not use A+B to imply C when no source does that math for you. If your sources do not discuss the crime of perfidy in relation to the killing at the hospital then you may not use them here. nableezy - 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an article on war crimes. I can move that section to the top, but the assessment when Perfidy is a war crime is definitely relevant to an article about war crimes, regardless of WP:Synth, wouldn’t you agree?

The first source specifically covers similar actions in the same area, it’s not really Synth to say that. If you like, I can write something along the lines of “The question of the applicability of international law and and the legality of military actions while disguised, including in the West Bank, has been controversial in the past.”

Alternatively, this economist article cites the same person I do and is applicable to this situation, though less detailed as it is not a scientific source. Would you consider that to be enough for our purposes and to avoid Synth? FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, this is an article on war crimes during the Israel-Hamas war. Not on war crimes or perfidy generally. You may not use sources that are not related to the topic of this article. You may not use general sources on perfidy to attempt to argue by placement that whether or not this act of perfidy really is an act of perfidy. Full stop. The Economist article is about the specific topic of this specific crime in this specific war, so it is on topic and not SYNTH. Your sources, and your edit, are original research by synthesis. You are using material related to a more general topic and without another source doing so attempting to draw a connection to this topic. nableezy - 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is additional information (but IMO with the same issues as the one above). Are you opposed to restoration of the text (including the first source as that is what the article cites) and citing these two, and then adding a sentence that states that the applicability and enforceability of the relevant laws is unclear? (Lack of acceptance of the AP 1, Legal Papers accepting the use in general and the status of the ICC, all of which are discussed in the article) FortunateSons (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you may only use what sources directly connected to the topic say, not what you think applies from other sources. nableezy - 21:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to summarize the followings way:

The question of the legality and applicability of the prohibition of perfidy in this case is controversial: Israel has not signed the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which outlaws perfidy. However, it is possible that the ban of perfidy derived from customary international law is applicable, which is considers to be binding by the Israeli Supreme Court.[2] Past Israeli use of forces “disguised as Arabs”[3] has been argued to not be illegal per se, but would likely not permit assinations. [1][3] Additionally, it is unclear if any of the three individuals targeted had special protection at this time, which would be only applicable to patients and those who “clearly communicate an intention to surrender”. An attack on militants, even in a hospital, may be legal if they are not covered by such prohibitions. [2], [3] The question which international laws are applicable is also a matter of controversy. [3] The likelihood that the International Criminal Court would be able and willing to prosecute Israel for this action is considered to be low.[2]

Sources:

[1]https://en.idi.org.il/media/6191/combatants_dressed_as_civilians.pdf

[2]https://theintercept.com/2024/01/31/israel-west-bank-hospital-raid/

[3]https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/01/31/did-an-israeli-hospital-raid-breach-the-laws-of-war

Do you consider this to be acceptable? FortunateSons (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No I do not. The first source is not a valid source for this article, it is from 2014, it obviously does not say anything about the topic of this article. Second, it is not controversial. And neither of the other sources back up the claim. The Intercept says, in its own voice, This likely broke several laws of war, including the prohibition against perfidy and the killing of protected people. ... The likelihood that the raid involved illegality is clear on its face. Certainly the U.S. would be perturbed if, during the Iraq War, Iraqis dressed as doctors and nurses snuck into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and killed several American soldiers. Israel would likewise object if Palestinians gained access to a Tel Aviv hospital by wearing medical costumes and then assassinated Israeli soldiers. The Economist says The raid on Ibn Sina hospital, which was carried out by an Arab-speaking unit of the Israeli police’s elite counter-terrorism force and Shin Bet, the country’s security service, seems to be a clear-cut case. The Israeli attackers use their medical disguises as a key part of the assault. “If soldiers dress up as doctors to attack otherwise legitimate targets that is a clear case of perfidy,” writes Janina Dill, a legal expert at Oxford University. Moreover, notes Aurel Sari, a law professor at the University of Exeter and a fellow at nato’s Office of Legal Affairs, if the three targets were being treated at the hospital for wounds or sickness, it would be illegal to attack them even without perfidy, using uniformed soldiers. It says, in its own voice, that it seems to be a clear cut case of perfidy. The only thing it supports is Some in Israel argue that the raid’s location in the West Bank, rather than Gaza, means that it was not an act of war, subject to ihl, but a form of law enforcement. It then says that even if this were true it would still be illegal under international law. That is not saying it is a matter of controversy as to how this act is illegal. Some in Israel arguing something does not make something controversial, and we do not suggest a controversy where none exists. nableezy - 22:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only use the first source where I believe that the article indirectly cites it (once).

There are multiple relevant legal aspects here:

1. Legality of the killing:

This is fact-dependent, of which we have few. According to the sources, militants (which they almost certainly were) are potentially legitimate targets even in a hospital, unless they are patients. This is only in question for one of them, and we simply do not know that and should be reflecting that as such.

2. Legality of the disguises

Some disguises may not be inherently illegal, and other could be (as listed, the example of the doctor). Additionally, some uses may be illegal, such as assassinations. This is a situation where 1. and 3. are relevant, as the law and the question of whether or not they intended to kill or arrest and who took part in the raid may be deciding factors.

3. Applicability of Law (and it’s enforceablity)

I think we can agree that the details of the relevant law are less than clear and should not be argued to be ‘cut and dry’, and are at the very least disputed (Effectiveness of the ICC, applicability of perfidy as Israel is not a signatory and there is no Supreme Court decision on it specifically )

Possible Outcomes regarding international law as derived from the articles

a) the disguise and the killing are illegal

b) the disguise is legal, the killing is not

c) the disguise is illegal, but the killing is not

d) the disguise and the killing are potentially legal separately and illegal together, depending on which interpretation of the law you follow (IHL or IHRL)

e) some of the disguises are illegal, and the killing is unclear as it is dependent on facts that are unavailable to us

Additionally, there is the question of applicability of specific laws and a multitude of facts unknown to us.

Do you disagree with any of these statements?

As we have (at least) 2 RS reporting here, I am happy to have you suggest a phrasing that appropriately includes the facts mentioned by you above if you are unhappy with my phrasing, but merely denying mine is not helpful here. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1, no, that is misrepresentation. The Economist and The Intercept both come to the same conclusion, that this was almost certainly an act of perfidy. That is what the article should say. The Economist further says that even if this were not an act of war due to it being in the West Bank it would still be illegal under the law of occupation. 2. Likewise misrepresentation, what the The Economist says is Moreover Israel has long used “Mista’arvim” (meaning: disguised as Arabs) units that operate undercover in Arab areas. That is not necessarily illegal, argues Ido Rosenzweig of the University of Haifa in a paper for the Israel Democracy Institute, a think-tank. That only says that pretending to be disguised as Arabs would not necessarily be illegal. But then it says that dressing up as doctors is illegal. 3. Whether or not it can be enforced has nothing to do with if it is illegal. I decline to engage in the OR of examining Possible Outcomes regarding international law as derived from the articles, and instead will insist that what we do is properly reflect what the sources directly say and not try to make inferences that look like they are directly at odds with what they actually say. nableezy - 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so let’s try this again (numbers for ease of discussion):

1. The question of the legality and applicability of the prohibition of perfidy in this case is disputed: Israel has not signed the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which outlaws perfidy. However, it is possible that the ban of perfidy derived from customary international law is applicable, which is considers to be binding by the Israeli Supreme Court.[2]

2 Past Israeli use of forces “disguised as Arabs”[3] has been argued by some not be illegal per se, but would most likely not permit assassinations, as they are prohibited under IHRL. This does not apply to being disguised as medical personnel, which can be considered illegal per se.[1][3]

3. Additionally, it is unclear if any of the three individuals targeted had special protection at this time, which would be only applicable to patients and those who “clearly communicate an intention to surrender”. An attack on militants, even in a hospital, may be legal if they are not covered by such prohibitions. [2], [3]

4. The question which international law (IHL or IHRL) are applicable is also disputed by some.[3]

Please feel free to work on this version or suggest your own. FortunateSons (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I second Nableezy. The matter may appear unclear or controversial to Mr Rosenzweig, but it's crystal clear to all the authors Nableezy cited above. IHL expressly prohibits (1) to attack people who are hors de combat (i.e., who are currently incapable of fighting), and (2) to carry out attacks on appropriately marked healthcare facilities, including in particular on people being treated there. The core elements of IHL are themselves based on customary international law and are considered binding on all state actors whether they have signed the Geneva Conventions or not. BTW, Hamas might also be considered a state actor (but I'd defer to experts). — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This goes beyond the scope of this page, and my IL class was a while ago and did not cover this, but:

1. hors de combat is unproven here, and probably does not apply to at least 2/3 people. It also does not apply to those attempting to resist or escape (according to the wiki page), which is quite possible here, though this is only speculation on my part.

2. At least 2 of them were not being treated, as far as I can tell. About the third we can only speculate, but it is quite possible that he is provided the protections of a patient. FortunateSons (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that on that page. Anyhow, in this instance, the guys were killed not because they resisted or tried to flee. They were killed by an Israeli squad sent there specifically in order to carry out the killing. In short, Israeli armed forces entered a protected building and assassinated protected persons ("protected" as defined by the Geneva Convetions). This appears to be a grave violation of IHL which I'm fairly certain will be a subject of international investigation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Membership in a terrorist org:

According to the New York Times, Hamas issued a statement acknowledging that one of the men was a leader in its armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. His name was Muhammad Jalamneh, and the Israeli military said in a statement that he “planned a raid attack inspired by the October 7th massacre.” Islamic Jihad claimed that the other two men, Mohammad Ghazawi and Basil Ghazawi, who are brothers, belonged to its organization.

(https://theintercept.com/2024/01/31/israel-west-bank-hospital-raid/)

(Better) source on hors:

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/hors-de-combat

Entry into a protected building is true, but misleading:

“ Then there is the question of whether militants such as members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad are legitimate targets if they are in a hospital. Sari states that the general legal protection for medical facilities does not apply in this case, because “the Israeli operation was not directed against the Ibn Sina hospital,” just the three militants. He also said that enemy forces “remain targetable at all times, unless they enjoy special protections or clearly communicate an intention to surrender.”“

(https://theintercept.com/2024/01/31/israel-west-bank-hospital-raid/)

Protected persons is up for debate, but that is discussed at length elsewhere, so I don’t think I have to add that here?

Feel free to correct me if I missed something  :) FortunateSons (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

FortunateSons, the bottom line here is that aren't allowed to make your own argument, even if you can bring good sources in support of your argument. You can only report arguments made in reliable sources, and those arguments have to be about the case in hand, not about generalities that in your opinion should apply. That's the essence of NOR. Zero^talk 00:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I’m aware („This goes beyond the scope of this page, and my IL class was a while ago and did not cover this, but:„, this is interpretation on my part and not covered without actually doing OR), this was about his statement, not about what to actually write, as his statement was mostly not in direct contradiction of what I wrote, but merely represented one of the viewpoints discussed. When it comes to the actual text, I wrote what I consider to be supported by the 2 (maybe 3) sources in the response to Nableezy, it was ‚intended‘ for him, but I would kindly ask that you fix anything you consider to be incorrect inaccurate too? FortunateSons (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons Indeed, it must have been long time since your IL classes. Supposed membership in a group proscribed by one warring party doesn't absolve that party from abiding by the Geneva Conventions. The IHL doesn't say: Thou shall not kill, except those you don't like. Besides, Hamas are not an illegal group in the place where the killing took place (i.e., in Gaza).

Anyhow, as Zero pointed out, this is not the place to engage in OR. Just please accept that other editors said "no" to your arguments. Any further discussion will be pointless. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, (not to do OR, so I am sticking with what Sari says: „Then there is the question of whether militants such as members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad are legitimate targets if they are in a hospital. Sari states that the general legal protection for medical facilities does not apply in this case, because “the Israeli operation was not directed against the Ibn Sina hospital,” just the three militants. He also said that enemy forces “remain targetable at all times, unless they enjoy special protections or clearly communicate an intention to surrender.““ I can do more OR if this is genuine curiosity, but for our purposes, the prof saying it should do, right?

I don’t mind you disagreeing with my arguments, but this is unrelated to including the actual legal status as discussed by a multitude of RS, isn’t it?

Oh, and not to be pedantic, but

a) this was the West Bank, not Gaza

b) the de-facto status of Hamas in the West Bank is prohibited and they are not really popular with either the West Banks ‘government’ nor with Israel, so there’s that. FortunateSons (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope that clarified it, I apologise for any confusion caused.

I had misunderstood what Nableezy referred to (thinking that Synth was referring to the argument made and not its placement), but as they explained it well and we got into the same debate with better sources anyway, it doesn’t really matter retroactively. I thank you for re-explaining the details of policy, I was indeed not fully aware and misinterpreted what they meant. FortunateSons (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Are things described by press as atrocities to be included in this article?

Are things described by the press as atrocities to be included? Fanccr (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not as such, 'atrocity' simply means 'something terrible' and is subjective, whereas war-crimes are internationally defined. We need a legally competent person or body to say an event is a war-crime. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Atrocity crime is defined. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, but simply as a category of specific offences. The use of the word "atrocity" generally doesn't necessarily mean it's a view that it's one of those crimes as such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• As massacres - Kai Biermann, Lea Freh­se , etc: The day that wouldn’t end. At the german newspaper: Die Zeit Nr. 6/2024, 1st Febr. 2024, p. 11 - 13. (online) —The trainee2025, 17:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistent use of source for identifying involved parties

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

  −

  After entering the hospital they drew their weapons and killed three patients who they said were militants.

  +

  After entering the hospital they drew their weapons and killed three militants.

• Why it should be changed: The same AP source used to identify the attackers as Israeli also identifies those attacked to be militants.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

eyal (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I see no reason to censor the fact that the victims were patients. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the article; the request is correct in that we don't need to attribute the claim, but we should continue to include the fact that one of them was a patient, which is the claim supported by the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Why did you revert my edit? Your summary merely said "adding sources", but the sources you added didn't support your revert; neither suggests that Muhammad Ghazawi or Muhammed Jalamneh were patients, and the Times article describes them all in its own voice as militants, and according to a different ABC article Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have claimed them as their own. BilledMammal (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I Agree with BilledMammal, @Kashmiri we should include the mention related to the patient, I shouldn't have removed that part, my bad. eyal (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I will object to any removal of the mention that the killed people were hospital patients, per NPOV. Let's imagine that plainclothes police in the U.S. come to a hospital, dress up like nurses, and execute a suspected thief receiving treatment there. It's more than certain that U.S. press headlines would not be: "Police killed a thief in a hospital", but rather "Police illegally executed a hospital patient". I see no reason to apply a different yardstick to Gaza hospitals and Israeli police. And yes, I know that some media peddle the Israeli talking line that it was "elimination of a militant" and not an illegal murder of a patient. We at Wikipedia, armed with NPOV policy, can do better than that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the sources one of the killed men was a patient, and my edit didn’t remove that fact; I still don’t understand your revert? BilledMammal (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it was an edit conflict. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense; in that case I will re-implement it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have a clarification question on this close: given that the only new sections that I may add to this talk page are edit requests (per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles), where may I go about establishing the consensus that you're referring to? eyal (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shadow311 pinging directly in case this message was was missed. eyal (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If a consensus was reached, the result needs to be made clear. if a consensus has not been reached, you could start a RFC. Shadow311 (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see, and what page would be the appropriate place to start this RFC? As mentioned above, I cannot start any new sections in this talk page besides edit requests. I ask because your earlier statement implies that I cannot use an edit request to establish consensus. eyal (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You cannot start an rfc, or continue discussing this. Extended-confirmed editors can work out what to do with the request at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for clarifying the policy. eyal (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this talk page extended-confirmed protected?

Is this talk page extended-confirmed protected? My edit was removed because I don't have extended-confirmed privileges, was this in error? Fanccr (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page and read WP:ARBECR. Non ECR users cannot edit articles in AI area or engage in consensus forming discussions, only make edit requests, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Following RS more closely

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

On 6 December 2023, Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) have commenced legal proceedings against the UK after written requests to suspend arms sales to Israel due to grave breaches of international law and UK rules were repeatedly ignored. The filed papers detail indiscriminate attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure critical for their survival -including hospitals, bakeries, (UNRWA) schools where displaced people sheltered, food storages and water reserves- starvation, forced displacement and the increasing risk of genocide. The action is supported by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) and a press briefing was held with GLAN, Al-Haq and ICJP and with Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and a member from Oxfam.

+

On 6 December 2023, Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) have commenced legal proceedings against the UK after written requests to suspend arms sales to Israel, citing alleged breaches of international law and UK rules, were repeatedly ignored. The filed papers detail allegations of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, starvation, forced displacement, and the serious risk of genocide, including statements from members of the Knesset and military leaders. The action is supported by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) and a press briefing was held with GLAN, Al-Haq and ICJP and with Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and a member from Oxfam.

• Why it should be changed: The writing currently describes allegations made by Al-Haq/GLAN as fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. I propose that we use the Guardian's language, which is more qualified.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The same references used at the end of the paragraph.

eyal (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Uniformity in section titles

• What I think should be changed:

I propose to change the following section titles:

1. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Human shields => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Use of human shields

2. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Disguising military units => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Disguise of military units as civilians

3. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Medical facilities => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Use of medical facilities for military purposes

• Why it should be changed: The section title names should be changed (1) to be clearer and (2) to maintain uniform structure with the naming convention of the rest of the sections, e.g.:

1. By the Israeli government: Perfidy by the IDF: Israeli forces disguised as civilians

2. By the Israeli government: Perfidy by the IDF: Use of human shields

eyal (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Janina Dill

@Sean.hoyland: That section is about war crimes by Hamas; it might be relevant to a different section, but unless Hamas is accused of killing human shields then it isn't relevant to that section. BilledMammal (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I understood that was your reason for removal. But the sentence "On the counter side, Israeli Defense Forces have been accused of making no, or an inadequate distinction between Hamas forces and civilians.[46]" made me question whether your premise was correct. Why is that sentence there in a section about human shields? I don't know. But its presence made me question whether that sentence and Janina Dill's statement were connected i.e. it's not just about war crimes one party, it's about potential war crimes related to human shields by both parties, either by Hamas using them or the IDF not treating them as civilians. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If there are potential war crimes by Israel in relation to these human shields, they belong in the Israeli section - regarding the sentence On the counter side, Israeli Defense Forces have been accused of making no, or an inadequate distinction between Hamas forces and civilians, I consider it relevant as it appeared to relate to whether human shields were in use. However, reviewing the source, I find the source is considered generally unreliable and it isn't related to human shields - I no longer consider it relevant and would support removing it as well. BilledMammal (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Since the cited source says nothing about human shields and shouldn't be there, my argument is no longer relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

human shields as perfidy

That is not a widely accepted view and I am going to untangle the mess created by combing them. nableezy - 18:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Look at you two getting along!!! 😊 Wafflefrites (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Violence Against Palestinian Women

So this recently came about from the Office of the UN, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israelopt-un-experts-appalled-reported-human-rights-violations-against

This is probably a huge deal and we should definitely work on a Palestinian section dedicated to sexual violence, just as we have on the Israeli side. I'm not sure if this should also extend to the article of women in the Israel-Hamas war, but it would be a good start to add this here since it comes from the Office of the UN. There are a few sources reporting on this, such as Al-Jazeera (given), The Hill, and VoA.

TuaamWiki (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think @Selfstudier was interested in creating an article like this. Although I am not sure whether the word “allegations” will be in the title. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

At Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#Requested move 19 February 2024 I did suggest that since that article exists, then commenters there could hardly object if the mirror article were to be created, treating the equivalent as fact rather than allegation.

I see that Sexual and gender-based violence in 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza has duly been created, not sure whether that is the correct title though. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. At the very least "Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" seems more grammatically correct. David A (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming not to include the "gender-based" part. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not mind. David A (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree about that these reported war crimes from a highly reliable source should be mentioned and referenced in this article. David A (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Palestinians seeking aid

The recent killings of Palestinians seeking aid by the IDF should be included in the article. XenSolation (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

See the topic above this "Recent Aid Truck Massacre". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hamas disguising as civilians

Hello, I noticed the article says Hamas hides as civilians and medical personnel, but there is no citation for it (the citations later in the paragraph appear to only talk about how that would be forbidden by international law). Could someone please find one, or at any rate add a ? Thanks, — Alien333 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Uniformity in section titles

• What I think should be changed:

I propose to change the following section titles:

1. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Human shields => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Use of human shields

2. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Disguising military units => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Disguise of military units as civilians

3. By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Medical facilities => By Hamas and allied militant groups: Perfidy: Use of medical facilities for military purposes

• Why it should be changed: The section title names should be changed (1) to be clearer and (2) to maintain uniform structure with the naming convention of the rest of the sections, e.g.:

1. By the Israeli government: Perfidy by the IDF: Israeli forces disguised as civilians

2. By the Israeli government: Perfidy by the IDF: Use of human shields

spintheer (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent Aid Truck Massacre

Should this warrant inclusion or is it still too soon? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68434443 LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait a bit for the dust to settle. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

EuroMed's got a recent report on it, explicitly stating it and many similar attacks to be war crimes.[10]https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/killing-starving-palestinians-and-targeting-aid-trucks-deliberate-israeli-policy-reinforce-famine-gaza-strip-april-2024 entropyandvodka | talk 01:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the Flour_massacre, we should follow what it says there. Euromed is OK but is a bit biased, sometimes very biased, would be better if there were additional secondary sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that it can be added. David A (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)