Talk:Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Merge proposal
I propose merging Use of human shields by Hamas into Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The content of both articles was originally together in Human shield and it seems most logical to present both "sides" together. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wonder if it makes more sense to just create an analogous Use of human shields by Israel and make the current page into a disambig page? VR talk 20:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why have two WP:POVFORKS when you could have none? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's one conflict, one problem. One coin, two different sides. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How many times does it have to be stated that there is a difference between WP:POVFORK and WP:SPINOFF. An article on something Hamas does is not a WP:POVFORK just because it doesn't also cover something some other group supposedly does. JM (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The alternative is the invitation for the material, segregated by POV, to drift off in an ever more POV direction, as Use of human shields by Hamas is already admirably demonstrating - you can see it already becoming a WP:COATRACK for all manner of tawdry IDF insinuation (including an array of debunked claims). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Hamas has also been accused of using human shields strategically by NATO, the UN, EU, US, Israel, and several European countries".


 * Oppose Use of human shields by Hamas is a phrase people are going to search for. They will not expect to find information about all uses of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It should be noted that this is the third attempt to get rid of "Use of human shields by Hamas", the first two being a deletion proposal on 2023-11-16 (fail) and a rename proposal on 2023-11-17 (failing).--Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Readers would still be able to search for that phrase: they would simply be redirected to a page with neutral context where they might actually acquire some perspective, as opposed to heading down a POV rabbit hole that panders to their confirmation bias. An encyclopedia is a platform for knowledge. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, for knowledge, but not reprogramming. If they want to read about Hamas's use of human shields only, let them do so. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is a proper WP:SPINOFF of Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notable, and long and unique enough to keep. The use of human shields is typical of Hamas warfare. Adding that Use of human shields by Hamas had in a very short timespan an AfD, rename debate, and merge debate. It's a regular WP article. We're currently experiencing an overkill in conflict-related debates. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article on systemic use of human shields by Hamas contain enough information to be an article on its own. They have turned it into an entire industry in Gaza by using ambulances, mosques, houses, schools and hospitals. No comparison to specific instances of human shield use by other Palestinian groups or Israeli forces. Dovidroth (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dovidroth: They have turned it into an entire industry in Gaza by using ambulances, mosques, houses, schools and hospitals. - is this RS, opinion, or Israeli government press release? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a major topic deserving of an article. The current conflict shows that usage of human shields is a fundamental characteristic of Hamas tactics: using mosques, schools and hospitals as military headquarters, outposts and for weapon storage; building an extensive military tunnel network under Gaza (The Gaza Metro); launching rockets from densely populated areas; setting up roadblocks to prevent the mass evacuation of northern Gaza... Finally, with prose size (text only) of 19 kB there is no technical reason for merging. GidiD (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Orgullomoore, Dovidroth and GidiD. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Selfstudier: One topic perhaps even more notable than the very limited evidence of the use of human shields implied by the POVFORK being discussed here is the use of the claim of such for propaganda purposes. So, one alternative to the proposal here is to expand the spin-off with the scholarly subject of Israel's constant manipulation of A) the narrative, and B) perceptions of international law - furnished with the likes of The politics of human shielding: On the resignification of space and the constitution of civilians as shields in liberal wars (or just start that topic from scratch). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this article can be developed in the usual way and cover both sides of the debate, merger or not. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per @Dovidroth@GidiD@Orgullomoore Homerethegreat (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The topic of Use of human shields by Hamas is (sadly) large enough to deserve an article of its own. פעמי-עליון (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose it was already demonstrated in the deletion discussion for Use of human shields by Hamas that it's a significant topic and a WP:SPINOFF because it has so much media coverage in RS. No need to go over the same things again and again. JM (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support the presentation of just one side of the story is tendentious and does a disservice to our readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How is this "one side of the story"? The story is Hamas using human shields. Is it also "one side of the story" to write an article about German war crimes without also writing about Russian war crimes in that same article? JM (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because Israel and Hamas have been using civilian cover in exactly the same times and places. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a notable topic per WP:GNG. Marokwitz (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The oppose arguments are basically variations of "but it's more notable/worse/true that Hamas does it", which are (A) statements of opinion, not fact and (B) not an answer to the obvious POV-forking of content from this article. And then there are bare assertions that the other article is not a POVFORK, which I have yet to see convincingly argued. In the AfD, the most common rebuttal to the POVFORK argument was semantic (i.e., that there was no standalone article that covered both sides of the topic)—well, here it is. Is our goal here to create two parallel encyclopedias, one for each POV, or to create a single, unified encyclopedia written from NPOV? WillowCity  (talk)  21:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that cover Hamas's use of human shields without so much as mentioning the use of human shields by any other party. That is enough to justify a standalone article. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Coverage in RS is necessary but not sufficient. GNG itself notes: A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (emphasis mine). Other policies and guidelines elaborate on this. For example:
 * WP:NOPAGE: The very first bullet point says, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. This is the case here.
 * WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTADVOCACY: The other article (like many POVFORKs) is run through with NPOV issues and (as Iskandar323 notes above) seems liable to continue drifting off in that direction. In large part, it's a gratuitous rehash of the perspective of Israel and its allies, which have not been tested in court, without mention of parallel allegations against Israel itself that would better inform readers and provide relevant context.
 * Coverage in RS may create some sort of presumption for a standalone article, but that presumption is rebuttable (and, in my view, rebutted). WillowCity  (talk)  17:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To mitigate the risk of observers taking your contention that the presumption is rebutted as unrebutted, allow me to rebut your assertion of rebuttal by explaining why I believe having a page on use of human shields by Hamas separate and apart from the article on general use of human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not constitute opinion or advocacy.
 * Because the use of human shields by Hamas is not in some inseparable way linked to the use of human shields by Israel or solidarity movements, an overall larger article is not necessary to provide a complete article. It is more of a "yeah, but they do it too." The contexts are completely different. The neighbor procedure, for example, has to do with making a Palestinian participate in a raid, whereas Hamas's signature move is hiding under a school or mosque. They are completely unconnected except by the general fact that they are parties to the same conflict. The examples given at WP:NOPAGE are Barack_Obama_2012_presidential_campaign and Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign. In each of these cases, the heading is part and parcel of its parent article. That is, the other initiatives are part of the Obama presidential campaign, and the international trip is part of the Romney campaign. Use of human shields by Israel is not part of use of human shields by Hamas. The two can be discussed in isolation without compromising understanding, just as they can be discussed together in the same way that crows and ravens can be discussed separate and apart from corvids (and they can also be discussed together as part of an overarching topic) or French Renaissance architecture and Italian Renaissance painting can be discussed separate and apart from Renaissance architecture, Renaissance art, or Renaissance (and they can all also be discussed together as part of an overarching topic). All of these are, like use of human shields by Hamas, notable in their own right. There is a line somewhere short of the absurd argument that "x" cannot have its own article because "x" cannot be understood except for in the context of "Universe." Where is that line, though? What are the criteria?
 * I would point out that the assertion that the article is, and only can be, a gratuitous rehash of the perspective of Israel and its allies, which have not been tested in court, is in itself an opinion. There is no reason why this article on the use of human shields by Hamas cannot include counterweights to balance this POV. By way of simple illustration, there is no reason why the statement "x professor wrote that Hamas systematically shields itself from attack by launching rockets from heavily populated areas and storing weapons in and under schools and children's bedrooms" cannot be balanced with the statement that "y NGO said there is no proof of x professor's assertion and z professor said that, even if true, these launch sites and weapons stores do not meet the legal definition of human shielding; also, author A pointed out that none of this has been tested in court." It is an opinion that the discussion of use of human shields by Hamas necessarily implicates discussion of use of human shields by Israel, in a completely different way and in a different context and for different motives and seeking defense from different types of attack. It is arguably advocacy to says "Israel does it too" when the reader asks: "Tell me about use of human shields by Hamas." Does the article on the Holocaust say "but the USA also committed mass killing by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki"? Must those topics be covered only as part of "Mass killings in World War II"?
 * --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 18:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Woah, this is a lot of text. But let’s unpack it:
 * to your first point, you note that in each of these cases, the heading is part and parcel of its parent article. So too in this case: the human shields allegation against Hamas is part and parcel of “Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. There may be separation between the alleged tactics, but not the underlying practice. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami is one article, not two, because it covers two related (but distinct) occurrences.
 * I’m not suggesting we merge all articles into a single article on the Universe, I’m suggesting that allegations of a single type of war crime against two belligerents in the same conflict can be covered in the same article. As with most slippery slope arguments, the answer to the question, “where do we draw the line?” is “somewhere.” If your argument is accepted, editors would be justified in spinning off an article on Israeli use of human shields, or creating standalone articles for every type of risotto (which Italian Wikipedia has, charmingly enough).
 * The Holocaust analogy is a red herring. I answered a similar critique in the AfD by saying: a better analogy would be [spinning off] the "Arguments against justification" section of the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, without preserving any other content or context from the parent article, thereby creating the impression that the carpet-bombing is universally considered unjustifiable and criminal. We don't do that, because it would be advocacy. But analogies to other articles are always tricky; we need to focus on the merits of these two articles.
 * I think we’ve canvassed the main points so I’ll dip out now. (edited for clarity) WillowCity  (talk)  19:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To reply briefly: (a) I would not oppose an article on use of human shields by the IDF or the neighbor procedure – there is plenty of independent/single-topic sourcing on the neighbor procedure; (b) your categorization of use of human shields by the respective players as "allegations of a single type of war crime" is, I think, the sticking point, because I see these as different topics: hiding under schools from airstrikes (Hamas), standing between houses and bulldozers (solidarity movements), and looking over the foe's friend's shoulder (IDF); and (c) one man's red herring is another's illustrative example. Toodles! --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose an article on use of human shields by the IDF or the neighbor procedure We don't need another one sided article, that's why "merge". Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing one-sided about it. It's a completely different topic. There is the procedure itself, it being criticized as a war crime, the Supreme Court decision outlawing it, the subsequent violations of the court order, those defending it, those victimized by it. There are many sides/aspects to it. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 19:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I for one oppose the merge, but I will say that if editors think having an article about Hamas using human shields is somehow a POVFORK and not a SPINOFF, then they should definitely support deleting or merging articles like Nakba and Nakba denial. We should not be selective about what we consider "one-sided". JM (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Added by the creator of Use of human shields by Hamas with edit summary (my italics) "An article that gives undue weight to one side. Mixing the opinions of researchers with the facts. And it is unacceptable to compare Hamas, which uses human shields on a daily basis, to Israel. Certainly not to start with the side that uses less human shields" Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed it as an instance of WP:DRIVEBY tagging, pending input. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

POV
Never have I ever seen such a one-sided POV disaster, without even a shred of effort made to balance the obvious two sides in a conflict.
 * 1) presenting Norman Finkelstein's opinion as a fact in Wikipidia's voice.
 * 2) to present Israel first and in a disproportionate amount using human shields as claimed in the article
 * 3) Hamas uses human shields, as can be seen in the reliable sources in the article "Use of human shields by Hamas". Therefore, the fact that they are presented only in the third paragraph and also there as a claim of others. It's POV plain and simple.
 * 4) To claim that all Palestinians use human shields is a distortion of reality. This is only about Hamas and we should not blame the "Palestinians".
 * It's like saying all Jews use human shields. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Uh huh, it's OK though for you to present just one side of the story in the other article? Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I also wrote there. Definately not. Both sides should be treated in a way that is proportional to reality. In all articles I cuntribute to, I do a lot of research looking for sources that relate to both sides. If you have any more information, no matter which side...TFADAL. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The other article only relates to one side. Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. I got confused with the discussion on the article Women in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.
 * You meant the article Use of human shields by Hamas. I will not repeat here the reason why a separate article is needed. Look at the talk page. Eladkarmel (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, reading the title tells me all I need to know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think having an article covering the very significantly covered use of human shields by Hamas is a WP:POVFORK and not a WP:SPINOFF there is a problem. No need to be so flippant. JM (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not optional, but rather "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia", and one should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but rather "use direct discussion only." --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who said NPOV is optional? Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier: Who said somebody said that NPOV is optional? --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 15:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NPOV is not optional, but rather "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" So just editorializing then, rather than "direct discussion". Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Eladkarmel said NPOV is lacking. Your response was to ask Eladkarmel if it was "OK though" for one side to be presented "in the other article", the implication being that the other article is also lacking NPOV. My reply was to point out that NPOV is a fundamental principle regardless of whether other articles lack it. To state the point directly: this section of this talk page should focus not on whether it is "OK" for Eladkarmel to push a POV in another article, but in resolving the POV in this article you appear to acknowledge exists. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 16:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't really read either article as yet, any POV anywhere should of course be dealt with (such as pretending that al-Shifa is "evidence", for instance). I was just amused at the tag and the italicized sentence above "An article that gives undue weight to one side". Chutzpah. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Glad we cleared that up. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 16:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eladkarmel: So in repeating my words back at me "Never have I ever seen such a one-sided POV disaster, without even a shred of effort made to balance the obvious two sides in a conflict." from here - you are obviously being taunting, which I would note, while not a personal attack, does fall under WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL / WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL - which makes it harder to believe that you came to this POV tagging based on content, as opposed to personal motives and/or being WP:POINT-y - I'd suggest not demonstrating such behaviour in a CT area if you want to be taken seriously. As to the substance: #1) Norman Finkelstein is an expert and his opinion carries weight; #2) Israel's use of human shields chronologically precedes the current evidenced suggestion of Palestinian usage of human shields, and also it's A-Z (take your pick of those reasons); #3) chronological concerns also similarly apply to the lead; #4) the first determined Palestinian usage of human shields is attributed to the Popular Resistance Committees, which are not Hamas, so you are 100% wrong on that. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I did not say to delete Norman Finkelstein's opinion, just to state that it is his opinion and not to write it as fact.
 * 2. OK, I think that under the WP:STRUCTURE, in the lead it is appropriate to put the organization that certainly uses human shields today and in a more serious way. And for years it is the prominent organization on the subject in the area
 * 3. See 2
 * 4. These are only accusations. I haven't seen evidence that Popular Resistance Committees used human shields, it doesn't appear in the article about them and it doesn't appear in the lead either... Eladkarmel (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per #2: First, the burden of proof for those claiming human shields are being used rests on those making the accusations. You are assuming that Hamas' use of human shields is an airtight case under international law (as opposed to just Israeli and Western rhetoric), which it is not. Secondly, you are assuming that Hamas is the only recipient of human shield accusations in the present conflict, which it is not. Per #4 - almost this entire topic is one of accusations (bar the lone conviction), and, of course, the accusation has also been levelled at other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza, since the logic is the same. Here Israel accuses the PIJ. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's silly to say there is any doubt that Hamas uses human shields when they themselves say they do it. Why are you so resistant to this obvious fact, ? I realize Memri is a partisan source, but these are Fathi Hamad's own words. And these are Sami Abu Zuhri's own words. Will you claim it is a mistranslation? Will you say there is context missing? Is it your contention that this does not meet the legal definition of human shielding? I would like to understand the basis for your denial. --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 13:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that primary sources citing two random politicians saying something is far removed from reliable sources establishing the same thing in no uncertain terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But a Hamas spokesperson and their Interior Minister are not random and the statements are quoted and cited in secondary sources for the assertion that Hamas has admitted to using human shields and encouraging civilians to resist Israeli airstrikes by staying in the line of fire. Do you dispute that? --Orgullomoore ( talk ) 13:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I think. Find better sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

OK then, what fault do you find with the sources cited in the following blurb?

--Orgullomoore ( talk ) 13:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * For the first phrase, it needs to reflect the sources in terms of the attribution and the context, i.e. "Early in 2008, a senior Hamas leader acknowledged ...", and for the second part it would need to clarify when and to which conflict these sources and their contained statement applies - it looks to be 2008 and 2014. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. Why wouldn't you just implement your own suggestions instead of wholesale reverting? You're very difficult to work with. --<span style="font-family: 'Brush Script MT', cursive;">Orgullomoore ( talk ) 18:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Body first, then lead summary, per MOS:LEAD - it's a simple rule that seems to need repeating a lot. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A continuing and longstanding trend. JM (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The “Human Shields” Defense of Bombing Gaza’s Civilians Is Morally Bankrupt Israeli forces use five Palestinian children as human shields Palestinian children tortured, used as shields by Israel: U.N. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Not every Palestinian is Hamas
In the article the word "Palestinian" appears 86 times and the word "Hamas" 68 times. Since it is my understanding that Palestinians do not use human shields, but only Hamas, to write so much about the "Palestinians" use of human shields is similar to saying that "the Jews use human shield". Eladkarmel (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this part of the reason for the tag? Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, one should distinguish between Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians who are not guilty of the organization's actions. This requires a serious change in the article. There are a handful of accusations against Palestinian organizations, while there is clear evidence against Hamas. (You can see photos in the article Use of human shields by Hamas itself). Eladkarmel (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's like saying we should identify Likud versus Israeli use, why would we do that? This is the same asinine POV that calls a war that kills thousands of Palestinians a war on Hamas. The ICC prosecutor already says that Israel has to prove its claim that the protective status has been lost (because of human shields/harming the enemy)
 * "One: in relation to every dwelling house, in relation to any school, any hospital, any church, any mosque – those places are protected, unless the protective status has been lost because they are being used for military purposes. Two: if there is a doubt that a civilian object has lost its protective status, the attacker must assume that it is protected. Three: the burden of demonstrating that this protective status is lost rests with those who fire the gun, the missile, or the rocket in question." Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Since it is my understanding that Palestinians do not use human shields, but only Hamas - Hamas is a group composed of Palestinians. There are multiple Palestinian militant groups. The Popular Resistance Committees (mentioned here) are not Hamas. The IDF also accuses Palestinian Islamic Jihad of the practice. Etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate to separate as commented on earlier. We should not say that Palestinians are doing so since it risks making it sound as if all the Palestinians are doing it. Unlike Israel; Palestinians don't have a united leadership and are fragmented into multiple groups that often war each other, therefore one should note which groups are partaking in the use of human shields. I think @Eladkarmel's comment is good start. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Locating IDF buildings in cities section
The rockets fired by Hamas into Tel Aviv cannot be precisely aimed at a target, and their use violates international law prohibiting the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate According to Amnesty International.. Terrorism by definition targets civilians, and so the citizens of Tel Aviv are not described as human shields, but rather as targets.

Hamas section
The POV atrocity that was the Hamas section is supposed to be a summary of the child article. So I copied the lead of that child article. The lead of this article was also incredibly one-sided, claiming things like al-Shifa has been confirmed to have been used as a human shield (ha!) when sources have repeatedly said Israel's so-called evidence has consisted of little more than discredited propaganda. So I removed that as well. Still needs a bit of work though.  nableezy  - 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * why did you move Hamas out of the Palestinian faction section? Why did you restore the POV-drivel you tried to restore to the child article without discussion? Why did you remove that AI repeatedly found no evidence of human shielding by Hamas? Are you of the belief that including accusations that third-parties have repeatedly found to be bullshit as fact to be NPOV?  nableezy  - 13:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There being no response, I put Hamas back in the Palestinian faction section. And so as avoid needing to go back and forth between versions of the sub-article, I simply have that lead transcluded here.  nableezy  - 15:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why Hamas should not be included under the section on Palestinian militants? VR talk 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

IDF Soldiers using human shields 2024
Israeli soldiers have posted pictures of them using Gazans as human shields as of March 28 2024.

Photo can be found on Quds news network twitter. Actualb3n (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you give a link here? VR (Please ping on reply) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2024
Citation 36 only contains a caption with no image purporting to show a child chained to a tank. It seems like a poor quality citation. Accurate meatlauncher (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I found this source further down in the section which includes the photo and more details about this specific incident. I also corrected the child's age from 12 to 13. Jamedeus (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bias
I dont understand how this is allowed to be in wikipedia. The author has expressed and exaggerated allegations of human shieldind by the IDF, but when it comes to their use by Hamas, it is downplayed, and links untrustworthy sources. The author/s have attempted to make it legitimate, especially in the second paragraph, by listing some allegations, but then go on to say it isnt considered genocide. If it isnt, why is it here. I would consider these authors to be Hamas-sympathisers. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Use by Israeli forces" in particular seems to give far too much weight to such allegations, treat them too uncritically, and rely too much on partisan sources like B'Tselem. I'll try to address some of the most obvious issues there. — xDanielx  T/C\R 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep I agree, thanks DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

2023-24
There's now a report in Ynet that the soldiers drove the mnan strtapped to a jeep bonnet that way because (a) he accepted the proposal and (b) the intention was to carry him thus for just 70 metres to the waiting ambulance for (c) there was no room in the jeeps. I haven't added it because it is a farcical lie, and of no value. The video clearly shows the lead jeep and others driving past successively three waiting Red Crescent ambulances Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This just goes to show that many Israeli outlets accepted as reliable on Wikipedia are part of the PR effort spearheaded by their government. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2024
Jf08191992 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Human casualties on the hood of HUMVEEs have been documented since WW2. While not an official SOP, transporting casualties on the hood is usually due to mission sensitivity, such as troops, equipment, and considering the extent of the casualty.

https://www.ww2online.org/image/jeep-transporting-wounded-soldiers-mariana-islands-during-world-war-ii

During the Iraq War, a number of casualties were evacuated with this method: https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/et5gaj/a_marine_humvee_evacuating_a_casualty_iraq_603x394/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

However, since the source material is lost,(https://www.10tv.com/slideshow/slideshow-doug-reed.html) the above shows Doug Reed, a solider attached to the Ohio National Guard on top of a HUMVEE. However, here is a news article that supports the above picture: https://www.10tv.com/article/news/heros-healing-ohioan-afghanistan-heros-road-recovery/530-799e6ba5-5be1-4b2a-86bc-55e499a8cf7e Jf08191992 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
change Internationsl to International LionWarrior9 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Left guide (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)