Talk:Use of human shields by Hamas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Apropos my revert

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

I feel like this is one of the problems in having different articles for each party here on the same topic. We had
Use of human shields by Israel a spin out from the main article as well as that can likewise reach the same size of this article. nableezy - 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. The concept is the use of human shields in the IP conflict. That was a unified topic. To split off a Hamas-specific page, while ignoring balance, is way out of whack with the evidence. In all of these articles, given the POV pushing, we should try to eliminate as far as feasible 'claims' 'reactions', 'responses' and stick to ascertained facts. The factual record gives us no serious empirical evidence for the contention that must underlie the creation of a Hamas-specific page, i.e. that, unlike its adversary, Hamas typically uses human shields. To the contrary, and the Israeli practice, like virtually everything else in this theatre of endemic war, goes back to the precedent created by the British, who adopted a policy of using Palestinians as human shields in their repression of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Unlike Israel, no court has convicted Hamas of using humans as shields. Israel has been so convicted on more than one occasion,mor caught out on videos in numerous occasions, of doing precisely this. One can indeed argue that Hamas is tactically organized within the urban civilian population, but to infer from that that this is interpretable in terms of the usual sense of using human shields is technically and historically difficult (the guiding assumption is that Hamas to clear its name should establish military strongholds in clear view of its adversary, distinct from townships and cities in the Strip, and fight 'fairly', fight fairly against an army that has immense capabilities to shoot anything that moves on the ground, which is under microscopic surveillance, from the comfortable distance of the sky or via precision artillary way beyond those borders. I.e. commit suicide). We don't write as historians of the Siege of Leningrad, the Siege of Gush Halav or that of Jerusalem in 7=CE, or the Siege of Yorktown, of of Delhi in 1857 or of Jerusalem in 48 in terms of the defenders using the civilian population as shields. The term in the modern IP use has been overworked to caricature Hamas, as opposed to what the besiegers do and the use of the term 'human shields' now almost automatically evokes Israel's chronic adversary's tactics, which however makes military history, were that designation functional in this sense applicable to every historical events where sieges take place, regardless.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to be absolutely clear before anybody takes this comment seriously:
“that, unlike its adversary, Hamas typically uses human shields. To the contrary, and the Israeli practice, like virtually everything else in this theatre of endemic war, goes back to the precedent created by the British, who adopted a policy of using Palestinians as human shields in their repression of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Unlike Israel, no court has convicted Hamas of using humans as shields.”
Is objectively false. The ICC has ruled on this already and put out warrants against Hamas’s leadership for specifically this reason. This is why these articles have huge POV issues as it’s being flooded with people vandalizing the article for their own side. 50.199.230.62 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

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

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

Nato Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence

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

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

NATO

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

I would also like to ask @שלומית ליר why they readded a citation to Per Bauhn, despite @Smallangryplanet having just removed it. I also don't think a single philosopher's opinion should be given equal standing to that of several human rights groups. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also, also like to ask @
MOS:IMAGEQUALITY)? I've gone ahead and removed it, but just thought I'd mention it here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Hamas placing weapons in civilian homes constitutes the use of human shields, as it deliberately places civilians at heightened risk of harm from explosions, exploiting their presence to deter attacks and shield military assets. I wonder why you refuse to put the image the demonstrate the phenomenon? שלומית ליר (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t what human shielding is. nableezy - 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As @Nableezy said that is not what Human shielding is. Additionally, the photo provided no way to validate who put the weapon there or where the location was, especially not one provided by an independent entity. I do not think we should have images that (1) do not provide any verification for their contents and (2) do not demonstrate the phenomenon in question. Especially not in the lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this quote is essential to understanding the issue, and I found that there was no reason to delete it, as without it, the article is unbalanced—failing to highlight scholarly work that points to Hamas' violations. There are others who think along the same lines, and I can add them if needed. Let me know. שלומית ליר (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:UNDUE it is that the article treats a number of unverifiable allegations as encyclopaedic fact, but it's already flagged as non-neutral. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. שלומית ליר (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m waiting for an answer to my question on NATO. where in that source does it say any such thing? nableezy - 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references. שלומית ליר (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other reference also does not support the material. Can you please say what exactly in this mentions human shields or NATO? nableezy - 16:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hybrid Threats: Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza has been published by NATO Stratcom. Is your concern that it doesn't constitute the official position of NATO? Alaexis¿question? 20:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood from the earlier thread that the answer is yes. But why remove the reference? Alaexis¿question? 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stratcom says they do not speak for NATO. If we wanted to include Stratcom has said this then sure that reference works for that. Not for saying NATO does. And I dont know why Stratcom would merit being in the lead. nableezy - 21:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it could be moved to the body. But why did you remove the EU and US? The sources seem to be alright. Alaexis¿question? 21:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really see it as due weight to cover state views in the lead when we're only saying who has supported the accusations. nableezy - 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there countries that deny the accusations? Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revert

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

Bauhn

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

I also removed the other individual views from the lead here. There isnt a reason why these individuals should be highlighted in the lead. nableezy - 18:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"
Human shields in Gaza" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Bias and Lack of Evidence

This article suffers from structural bias, inconsistent sourcing standards, and a failure to adequately contextualize legal definitions or verify claims. It is framed around the assumption that Hamas uses human shields, with the title itself reinforcing this narrative. This suggests guilt before evidence is fully examined, even though many international organizations have disputed or found no proof of such practices in key incidents (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.). For instance, despite acknowledging that Amnesty International found no evidence of human shielding in both the 2008–2009 and 2014 Gaza wars, the article continues to cite selectively framed quotes and unverified claims from Israeli and Western government sources with little critical scrutiny.

Uneven Treatment of Sources: Israeli military statements, U.S. officials, and NATO-affiliated sources are frequently presented as fact or with minimal qualification (e.g., "Israel stated", "The IDF released footage..."), while Palestinian denials or human rights critiques are more often contextualized or framed with doubt (e.g., “Hamas denied...”, “allegedly edited footage”, “some civilians said…”). Confessions by alleged Hamas members obtained under interrogation (potentially torture) are cited, despite Human Rights Watch and Amnesty explicitly stating they violate international legal standards and should be considered inadmissible evidence .

Selective Use of Legal Definitions: The article repeatedly conflates proximity to civilians with the legal definition of using human shields, which is misleading. 

Amnesty International states clearly that launching rockets from civilian areas, while unlawful, does not in itself constitute the use of human shields under international law unless intent to use civilians as protection is proven.

This important distinction is buried deep in the text, while earlier paragraphs heavily emphasize accusations, creating a skewed impression for casual readers.

Lack of Primary Evidence and Overreliance on Military Sources: The article fails to provide concrete, independently verified evidence for many of the claims it cites. It regularly references the IDF-released footage, alleged phone intercepts, U.S. or NATO intelligence summaries, without acknowledging that these are not independently verifiable and are often challenged by neutral observers. Furthermore, UN reports (Nov 2024) specifically mention that Israel has not provided substantial evidence to support many human shield allegations —a major detail that is mentioned but not given due weight.

Overuse of Politicized Think Tanks and Military Analysts: The article draws from heavily militarized perspectives, including NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, Israeli military spokespeople and Former national security officials; while failing to foreground voices from neutral international legal bodies, Palestinian civil society, or independent investigators. This reliance introduces Western state-aligned bias and compromises the neutrality expected of Wikipedia articles, especially on such politically charged topics.

Contradictions and Inconsistencies Not Addressed: In multiple places, the article cites contradictory conclusions (e.g., "Amnesty found no evidence" vs. "Israel released footage...") without reconciling or critically analyzing them. This misleads readers into thinking both claims hold equal evidentiary weight. It also does not explore why civilian presence is inevitable in Gaza, one of the most densely populated places on Earth, nor does it question why Israel’s own military infrastructure is co-located in civilian zones, a point raised by both Amira Hass and Amnesty International . This article falls short of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) standard. It systematically privileges state-aligned narratives and fails to apply equal evidentiary standards across sources. The result is a document that reads more like a political indictment than a balanced encyclopedia entry. 82.211.249.41 (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1284344611"