Talk:Israeli war crimes

Requested move 11 October 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Numerically, there is a majority of almost 2:1 in favour of the proposal here. And when evaluating the arguments made by the nominator and others, particularly around consistency with the names used for this topic in other countries, due weight issues and the observation that almost all states have been implicated in war crimes in one way or another, there is a convincing case made. The opposition votes focus mainly on the disputed nature of many of the claims of war crimes by Israel... but that was countered with the observation that the same is true for many other countries' pages, yet we have a consistent naming convention across all. Hence I see a consensus to move to the proposed title of Israeli war crimes. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Allegations of war crimes against Israel → Israeli war crimes – The current title is against MOS:ALLEGED and WP:UNDUE. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice, the High Contracting Parties to the Convention and the most lawyers have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories, it means that Israel has committed a war crime by building settlements. Also, other articles about war crimes of other countries do not use "allegations"; Like United States war crimes, German war crimes, Russian war crimes, British war crimes and Soviet war crimes. Update: So Hirsch Barenblat and Isser Be'eri who were convicted, is Israel claiming against itself? Parham wiki (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The existing title is also confusing and ambiguously phrased - when I first looked at it, I thought it was talking about alleged war crimes against Israel. HappyWith (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral for now - I support this in principle, but given that the nom provided no refs I would have to oppose for WP:NPOV purposes. For that reason I am neutral for now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom; the information about the Geneva Convention and settlements make sense. I tried to come up with a title that was neutral but I can see now it's just confusingly worded. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support It is blatant POV to name the article Allegations of war crimes against Israel when other similar articles don't couch the subject in such language, and bad writing. The title could also be interpreted to mean allegations of war crimes committed against Israel. entropyandvodka | talk 18:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRECISE. The current title is ambiguous because it can be read to mean war crimes committed against Israel rather than by Israel. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per the existing explanations of the ample scope for confusion based on the present syntax. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support The word "against" in the title suggests Israel is the victim of "Alleged war crimes"by another party. In the current context of Israeli/Palestinian conflict, this title is totally misleading and can easily be interpreted as being about the opposite of what the article appears to be about. Besides, the article does not just cover the allegations it also deals with how the allegation made were prosecuted, so the article has gone beyond the scope of the title, suggesting the title is too restrictive, too. In the process of moving the article, I would recommend the title be deleted by moving the article without leaving a redirect. If a title is to be left, I would suggest it point somewhere else. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Ben5218 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Virtually no state involved in a large scale armed conflict has NOT been responsible for any war crimes (just murdering or torturing 1 person would qualify). The current title suggests that it is substantially disputed in RS that Israel has committed at least two war crimes, but this is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this has been discussed many times, with mixed results, on talk page of Israel. This whole subject is a huge controversy, with claims, denials and disputes by all sides. Based on that, I would oppose to renaming and leave this page as it is, similar to pages Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War or Allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War. Just to clarify, I think that many items currently included to this page can not be stated in WP voice (i.e. as a matter of fact) as war crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is why this subject is tricky. A lot of civilians are dying during any serious military conflict. What really makes the difference is only the intention by the side (Israel in this case). There are 3 different general situations here: (a) the side has intentionally targeted civilians as was established by an international court or just obvious (consider something like Hroza missile attack or Kremenchuk shopping mall attack), (b) it simply did not matter for the side if they attacked civilians or military (this is known as Indiscriminate attacks), or (c) some care has been arguably/possibly taken to minimize the civilian casualties, but there were multiple allegations of war crimes. From what I read on this subject, this is mostly case (c). My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of the situation. The UN fact finding mission showed cases of deliberate attacks on civilian buildings, the deliberate killing of civilians unlawfully designated as military targets, indiscriminate attacks that killed civilians, the deliberate shooting and killing of civilians in areas the IDF fully controlled (in some cases while civilians were waving white flags and attempting surrender), denial of medical treatment and evacuation of wounded civilians, intentional missile strikes against civilians, the use of human shields, detaining civilians and depriving them of food, water and sanitation, the degrading treatment of captured civilians, beatings and torture of captured civilians, to name a few.[1]

Many nation-states, as policy, take care, or claim to, to minimize the killing of civilians. And those nation states also commit war crimes. It may not have been US policy to commit the My Lai massacre, but the war crime was nonetheless committed. With the nature of some of the crimes I listed, intent isn't a reasonable legal defense. It's hard to argue shooting surrendering civilians, torturing and degrading treatment of detained civilians, or using civilians as human shields wasn't intentional. Given the (a)(b)(c) framework you outlined, there are clear cases of (a) and (b), and likely also cases of (c).

I think a more accurate characterization is that the international system is not effective at prosecuting war crimes, regardless in many cases of clear, documented facts of their commission. As for what is statable in Wiki voice, pointing again to My Lai as an example (as I'm sure we'd both agree this is a war crime), the opening sentence of the article states, in Wiki voice: "The My Lai massacre was a war crime committed by United States Army personnel on 16 March 1968, involving the mass murder of unarmed civilians in Sơn Tịnh district, South Vietnam, during the Vietnam War." It doesn't state it was an allegation of a war crime against the US Army, but only an actual war crime of William Calley, the only one convicted. entropyandvodka | talk 05:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am simply reading the lead of this page under discussion. The lead summarizes this page well, and the content of the page is well sourced. It says:

Over the course of several decades, the Israel Defense Forces, the military branch of the state of Israel, has been subject to various allegations of war crimes. The government of Israel has denied any wrongdoing, and neither Israel nor the IDF have ever been formally charged with committing war crimes.[1] Since 2021, however, the International Criminal Court has had an active investigation into allegations of Israeli war crimes committed in the Palestinian Occupied Territories....

Allegations. My very best wishes (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, the My Lai massacre was a war crime. Of course. But it was not by Israel. Something like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? That would be pretty much (a) - see above.My very best wishes (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that the first sentence there may be a misleading summary of the facts. While true that Israel has been the subject of many allegations of war crimes, there are numerous documented cases by the UN fact finding mission that have been recommended for prosecution. The report I linked shows clear cases of both (a) and (b), with recommendations for prosecutions.

It is an inconsistent standard to name other articles about other countries X war crimes, but stress they are merely allegations with respect to Israel. Many of the war crimes discussed in other articles are also technically in the legal state of allegations, simply because the international system is ineffective at pursuing charges, and the governments responsible often don't prosecute their own soldiers.

It is reasonable to discuss the nuance of all this in the article, but insufficient to qualify a special exception for the article's name. entropyandvodka | talk 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To drive this point home further, do a cursory reading of the article on Russian war crimes, looking at the language used in Wiki voice and the actual content of the sources. Multiple times in its lead it makes statements in Wiki voice that directly assert Russia is guilty of war crimes, or state as a matter of fact that Russia committed war crimes (some of which heavily imply that issued statements or accusations are actual legal rulings). The sources used to support these lines are often the same or similar that assert Israel committed war crimes (such as the OHCHR). entropyandvodka | talk 17:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia can't be used in the following way: When HRW issues a statement that Russia committed a war crime, it's a war crime, but when HRW issues a statement Israel committed a war crime, it's an allegation. entropyandvodka | talk 18:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"When HRW issues..." You seem to base your judgement on statements by a single source, which is just one of many sources on the subject. I believe that summaries on both pages were more or less correct, even though they were different, simply because the content of the page about war crimes in Ukraine and the content of this page are very very much different. To put it simple, if Russian forces are conducting genocide in Ukraine, it does not mean that IDF does the same in Gaza. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical example to illustrate the problem with the broader practice readily observable by comparing these two articles, and you haven't refuted my point; there are numerous other sources making accusations than HRW.

In my view, it would be very inappropriate for the Russia article to have the second sentence shift the article's focus to a Russian denial of the allegations, or stress how relative few convictions these allegations yielded, yet this is precisely what the Israel article does. This is not for lack of allegations or lack of sources, but for undue weight and POV focus, the overall manner in which the article describes the topic. If it is acceptable to say "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recorded Russian war crimes", then it follows that we should state "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have recorded Israeli war crimes" when both have made damning accusations against Israel. You can't, in wiki voice, take those two sources as recording facts in one case, but merely making allegations in another, when they're all, in fact, allegations made by those two sources. And again, these aren't the only two sources. entropyandvodka | talk 18:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You say: and you haven't refuted my point; there are numerous other sources making accusations than HRW. Yes, exactly, there are many other sources making accusations. This only supports my point. As about examples of war crimes committed by other countries (USA and Russia), they are irrelevant here.My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Two Israelis were convicted of war crimes. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights have been classified as illegal (and therefore a war crime) by the institutions I mentioned above, as well as several highly respected human rights organizations, academic sources, and many legal scholars. That these are just "accusations" is false and a violation of WP:POVNAMING. Parham wiki (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What can be stated in wiki voice when the sources are accusations or allegations by human rights groups and international bodies is very much relevant here; it is the inconsistency with this article's name compared to others that is central to the discussion, and why they were pointed out for comparison.

And, as @Parham wiki just pointed out, it's no longer just an allegation when it results in a conviction. The name is incompatible with those facts and must be changed accordingly. entropyandvodka | talk 19:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, similar articles about other countries' militaries do not characterize documented war crimes as "alleged." CJ-Moki (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, the articles should be neutral and/or show a neutral point of view, therefore the word "allegations" in the title can be characterized as one-sided and should be removed. Nori2001 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. Most, if not all, other articles concerning war crimes by a specific country are in the format "country" war crimes and not allegations of war crimes against "country". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per consistency across equivalent titles as well as WP:ALLEGE. Also this discussion requires extended confirmed to participate. nableezy - 02:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Israeli war crimes is a more accurate & easier to read title. Zanmed (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Merge - If we take a look at its history, Israeli war crimes is an article that already existed before it was redirected. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pirate of the High Seas can you explain what you mean by "merge"? VR _talk 16:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, there isn't an article to merge it into. Was this article previously titled Israeli war crimes and then the name changed? entropyandvodka | talk 17:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Israeli war crimes was an article that was unilaterally first redirected to Criticism of Israel before the redirect was changed to Allegations of war crimes against Israel. Therefore, Israeli war crimes must be restored as an article and the contents of this article be merged into it. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom*Restore & Merge as suggested by Pirate of the High Seas. Restore the Israeli war crimes article and merge this article into it. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. - Ïvana (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral for now because many articles illustrate the precedent for treating allegations as allegations and not as a decided fact. There are manifold examples such as allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War, Woody Allen sexual abuse allegation, or Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson,.Compare International law and Israeli settlements where the settlements have been declared illegal under international law and Wikipedia still doesn't make a declarative statement in the title. If there is an actual legal finding of criminal activity then I would support a change but on Wikipedia it is usually best advised that we don't call something a crime until there has been an official finding of criminal activity. Jorahm (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sexual abuse allegations against individuals can't be stated as a matter of fact until proven because of BLP issues. So mentioning them and comparing it with war crimes committed by a state is like comparing apples and oranges. 58.27.236.82 (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBECR and WP:PIA. — MaterialWorks 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the criminal allegations against individuals can't be stated as a matter of fact until proven, and not only because of BLP, but also because of WP:NPOV (BLP is based on NPOV). Ideally, the same should also apply to groups of people and nations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, It's also a very ambiguous and deceptive title. DemianStratford (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose against removing attribution from title. Moreover, some parts of this article are supported by sources which don't even mention 'war crimes'. Dovidroth (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I’m surprised at the votes of support—there is obviously no scholarly/historical/political consensus on the reality of Israel’s alleged war crimes. It’s a hotly-contested matter… so the matter should be presented as a dialogue, which it is. Zanahary (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Most war crimes are hotly contested, yet the naming of this particular article (and frankly some of the writing, but let's focus on the title first) is inconsistent with how other war crimes articles are handled when the subject is another country. Wikipedia must handle them all in line with its principles of a neutral point of view.

The implication of the title is that these are merely allegations, when coupled with the naming of articles like United States war crimes, Russian war crimes, etc. It implicitly makes a judgement on the issue. Given that the article even includes a section on prosecutions, with punishments and convictions, it is inappropriate for the title to imply all allegations of war crimes against Israel were no more than allegations. entropyandvodka | talk 21:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I received an email summons to this thread. The email goes Subject: Important vote. Body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_war_crimes_against_Israel#Requested_move_11_October_2023 They want to remove the attribution (aka allegations). Could you please also remove the parts in article where sources don't mention 'war crimes'? Iskandar323 would do exactly that if it was an article on Palestinian war crimes -- This email was sent by user "Randy Atkins" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Randy_Atkins>) on the English Wikipedia to user "Orgullomoore". I believe strongly in transparency on Wikipedia. If this is not a violation of policy, it's my opinion that it's inappropriate because it could unfairly allow a user to secretly hand pick users he believes will support his argument and !vote the way he wants. For that reason, I will not participate in the move discussion (which I was not even aware of before receiving the secret summons).--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:L235 worth looking at this along with the set of Yaniv socks spamming accounts to vote in AFDs? Shocking development that other users who appear to have come after the email notification there are showing up here, but Im sure thats just totally above board and not related to the email canvassing. nableezy - 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

When did you receive the email summons? User:Randy_Atkins is a confirmed sockpuppet account of יניב_הורון. I think some of the Oppose votes after that email's date might not be organic but biased. Plus we have already reached a consensus and more than 7 days have passed. DemianStratford (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

DemianStratford On 19 October 2023 at 12:44 a.m. (CST).-- Orgullomoore (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Its absolutely gobsmacking that a number of editors who happen to attend a number of discussions that have had email canvassing confirmed show up here after email canvassing. Just astonishing (shocked pikachu face and everything so you can tell how non-sarcastic Im being). nableezy - 18:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a coincidence, this innocent talk is being bombarded with 'Oppose' votes by users who got that email telling them about the vote. Isn't this against the rules? Also, they even opened a new topic below for some reason. There's lots of weird things going on. Hey, User:Parham wiki, what do you think? Brigading, sockpuppets, cherrypicking users to influence a vote. I don't think that's good. DemianStratford (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@DemianStratford: It should be reported. Parham wiki (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like all the effort is paying off - I'm finally the talk of the town. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The current title adopts a neutral and cautious approach, using "Alleged war crimes" to acknowledge the ongoing debate and absence of consensus. A change to "Israeli war crimes" is implying a definitive judgment using Wikipedia's voice. LUC995 (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)sock of banned user

  @LUC995: WP:UNDUE tells us that there need not necessarily be consensus. Parham wiki (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose For the time being, there is no consensus on the matter. Therefore, also the lack of refs to justify it and we need to keep following the WP:NPOV. Please don't turn wikipedia into another news media, supporting one side or the other, cause it will slowly loose credibility that way and we don't want it to happen Sunshine SRA (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies.

@Sunshine SRA: WP:UNDUE tells us that consensus is not necessarily needed, especially since the authoritative bodies I cited above have all indirectly confirmed that Israel committed war crimes. Parham wiki (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Marokwitz (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: See WP:UNDUE Parham wiki (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This policy does not apply to naming. See WP:POVNAMING. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue . Having said that, the article should be renamed to 'Allegations of war crimes by Israel' as 'against' has a double meaning. Marokwitz (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There's United States war crimes, Russian war crimes, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Italian war crimes, etc. It makes prefect sense that 'Israeli war crimes' also exists. Frankly, I don't see any convincing reason to oppose the title (it already existed, in fact). DemianStratford (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE and WP:TITLECON; the proposed title is both more clear about the article's main topic and consistent with other articles about "war crimes by (example country)". XTheBedrockX (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The present title conveys a neutral position. Better stay away from using WP:VOICE to confirm the unconfirmed.Eladkarmel (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not at all neutral. It uses the word "against", making it seem like Israel is the victim of accusations here. The title is biased. There's United States war crimes, Russian war crimes, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Italian war crimes, etc. Israel shouldn't be any different. DemianStratford (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Using WP:VOICE to categorize everything as allegations only deviates from a position of neutrality. entropyandvodka | talk 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  With this argument, the name of Israeli-occupied territories should be changed because there is a difference of opinion as to whether it is occupation or not. Parham wiki (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as non-neutral. Also most of the page would have to be removed as it is full of unsubstantiated allegations. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly what does "unsubstantiated" mean? The allegations are clearly made with RS, and some have included disciplinary actions, prosecutions, convictions. If the bar was set such that only allegations resulting in convictions could be discussed in an "X war crimes" article, most of the content of all these articles would require removal, as most war crimes remain in the legal state of allegation. entropyandvodka | talk 18:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. There is no question that Israel is committing war crimes, so the proposed title is more neutral and closer to reality. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the page is full of wild unproven allegations. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which resulted in prosecutions and some convictions, along with highly detailed statements from human rights groups and the UN. entropyandvodka | talk 19:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: NPOV request based on opinions, not a consensus of reliable sources, article is full of unsubstantiated allegations from one side and needs cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you state specifically what you mean by "unsubstantiated"? There are hundreds, if not thousands of pages of material substantiating Israeli war crimes. entropyandvodka | talk 07:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: suggested title indicates that there is a consensus regarding the claims, which is simply not the case. The current title is more NPOV and not taking a stance (which is not wikipedia's role). Like have been stated above me MOS:ALLEGED and WP:UNDUE are not referring to titles. dov (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

  With this argument, the name of Israeli-occupied territories should be changed because there is a difference of opinion as to whether it is occupation or not. Parham wiki (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus among whom? Human rights groups? The UN? They've determined Israel to have committed war crimes. entropyandvodka | talk 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Israeli war crimes" would be non-neutral, and also would be an inaccurate description of an article that contains numerous unproven allegations. Ar2332 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I've alluded to this elsewhere in this discussion, but feel it needs to be more explicitly stated, as it has not been satisfactorily addressed, if even acknowledged. Comparing this article to other X war crimes articles, there are some noteworthy differences in how the leads are written, as well as the body of the article, when covering the subject matter of allegations; some editors may be citing improprieties with this article as justification for keeping the article's title. This creates a self-reinforcing loop: if the article puts undue emphasis on the fact that an assertion by an independent body is legally still an allegation, and consistently does this, this affords editors opposed to the title change an argument citing what is likely undue weight in the article.

Compare the first sentence of this article to the first sentence of the Russian war crimes article:

Israel:

"Over the course of several decades, the Israel Defense Forces, the military branch of the state of Israel, has been subject to various allegations of war crimes."

Russia:

"Russian war crimes are the violations of the international criminal law including war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide which the official armed and paramilitary forces of the Russian Federation are accused of committing since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991." (Bold added by me.)

Both of these sentences roughly establish the same thing: the military of X country has been accused of war crimes. The lead for the Russian article explicitly defines the term "Russian war crimes" to not only include allegations, but to ultimately be allegations.

Further, read the rest of the lead in the Russia article. It asserts in wiki voice that the same independent groups cited in the Israeli war crimes article (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the OHCHR, etc) have "recorded Russian war crimes", "documented Russian war crimes", "found Russia guilty of war crimes" (that particular one cites an issued statement by the OHCHR, not a legal ruling from a trial), "published a report finding Russia guilty of war crimes", etc. The same groups have issued statements, published reports, made determinations and so on that allege Israel committed war crimes, but much of the language in this article, and the name of the article, put undue focus on the allegations aspect, despite the article having a section on prosecutions, which includes punishments and convictions. The preferential treatment this article, and its name, affords Israel on this subject is a screaming violation of NPOV.

This is something that opponents of this name change have not yet addressed. I would remind them that this isn't a vote. It is an issue to be settled by force of argument. I would say that, thus far, nothing has been put forward to justify this disparity. If Wikipedia applied the standards being requested by opponents of the move to all other X war crimes articles, many, such as the Russia article, would look radically different.entropyandvodka | talk 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• This is not surprising because the actions by Russian army in Chechnya, Ukraine and Syria were very different from the actions by IDF so far. Hence the pages are different. Russian forces would not warn civilians to leave. During their war in Chechnya, their target #1 in every city/village was the mosque, their target #2 was the hospital. This is all described in a book by Khassan Baiev, for example. Targeting the civilian infrastructure is a hallmark of their operations in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Countries can, and regularly have, committed war crimes regardless of whether they "intend" to commit them or not. I doubt the article on Russian war crimes would read differently (nor should it) if Russia told people to leave ahead of time before bombing civilian infrastructure. XTheBedrockX (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it does make a lot of difference because it proves intention. Consider something like Hroza missile attack. Russian forces attacked a memorial service to kill 59 civilians and no any military. That was a precision strike with a powerful missile, and they had good intel: they knew exact time of the service. This is exactly opposite to making a warning, and it proves the intention to kill civilians. This is very different.My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Let me ask you this: if Russia claimed they were Actually aiming at military targets (and didn't intent to bomb civilians), would this make the act of killing 59 civilians with an airstrike less bad? XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what Russian government says. But it is irrelevant here. What is relevant in the context of the ongoing war? The fact that a significant number of civilians (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) did move from the Northern section of Gaza (which soon will probably become a wasteland) to the South after the warning by IDF. Sure thing, a lot of civilians will still remain in the northern section. But as soon as such effort has been made by IDF to minimize the civilian casualties (making such announcement, not hitting the civilians like Russian forces did during the Hroza missile attack or as Hamas attackers did in Israel, etc.), Israel can reasonably argue that the death of civilians was not a war crime. Therefore, we should use wording "allegations" in the title - the subject of this discussion. Will the civilians be safe at the South of Gaza? Of course not. The actual issue and a potential war crime is that they are not allowed to completely leave the area of warfare, i.e. Gaza Strip. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So when the Russian government says it was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques, it isn't relevant and shouldn't be given weight, but when the Israeli government says it was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques, it is not only relevant, but should be so heavily weighted as to be due in the name of the article?

We have human rights groups asserting Israeli war crimes, as well as UN rapporteurs and others. Israel will argue it hasn't committed war crimes, but they're not a reliable source for making that determination, just as Russia isn't in their own case, nor should they be given undue weight. Imagine if the article on Russian war crimes gave as much attention and weight to Russia's defenses for its actions as this article does for Israel. We would probably both see a huge problem with that. entropyandvodka | talk 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

How much due weight should be given to Israeli and Russian "defenses" depends on the coverage of such defenses in mainstream RS. These coverages are very different. Speaking on the "defenses" themselves, they are also very different. Russian MoD usually does not say it "was striking military targets in hospitals and mosques". It typically says that they simply never strike any hospitals, mosques or any other civilian targets. Period. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually does not? After Russia launched the Mariupol hospital airstrike:

...the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence claimed that bombing of the hospital was justified by the supposed presence of Ukrainian armed forces at Mariupol Maternity Hospital No 1...

And after the Mariupol theatre airstrike:

Russia denied the allegations and instead accused the Azov Battalion of blowing up the building.

And after the Kremenchuk shopping mall attack:

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said that "Russian Aerospace Forces delivered a strike […] against hangars of weapons and ammunition from the United States and European countries in the area of the Kremenchuk road machinery factory." He also said: "The detonation of the munitions for western weaponry in storage led to a fire in a non-functioning shopping centre next to the factory."

And after the Serhiivka missile strike:

A spokesman of the Russian Presidency, Dmitry Peskov, denied that Russia was attacking civilian objects in Ukraine and said that the targeted buildings were used for military purposes.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced. XTheBedrockX (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure what is your point. Yes, Russian MoD lied. There was no Ukrainian military presence in the Mariupol theater or Kremenchug Mall. But it is completely irrelevant to this page. This is a different state and a very different army. Such argument rather serves as an indication that you guys are on the wrong side of the dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop talking about Russia, it has nothing to do with anything about this page. nableezy - 03:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my bad. This definitely got sidetracked a bit. XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support - see Israeli Settlements, Nakba, their use of collective punishment against Palestinians, and the fact that we have a category titled Palestinian War Crimes. The cognitive dissidence required to merely call these allegations is astounding. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Question: Can anyone tell me who is more reliable than the above institutions that believe that the settlements are legal and why the name of the article Israeli-occupied territories is not changed to Israeli-disputed territories even though there is a difference of opinion on whether they are occupied? Parham wiki (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  What above institution believes the settlements are legal? And the difference of opinion among sources is skewed so heavily towards "occupied" over "disputed" that to use "disputed" would be a WP:DUE violation. nableezy - 04:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nableezy: I meant that just as the article "Israeli-occupied territories" is not called Israeli-disputed territories, this article should not be Allegations of war crimes against Israel. Parham wiki (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly support - for all of the reasons listed by others above, Israel's war crimes are not a "question" CurdyKai (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)  Note: Struck per WP:ARBPIA4 restrictions

• Strongly support - For a variety of reasons, all of which have been mentioned above. It's been interesting to read the arguments (or lack thereof) put forth by those in favor of keeping the article name as it is... DonBeroni (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support there isn't anything else I can add that hasn't been said already. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support to be consistent with equivalent titles like American war crimes and the others, to follow WP:NDESC, and because the sourcing is good enough to do so. I'm not convinced by !oppose arguments based on sourcing concerns, since the sourcing is at least equivalent to other articles in the genre. But I would think that all post-canvassing comments should be ignored, including mine, since that's likely the best way to prevent such stealth canvassing from recurring by removing the incentive and the benefit to doing it. DFlhb (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There might well, in Israel's 70-year history, have been incidents and events that are widely reported as war crimes by RS. But the article currently is dominated by alleged war crimes. If it's renamed, it would remain a catch-all article for any reporting about alleged war crimes, especially if we don't create a new correspondingly-titled article. If anything, the article could be split (but I would be opposed to that too, as it would involve some really fraught arbitrary line-drawing). --Tserton (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Tserton: The United States war crimes article is also full of accusations. Also, the fact that the article does not mention settlements does not mean that the name of the article should not be changed, because it can be included later. Parham wiki (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I would say that article's title should also be changed, along with most broad articles about ongoing conflicts. Unqualified "war crimes" articles should be reserved for more focused articles (I'm more comfortable with War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, for example). Not sure why you're pinging me about settlements, though? Tserton (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  To read my reply Parham wiki (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The Israel page is filled mostly with allegation, with most international body investigation either unresolved or still in progress. The page is not analogous to Russian War Crimes, or German War Crimes, etc… pages. I think the title is appropriate as it is.Mistamystery (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Mistamystery: So Hirsch Barenblat and Isser Be'eri who were convicted, is Israel claiming against itself? Parham wiki (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just because the war crimes are different in nature from prior atrocities committed by Germany or ongoing crimes by Russia does not make them not war crimes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is the simplest way to express recent and past reporting that asserts clear evidence of war crimes (on both sides of the putative conflict), notwithstanding the absence of a conviction as yet.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

War crimes obviously did happen, but the discussion above misses something fundamental. This is not just a renaming, this would also change the scope of the article. If the article is about *allegations* then it should include all notable allegations even if they haven't been verified. Parham wiki, in your opinion, if the article is renamed, what should the inclusion criteria be? Alaexis_¿question? 06:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Only a tiny fraction of the world's war crimes have actually been confirmed in the sense of someone having been prosecuted. Most remain at the level of assertion and assessments from human rights bodies and legal experts. This is mainly because the ICC, the only body really equipped to deal with such things, is a stagnant institution. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the inclusion criteria, it should broadly reflect other similar articles, which rest largely on determinations by major groups that war crimes were committed, not solely on convictions. Look to the language used in Wiki voice and the sourcing for the articles about United States War Crimes and Russian War Crimes. A consistent standard should be applied on this issue across Wikipedia. As I pointed out elsewhere in the discussion, the My Lai massacre resulted only in one conviction, but the Wikipedia article does not limit discussion to that one individual, and it would be egregious to do so. entropyandvodka | talk 07:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this article does discuss at least some convictions and punishments. entropyandvodka | talk 08:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should be consistent with other "X country's war crimes" articles. To be more concrete, consider this example from the article

“ the report said it was not possible for Amnesty International to be certain of what Israel was targeting; it also said that if there were no valid military objectives, international humanitarian law may have been violated, as attacks directed at civilians and civilian objects, or attacks which are otherwise disproportionate relative to the anticipated military advantage of carrying them out, constitute war crimes ”

So what should be done with this, especially if the article is renamed? Alaexis_¿question? 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Including statements like that is still appropriate, provided they're accurate descriptions of what the sources say. The topic of the article is Israeli war crimes (which some here seem to argue translates to "Proven Instances of Israeli war crimes" rather than the name of the topic). When the source is saying a specific instance is conditionally a war crime, the article should accurately summarize or attribute a statement reflecting that conditionality, when sourced and relevant, without taking a view on it in Wiki voice.

The name of the article should be compatible with covering documented instances of, findings and determinations about, and allegations of Israeli war crimes, which it currently is not. entropyandvodka | talk 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

An additional note that has more to do with the content of the article than the title, if parts of the article are found to be giving undue weight to the defense of why something might not be a war crime, while not providing sufficient weight to the event the allegation is about and the merit of the allegation, those parts of the article should also be brought in line with Wikipedia standards of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:WEIGHT. As I and others have discussed already, the very name of the article raises those concerns. I've noticed instances of this in the article, but that's for a separate discussion. entropyandvodka | talk 00:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Like the rest of the articles Parham wiki (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: contentious discussion. extending for additional constructive inputs. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question Per MOS:ALLEGED, is it okay to state that some allegations are "unconfirmed" or "unverified"?[2][3] François Robere (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  If sources say they are unconfirmed or unverified then yes. If we are just supposing that then no. nableezy - 19:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  We should also be careful not to restate a source's editorializing that something is unconfirmed or unverified. entropyandvodka | talk 19:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  It depends. A lot of allegations may be simply undue on the page. We should only include most notable allegations covered in multiple mainstream RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Oh additionally another issue with the current title is that it could be read as "allegations of war crimes committed against the state of Israel" so it should bare minimum read "Allegations of war crimes committed by Israel" LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Closed
As is said below, this is best served as a later proposal pending results of the RM as proposed.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Allegations of war crimes against Israel → War crimes in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Per WP:POVNAMING, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue... Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." - The proposed scope change would adhere better to WP:NPOV. Marokwitz (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Support - Given the number of war crimes perpetrated and alleged on both sides, this seems to be a more neutral option for a title. Thmymerc (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Note: Wikipedia:ARBECR and WP:A/I/PIA restriction applies. – robertsky (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Support - Indeed it would seem to be preferable to include context that is relevant to both parties. I think your title: War crimes in the Arab-Israeli conflict, suggestion will reflect this in a better manner. I think you're right, neutral titles would encourage different viewpoints and better more responsible writing. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose: We have War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine but also Russian war crimes, so I do not see any reason against having this article. In addition, the discussion above to move this page has already reached consensus. I think an article dedicated to the war crimes of Israel makes much more sense than a combined one. One that attempts to draw equal weight between both sides runs a strong risk of inadvertently violating WP:NPOV by comparing the crimes of militant groups and individuals with those of a nuclear-armed superpower. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose - a. wait till the current move request is closed before opening a new one. B. This is its own topic. C. See a. again. Should be speedy closed as an abuse of process. nableezy - 13:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC) I support closing this. It distracts from the current discussion, and should be handled as a separate discussion after close of the first. entropyandvodka | talk 18:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Agree. It's nothing more than a distraction from the original topic. DemianStratford (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose and agree with CarmenEsparzaAmoux, combining and equaling two completely different entities makes no sense, and seems like an effort to downsize the Israeli crimes. - Ïvana (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose: I also completely agree with CarmenEsparzaAmoux's views. Israel should have its own page dedicated to war crimes, just like any other nation involved in modern wars. Also, this is another discussion. The original proposition was for having the page retitled "Israeli war crimes" and its 7 days have already passed and a consensus was reached. DemianStratford (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose That would require an enormous expansion of the article, blowing up length as it would need to focus on numerous other nations. It would be better if each had their own "X war crimes" articles. Such a title would also give the appearance that Wikipedia is going way out of its way to give Israel biased treatment on this subject. entropyandvodka | talk 18:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Oppose: Aside from the fact that the proposed title would have an INSANELY large scope (like really?! multiple countries, dozens of conflicts, over 70 years?), that's not what this article is , which is a country-based article about military misconduct, just like United States war crimes, German war crimes, Russian war crimes, British war crimes and Soviet war crimes, as mentioned in the nom's original statement. It's likewise not about a single, discrete war. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Support: the title War crimes in the Arab-Israeli conflict for lack of POV or distinctive narrative. dov (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please add the following two sections to the article. Thanks in advance.

==2006 Lebanon War==

Main article: Allegations of war crimes in the 2006 Lebanon War

In a 249-page report regarding the 2006 Lebanon War, the Human Rights Watch asked the secretary-general of the United Nations to establish an international commission of inquiry to investigate reports of violations of the laws of war by Israel, including possible war crimes. In a report, Amnesty International also said that during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes.

==2021 Israel–Palestine crisis==

In 2021, Amnesty International which documented 'four deadly attacks by Israel launched on residential homes without prior warning', asked the International Criminal Court to immediately investigate these attacks that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch investigated three Israeli strikes during 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis that killed 62 Palestinian civilians where there were no clear military targets in the vicinity, concluding that Israel violated the laws of war and its actions apparently amounted to war crimes.

==Israeli settlements==

See also: Israeli settlements and international law § Rome Statute

According to Michael Lynk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, "the Israeli settlements violate the absolute prohibition against the transfer by an occupying power of parts of its civilian population into an occupied territory". He therefore asked international community to designate the Israeli settlements creation as a war crime under the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

==International Criminal Court investigation==

See also: International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine

In 2021, Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, launched an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories since 13 June 2014. 39.34.146.93 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

For reference, I used <nowiki> tags to remove the second level headings as they were disrupting the talk page structure; remember to remove them when implementing the edit.

As for the edit itself, I don't see any obvious sourcing issues, although given the current structure of the article, it may be better for consistency to put the statements in the second section into the existing sections wherever possible, and retitle whatever that remains as "Other". Liu1126 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: @Liu1126: Please reformat the section for Palestine so it can be integrated into the current structure of the article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added the section on the 2006 war. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There's already a section for the 2021 events, but anything novel and sourced should be added. The Goldstone report pertained to the 2008-2009 conflict; not sure why it would be in a see also for the 2021 events. entropyandvodka | talk 00:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123: I have restructured the section on Palestine into three separate sections so it can be integrated into the article. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done @ARandomName123 and Pirate of the High Seas: I've added the remaining material to the article. The Human Rights Watch information had already been included in the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis section, so I only addd the Amnesty International paragraph. The two other sections seemed rather short, so I put them as third level headers under a second level header called "Other incidents".

Also, don't know if there may be confusion over this, but for the record, I did not originate this edit request. It was requested by the IP 39.34.146.93, and I made a comment below it because I didn't have time to implement it at that moment. Liu1126 (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing it! Sorry about the confusion, I missed that it was the IP who requested it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for adding the 2006 Lebanon War section. Have a good day! Liu1126 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Small proofread

In the second paragraph of the section on Jabalia air strikes, the sentence "The Gaza Interior Ministry stated the camp had been "completely destroyed," and the following day reported 195 people and 777 injured, with 120 more missing beneath the rubble." is missing a "dead" after "195 people". I can't edit the article, so I'm giving a heads up here. 2601:C2:1600:2A70:861E:A49C:C313:9E6F (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, ty. nableezy - 17:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Report by Hamas not mentioned as such, under "Forcible transfer"

The sentence "Israeli airstrikes reportedly bombed and killed civilians complying with the evacuation order" need to be qualified that these reports come *only* from the Hamas (to which the Gaza health ministry belongs). Please correct this. 2A00:79E0:49:200:2D63:EAE0:4A1D:A3EE (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done, Gaza MoH is considered reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't from the MoH, the cited AP article cites "Hamas' media office". I'll add the appropriate qualification. XDanielx (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To somewhat correct myself, the MSNBC tweet does mention the MoH, but a (live?) video doesn't seem like a very good source, and better sources like the AP article don't seem to corroborate it. Attacks on Palestinians evacuating Gaza City doesn't mention the MoH. XDanielx (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA school airstrike edit request

"UNRWA school airstrike Main article: October 2023 UNRWA school airstrike On 17 October the IDF carried out an airstrike on the UNRWA school in the Al-Maghazi refugee camp, killing 6 and injuring dozens. The school was sheltering 4,000 refugees. Philippe Lazzarini, the UNRWA Commissioner-General, stated the attack was "outrageous, and it again shows a flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians." "

This may also need the UNRWA source from the (same) commissioner-general: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/serious-allegations-against-unrwa-staff-gaza-strip regarding the possible involvement of several UNRWA employees in the october 7th attacks. Current wording makes it seem like it's done without reason. 213.93.30.23 (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done, the commissioner statement is in January this year and does not mention the UNRWA school airstrike. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the involvement of UNRWA employees in Oct 7th was highly contentious, and may be simply part of a campaign to deprive Palestinians of aid or to cripple organizations that provide it. Later reports emerged of torture and coercion to establish such allegations. 13 employees were accused of involvement (out of 30,000 in the organization), but Israel has killed at least 177 UNRWA employees throughout the conflict, and repeatedly attacked aid convoys and Palestinians seeking aid. As AP pointed out: "The Israeli document, which has been shared with U.S. officials and was obtained by The Associated Press, lists 12 people, their alleged roles in the attack, job descriptions and photos. The findings detailed in the document could not be independently confirmed. The document said intelligence gathered showed that at least 190 UNRWA workers were Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, without providing evidence."[4]https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-29-2024-4c49c2fb89c3bfd4963f2260b34943c1

I would agree that the UNRWA school airstrike, and other strikes that killed UNRWA employees were not done without reason, but the reasons the Israeli government states can't be taken at face value. entropyandvodka | talk 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hamas sympathizer?

Is this article made for sympathizing with hamas terrorists and saying that their war crimes on 7th of october was legitimate ? 2001:4DF4:131A:7400:A4D4:585C:7C0E:B3DA (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it was made to inform the public regarding what is actually happening, rather than systematically trying to hide the truth out of genocidally egotistical and empathy-deprived supremacist tribalism. All humans should have the same rights, not just specific artificially divided factions of them. David A (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I just wanted to address your concerns with this article.

Wikipedia is first and foremost a collaborative project that seeks to collect and share information with the world (see WP:About). There are millions of contributors that take part in editing this project, as anybody with an internet connection is able to edit it. One of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that all editors must adhere to a neutral point-of-view. We take biases in edits very seriously. We have no agenda, and we have ulterior motives.

In order for content to remain in an article, it must be properly properly cited. This ensures that the information on these articles is accurate and verifiable. This is important, because it allows readers to see where the information is coming from, giving transparency.

By having this information here, we're ensuring that information is free and open to readers. We're not making a statement about the subject matter, nor are we endorsing any particular views. If you feel like an article is biased, then by all means, please express those thoughts, and we (as in any interested party) can have a discussion about it.

I hope this cleared up any problems you may have had.

Sink Cat (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

request to replace a link

This link isn't working: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/live-updates-death-toll-gaza-passes-27000-south-106861226

Maybe let's replace it with this one: https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/death-toll-in-gaza-passes-27-000-as-south-africa-says-israel-is-ignoring-court-ruling-1.6751269 ? It also says, "Death toll in Gaza passes 27,000 as South Africa says Israel is ignoring court ruling." Niepodkoloryzowany (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I added an archived version of the URL to the page. Thanks for bringing this up! CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Must be added to the article

according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers.

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

Crucial report by Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham who interviewed israeli officers from the war in Gaza published by the israeli magazine +972 Magazine:

https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Chafique (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Heard about this this morning. It seems highly relevant to the general section on indiscriminate attacks. I haven't looked much into this particular magazine, but, given that they don't name the sources, if the information is added it would have to be as an attributed statement to the magazine. entropyandvodka | talk 20:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Also in https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israels-rules-of-engagement-seem-looser-than-ever-if-they-are-followed-at-all Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

In this section https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes#Dense_inert_metal_explosives_(DIME) the last paragraph seems to be out of place, and referring to something completely unrelated and should probably either be moved or removed. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it doesn't seem to be out of place. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"After Israeli forces fired shells near a UN school in Gaza killing around 30 people, Israel's military said the shelling was in response to mortar fire from within the school and asserted that Hamas were using civilians as cover. They stated that the dead near the school included Hamas members of a rocket launching cell. Two residents of the area confirmed that a group of militants were firing mortar shells from near the school and identified two of the victims as Hamas militants." What does this have to do with DIME and there is no source for it either. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What the hell is a forcible transfer?

Has that term ever been used before? Sounds as absurd as "Ideological gentrification" when the Guardian was describing Settlers taking home. Why can't we use Ethnic Cleansing? That's the literal definition, the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.2.98 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

See Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. Note also that this is not a well-formed edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The correct wikilink should be Forced displacement, not Population transfer so I changed that. The latter refers to Israeli settlers, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fleeing Soldiers

Killing unarmed soldiers who have not surrendered is not a war crime. This is the relevant Article 47 : "Rule 47. Attacks against Persons Hors de Combat Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is: (a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party; (b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or (c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender; provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20long%2Dstanding,international%20armed%20conflicts.%5B4%5D

Note subsection c- you must lay down your arms, express an intention to surrender and the protection stops the moment you attempt to escape. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What do our (secondary) sources say? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They say the same thing as Article 47c- e.g. "3) He must abstain from any hostile act and may not attempt to escape.

https://www.moore.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2021/Spring/pdf/10_Montazzoli_Down.pdf Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Or if you prefer; "Specialists in military law said today that the rules of war clearly permit the United States and its allies to attack retreating Iraqi troops" https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/27/world/war-in-the-gulf-the-rules-experts-back-us-on-rules-of-war.html Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Are those the sources in the article? Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is up to those who want to claim that killing fleeing soldiers is a war crime to bring sources for that, not the other way around. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't check the sources in the article, right? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually did - did you? This is the source used for the claim that it was a war crime to shoot fleeing Egyptians soldiers in the Six day war- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/30/israel-six-day-war-film-censored-voices

It does not even mention fleeing soldiers, let alone call it a war crime to do so. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't check them, that's why I asked if you had, save me the bother. I will go back and have a look at when it was added tho. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)