This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israeli war crimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, this material was added by @Entropyandvodka: on 29 October last year and with an edit summary saying that most of the material came from the linked article, not sure which but I can't find it in Six day war.
The Segev material, the relevant para from there says""It was perhaps the crudest possible war, from our point of view," Uri Chizik later said. "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn't even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them." Hmm.
So I'm thinking I might delete the first fleeing soldiers unless Entropyandvodka has something to say about it and amend the second to show the actual crime. Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it would be best to expand the existing paragraph with the fuller quote. The last couple sentences are pretty explicitly criminal. The key crime described here isn't killing fleeing soldiers (though that can also be criminal depending on the circumstances), but attacking persons hors de combat. Gonna make a quick edit:
Allegations that Egyptian soldiers fleeing into the desert were shot were confirmed in reports written after the war. Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, in his book "1967", quotes one soldier who wrote, "our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape".
to
Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, in his book "1967", quotes one soldier who wrote, "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn't even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them."
Think we can just lose the first sentence, since the fuller quote is self-explanatory. Gonna also expand the quote in the controversies article. Not sure why it stopped short. entropyandvodka | talk18:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, does Segev (or his interviewee) refer to the shooting of fleeing soldiers as a war crime. He does not, as far as I can see from what you quoted above. And for good reason - because it is not a war crime to shoot a fleeing soldier if he has not surrendered, as the sources I provided above show. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are under the false impression that shooting fleeing soldiers is a war crime. It is not, as the sources I have shown you, both the primary ones and secondary ones using them, demonstrate. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that shooting fleeing soldiers was a war crime, Idk where you got that idea from. I am referring to the shooting of soldiers "lying on the ground with their heads on their hands". Selfstudier (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got the idea from the fact that this section is titled 'Fleeing Soldiers' and was started by me after an edit of mine removing references to fleeing soldiers as war crimes from the article. If you agree that this is not a war crime - how about restoring my perfectly valid edit to the article? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly true. The passage referred to allegations of shooting fleeing soldiers being confirmed later in reports after the war. It didn't state that shooting fleeing soldiers was a war crime. That sentence was from an article describing controversies about the war. It may be the case that there was a controversy over whether fleeing soldiers were scouted out and shot, but I could see how the use of the term allegation in this article implies that it was a war crime. Whether it's a war crime or not depends on other factors, as we've already discussed, but I removed that sentence altogether.
However, the full quote that Selfstudier provided describes the war crime of no quarter. Your earlier edit removed the partial quote entirely, which is not a satisfactory resolution. Do you have any objections to the section as it is currently written? entropyandvodka | talk00:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should amend that, I only saw your second reverted edit, not the one from the first sentence of the section. It might be preferable to rephrase 'fleeing soldiers' to something else. In the quote we discussed, the soldier is describing killing persons fitting the hors de combat criteria, whether surrendered or wounded. entropyandvodka | talk01:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made 2 edits - one to remove the reference to "fleeing soldiers" sourced to a Guardian article that doesn't even mention fleeing soldiers, the other to the passage referencing Segev's book. Both were reverted by an editor who mistakingly thinks (per their edit summary) that shooting unarmed fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is a war crime.
I have the following objections to the way this section is currently written.
"During the Six Day War in 1967, the IDF was accused of killing captured Egyptian soldiers, fleeing soldiers, and civilians." - this is sourced to a Guardian article that doesn't even mention fleeing soldiers, and killing fleeing soldiers is not a war crime - so the reference to fleeing soldiers needs to be removed.
the Segev passage contains a lengthy quote, much of which does not reference anything which could be considered a war crime. Specifically, this part - "Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot." does not describe any war crimes, and is not called a war crime by either Segev or his interviewee. It needs to come out.
The rest of the Segev quote is more debatable - it could be the crime of "no quarter"- but it is not described as such in the source, and reliable sources, including the US Field Infantry Manual state that an option to surrender is not a requirement- see the ICRC document I linked to above - "there is no obligation to offer an opportunity to surrender before an attack." "No quarter" in IHL refers to either pre-declaration that no quarter will be given, or the refusal to accept an offer of surrender. It does not typically refer to a situation where armed fleeing troops were not given the chance to surrender. In the absence of a source clearly describing these actions as a war crime, I'd leave it out, too.
Removing all references to killing fleeing soldiers doesn't make sense. When murders/war crimes are committed in that context, in this case chasing down soldiers fleeing into the desert, the context should be given. I agree that stating in Wiki voice that killing fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime would be a problem, as there are additional criteria required to make such killings a war crime (for example, finishing them off on the ground when they're wounded, or when they've surrendered, or they're "laying on the ground with their heads in their hands"). The full quote in this case shows both. The fact that they were fleeing isn't completely irrelevant, either, as it can go to their intent to surrender, which the quote later showed. The guy's describing chasing down and killing people that had no intention to fight, and in some cases had surrendered or in other ways become hors de combat.
But we're discussing two different points of the paragraph here. I'd be open to modifying the first sentence, or clarifying the language such that it doesn't imply shooting fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime (though the context should later be given vis a vis the quote). I don't see any compelling reason to remove the Sergev quote, or arbitrarily cut it down.
I left that last bit in, because it is at least debatable. It is certainly a war crime to shoot soldiers who are clearly communicating an intent to surrender- e.g by waving a white flag, or by raising their hands in the air.
Is laying on the ground such a clear communication of an intent to surrender? I don;t know.. What does 'laying on the ground with their heads in their hands " even mean? Were they sleeping on their hands? That's what I meant when I wrote that In the absence of a source clearly describing these actions as a war crime, I'd leave it out, too. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said there was a firefight? Is that in the quote? I think the quote describes a scenario where these soldiers were fleeing, so there was no firefight. And repeating, ad nauseam, shooting fleeing soldiers who have not surrendered is not a war crime, Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of them were still armed, and they were at least being shot, but I guess it doesn't qualify as a firefight if one side isn't shooting back. Sounds an awful lot like surrender, or incapacitation. Or were they just sitting still without surrendering? Or all asleep? I'm not seeing a reasonable way to read this quote where the bit about shooting people on the ground with their heads in their hands isn't explicitly a war crime.
And for the last time, no one is arguing that shooting fleeing soldiers is itself a war crime. Please stick to the arguments we are making: shooting people hors de combat is the war crime. The soldiers fleeing was a small part of the larger context.
If you want more context, they were desperate, many dying of thirst and already out of combat. Many of them were, in fact, surrendering en masse, due to lack of water. Some were surrendering and approaching Israeli soldiers just to beg for water. Here's a snippet from a few paragraphs before in 1967, quoting the same soldier, for context:
Chizik saw them in the Sinai. “Thousands of soldiers wandered on foot in the direction of the canal, all at risk of death from dehydration. All the abandoned cars along the road had empty radiators. The Egyptians had taken the water to drink.” The captives began to take up an increasingly central role in Yehoshua Bar-Dayan’s war experience. “The Egyptian soldiers who hadn’t been killed and hadn’t abandoned their tanks took off their shoes and started running across the sand,” he wrote to his wife. “If they had any sense, they turned themselves in immediately as POWs, and there are several thousand of them. But the ones who tried to escape on foot, or who weren’t taken prisoner during the battle, kept moving barefoot toward the canal. The heat and the thirst finished them, and they started streaming toward our cars, our tanks, flocks upon flocks of people coming down from the sandy hills.” In his diary, Bar-Dayan wrote, “Good Lord, what are we going to do with them?” They looked depressed, apathetic; some crawled on all fours; he saw them in the internment camps too, fainting from thirst, even dying. The low point came on Friday. “After five days of hunger and thirst, the soldiers and officers were calling out from every hilltop, they had no strength— water, water, water.” According to Bar-Dayan, the soldiers gathered the prisoners, searched them, and took their papers. He heard some of them say, “Water—get it from Nasser, he’ll give you some.” He wrote, “They see our water canteens and lose their minds. It’s a terrible thing to see.”
Here's more of the paragraph the quote we've been discussing was taken from, which is a couple paragraphs later (most of the section is about POWs, and involves plenty of war crimes with them as well):
“It was perhaps the cruelest possible war, from our point of view,” Uri Chizik later said. “Our soldiers were sent to scout out groups of men fleeing and shoot them. That was the order, and it was done while they were really trying to escape. If they were armed, they got shot. There was no other option. You couldn’t even really take prisoners. And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands. Simply shoot them.” Chizik recalled that the men talked about this even as the war was still going on, trying to explain to themselves why they had to kill Egyptian soldiers who were trailing them just for water. “They may not have been dangerous militarily, but they were desperate and dying, and a dying man is capable of anything.” They found it difficult to define for themselves the moment when a soldier became a prisoner, and they knew that sometimes Egyptian soldiers surrendered but then attacked their captors.
I don't see any reasonable reading of "And sometimes you had to finish people off when they were lying on the ground with their heads on their hands" as not describing shooting someone hors de combat, in this context. He even says they weren't a threat, militarily, and explains that he and the other soldiers had to rationalize these kinds of killings, or rationalize the non-acceptance of surrendering soldiers. entropyandvodka | talk23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IHL requires a clear indiction of an intention to surrender - waving a white flag, raising your hands, saying "I surrender". Sitting around or lying down doesn't cut it.
Similarly hors de combat has specific meaning in IHL - you need to be injured or ill beyond the ability to fight back, knocked unconscious etc.. - sleeping or sitting around not seeing the enemy, or fleeing, is not enough. See https://lieber.westpoint.edu/down-not-always-out-hors-de-combat-close-fight/} "the fact that an enemy is laying still on the ground is insufficient to determine that target has fallen out of the fight. "
It doesn't really matter if it "Sounds an awful lot like surrender" to you - you need a source that explicitly call the situation described in the quote a war crime. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters very much if it sounds like surrender or incapacitation to me. In this particular case, he describes both. Read the passages. Incapacitation from dehydration is pretty obviously in the category of hors de combat.
You're bringing up other things that aren't described in the source, ie, the idea that they might have just been sleeping. Does the source say they were sleeping? Or knocked unconscious? No. The source describes the enemy as suffering extreme, sometimes lethal dehydration, thousands surrendering from it, then describes going out and shooting many of them, in some cases just finishing them off while they were on the ground with their heads on their hands. Do you think they were "finishing them off" from the naps they started? He then talks about how they rationalized killing people who were attempting to surrender, who admittedly were not military threats.
I've reverted your edit. You might not be familiar with WP practices on this type of thing, but you shouldn't reinstate your edit while it's the subject of a contentious debate with other editors. Instead, you should seek consensus. Failing consensus, there are further steps like dispute resolution.
No, it doesn't matter, because we write articles according to what the sources say, not by what something "sounds like" to an editor with limited understanding of IHL. The quote you have re-added does not mention dehydration or any of the other things you raise here, and specifically talks about shooting armed soldiers. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters in that it takes reading comprehension and common sense for editors on Wikipedia to function as such. You've been debating hypotheticals that are also not in the exact quote—and there's nothing wrong with that either. The term 'hors de combat' doesn't appear in the section, but it's very much relevant to the discussion we're having. The passages I've shown you provide more context. To further this point, the next paragraphs in that book describe summary executions, though we use other sources for those (and the subject isn't comprehensively covered yet either). We don't refuse to include an account of what is very obviously summary execution on the basis that the witness describing what they saw didn't explicitly state it to be a war crime. If that was the criteria, war crimes articles would have very little content, and few to no quotes from firsthand accounts.
I do think the section has problems that our debate here touches on a bit, which is lack of structure and context. Rather than the article being an index of quotes about war crimes and instances of them, it should offer a functional understanding of the context in which war crimes were committed. The Sabra and Shatila massacre article is a great example of this when the focus is on a single event. Each section in this article obviously can't go into that level of detail, but should adequately summarize. The 1982 section of this article is a good example of this, IMO; there's a huge article on that subject, but in this article it summarizes the context adequately and describes the war crime and subsequent relevant events. The 1967 section currently does a poor job at this. We're told about the execution of POWs, and in the case of this we're told about soldiers driving out into the desert and ostensibly murdering people, but we're given no context, and the order of a lot of the section is messy. It also leaves out relevant information in the sources it does use.
It says "if" as well, which means not all of them were armed.
Regarding the NPOV you added, can you specifically state what in the paragraph is not neutral?
Regarding the dubious tag you added, what exactly is dubious about the quote? It is sourced. Are you arguing that the book with the account doesn't exist, or that it is being misquoted?
what's dubious is that this is claimed to be a war crime, without any source saying so. Which source calls this a war crime?
And this may be a language issue , but a sentence that says " If they were armed, they got shot." means just that - you shot people if they were armed, It does not mean, or even imply, that you were also shot if you were unarmed (putting aside the fact that shooting unarmed solider who did not surrender is also not a war crime) Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, shooting armed soldiers isn't a war crime. But I don't agree that it makes sense to remove that part of the quote. Chopping the quote down to just the final part, ie, shooting people laying on the ground with their heads in their hands, has other problems. In what context are these shootings happening? To POWs? Context. entropyandvodka | talk18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left that part in because, as I wrote, it is at least ambiguous or debatable - it is not clear what the context of the event is - even if you include the part I removed and you restored.
Were these POWs? It doesn't say that. Were they armed? Not clear. Were they trying to surrender in some unusual way (laying down, head on hands) or caught sleeping? not clear.
The simplest solution is to remove the entire quote, which doesn't add anything to the section - the section already has multiple, well sourced claims of instances of actual war crimes involving the shooting of POWs or soldiers who had surrendered- what does this highly ambiguous quote which mixes perfectly legal actions (shooting armed soldiers) with ambiguous scenarios (shooting people who had laid down) add? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The better solution, as I discussed above, is to expand the section to include the IDF hunting down and murdering Egyptian soldiers who were incapacitated or dying of thirst, and provide more context. It was also in this context that they acquired many of the POWs they ended up killing. entropyandvodka | talk19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, your objection has been that the quote isn't relevant, or doesn't describe a war crime, not the veracity of the quote itself or the source. entropyandvodka | talk18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't dispute that the quote exists, I think it does not belong in an article about war crimes, because it is not about a war crime. Do you have a source that describe the quote, or the actions it refers to, as a war crime? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one calling it murder. Took all of ten seconds to google:
"In Israeli historian Tom Segev's definitive work on the 1967 war, he says that Israeli soldiers witnessed "tens of thousands" of Egyptian soldiers wandering the desert dying of thirst and hunger; or being hunted by special Israeli army units whose mission was to kill such soldiers when they found them. Between deliberate murder and dying of thirst, it seems the number of dead might have reached such a large number." entropyandvodka | talk19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. That's a different quote.
2. It's from an opinion piece, in source of questionable reliability, written by an activist who is neither a war crimes expert nor a historian Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you should start a separate topic specifically summarizing the tag concerns rather than expecting any passing editor to find it in this particular section. entropyandvodka | talk18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do use at least one of those sources (the 1995 NYT article), though it has more stuff in it that should probably go into the section. Reading the section again, I was thinking maybe some of it could be reorganized, like putting all the descriptions of mass executions into one area, then the stuff with the mass graves. entropyandvodka | talk21:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In this section, the last two senteces are "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." They have nothing to do with DIME and they have no source, also nothing in them seem to include anything about DIME. They just seem to be about a different situation, and have been misplaced. Should be removed.
80.217.100.31 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section on DIME needs to be removed because as the section itself says " DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law," I will do this shortly Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not reading what I am writing? We have a fairly lengthy section about the use of DIME weapons - none of it belongs n the article because using DIME is not a war crime. If the two sentences at the end are not related to DIME but an allegation of a different war crime, move them to a relevant section. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can read fine, thanks. I have made a reasonable request, ball is in your court. Are you just a deleter rather than an encyclopedia builder? Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of building an encyclopedia is ensuring it is high quality, by removing inappropriate content, which the DIME section is in this article.
This article has editing restrictions which prevent me from doing this now, but I will remove that section in a day or two. If you want to preserve the last two sentences (which lack a date and a source), I suggest you find a proper source for them, and then move them to an appropriate section. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, Selfstudier.I moved the text from Gaza War (2008–2009) on 9 October 2023 to this page, at which point those two sentences on the original page were in a DIME section under "Controversies regarding tactics" [1]. They are now completely removed from that section and exist only under "Criticism of Palestinian factions." Full transparency, my understanding of IHL was much weaker in October 2023 than it is now. As KentuckyRain points out, the DIME section itself does cite the Goldstone Report, which clarified that as of October 2009, DIME weapons weren't prohibited under international law. The Report's full quote: "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands, but do raise specific health concerns," so I'm actually not opposed to the section's removal from this page.The article was created by bringing over a lot of text from preexisting pages (none of which I wrote myself), so huge apologies for causing confusion here. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it doesn't seem to be out of place. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)