Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war

Gender-based identifier

Carried over from the discussion in talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, I think the "gender-based" identifier in the article title here is also redundant because while there are credible allegations of sexual violence against Gazan women, I think this article can also encompass reports on Gazan men being stripped of their sexual dignity by the IDF during this conflict. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not clear what this adds to either title. Jamedeus (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing the "gender-based" part greatly reduces the scope of the article. The UN source clearly stated that Palestinian women were mistreated, not only sexually abused. Previously, info such as "they were denied menstruation pads, food and medicine, and were severely beaten, and surrendering Palestinian women deliberately summarily being killed with their children" were removed after the original title was changed to just "Sexual abuse" without consensus.Crampcomes (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think a better title would be “Sexual violence against Palestinians in the 2023 Israeli War on Gaza”, or something similar?

The October 7 sexual violence article uses “attack” in its title because that article is describing the atrocities that happened on that day.

What is happening to Palestinians is a war and is not limited to a single day. Also I think sexual violence would also occur to prisoners held during war, not just during an attack. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"Attack" wasn't what I was focusing on, but indeed, this article is about the violence during the ongoing war on Gaza. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned that because “war” is a more precise word than “attack” in this context, and I thought we needed to submit one of those mover requests, but it looks like another user preemptively moved this article without reading this discussion. I will move the article title to include “war” rather than “attack”. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I will add “against Palestinians” to the title too, to be more specific. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Help! What happened? I tried to change the article name and the article disappeared!! Edit: it seems like I am looking at a redirect, and the article still exists. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Being denied 'essentials', such as female sanitary products, may be humiliating treatment, but it is not 'sexual' nor 'gender-based' nor any kind of, 'violence', nor is it what comes first to mind when coming across the term 'gender-based violence'. I agree that forcibly causing men to stand naked, or stand in their underwear at gunpoint, could legitimately be called 'gender-based violence', denying menstruation products can continue to be mentioned as establishing a claimed pattern of poor teatment, but it doesn't need to figure in choosing the article title IMO.Pincrete (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for two articles

Do we really need two articles for sexual violence in two consecutive engagements in the same war? Couldn't there just be a "Sexual violence in the Israel-Hamas war"? Surely these articles together wouldn't hit any sort of page size limit as they are now. XeCyranium (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This one has been created in reaction to the POV pushing in the other. The same thing has happened in other articles as well, for example, even though we have Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, we also have Use of human shields by Hamas and are only missing Use of human shields by Israel (which currently redirects to the first) to complete the picture. Good luck stopping it, it isn't about page sizes. Selfstudier (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I'm not familiar enough with merging procedures and requirements to really know what to do about it, but hopefully once both articles are stable people will be amenable to combining them, assuming the topics haven't separated too much. XeCyranium (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I had suggested to have a broader scope in the first article, since it did touch upon the reports of sexual harassment/violence by returning hostages during their time being held, which fell outside the article title. I was shot down by other editors who felt that due to the large amount of reporting and numbers that it warranted its own article.Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Article scope

In regards to this [1] edit, I feel like some of the mentioned events aren't relevant to the topic of "sexual violence". While denial of food and menstrual pads is certainly noteworthy and relevant to the broader topic of the treatment of civilians in the war I just feel like it doesn't belong in this article. The same goes for summary executions or deliberate targeting of surrendering/peaceful civilians. I don't want to give the impression I don't want these events to be mentioned in line with their reporting, I just think it doesn't fall under the banner of "sexual violence". I'd be happy to hear what Crampcomes and others think however. XeCyranium (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. They don't belong here. TaBaZzz (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agree about the distinction. To deny such essentials is neglectful, but to use sexual assault/violence is criminal and cruel. Pincrete (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

POV and Neutrality

1. States as fact, no evidence presented
2. Based on openly known biased sources, Al Jazeera known to be biased, UN panel presented no evidence. US and Israel are reviewing claims, US state department said it is highly unlikely.
3. All sources point to same UN Panel
4. the information presented is very partial, it is cherry picking of information without showing full info.
5. Potential misinformation, perhaps best to TNT and start over

Examples:

The special rapporteurs have also raised concerns over a number of Palestinian women and children going missing, with reports of children being separated from their parents. In one instance a female infant was reportedly forcibly relocated from their parents into Israel.[9] In response to the report, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State said, "Civilians and detainees must be treated humanely, and in accordance with international humanitarian law."[10] Physicians for Human Rights-Israel also described the sexual humiliation of detainees, including sexual insults and urination on prisoners.[11] The Palestinian Prisoner's Society stated men had been subjected to severe sexual assault, including attempted rape and violating strip searches.[12]

This is based on just two sources with known anti bias in the conflict!

During the Israel-Hamas war, Palestinian women and girls were reportedly subjected to wartime sexual violence. Palestinian women and girls were reportedly randomly executed in Gaza, often together with their children. Allegations surfaced suggesting that Palestinian women and girls were deliberately targeted and extrajudicially executed by the invading Israel Defense Forces, even when they were holding white pieces of cloth. According to these allegations, Palestinian women and girls were also subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the Israel Defense Forces, such as they were denied menstruation pads, food and medicine, and were severely beaten, raped, assaulted, threatened with rape and sexual violence, and subjected to multiple forms of other sexual assaults. Palestinian women and girls were also stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers.[1][2][3][4][5] OHCHR stated that Israeli troops had photographed female detainees in “degrading circumstances” and that the photos had been uploaded online.[4][5]

There is no mention at all that no evidence was presented to Israel or to the United States. No mention of any Israeli counter claim, even in the page on sexual violence against Israelis by Hamas for which there are hundreds of testimonies and evidence panels and international condemnation and recognition, there is mention of hamas denial.

Again almost all sources are about one event only, or based on known biased sources.

No mention of anitsemitism or anti Israel bias of UN members. See https://unwatch.org/condemnations-against-antisemitic-un-rapporteur-francesca-albanese/

Or see https://www.jns.org/once-again-cnn-gives-an-antisemite-a-propaganda-platform/

One has said that a Jewish lobby controls the USA for example.

Aslaem also said she has deep personal views and that she is not objective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUVMlIcVW40&t=730s. Eladkarmel (talk)

Here you have a list of other statements on anti semitic statements or bias by UN panel that said this: https://unwatch.org/condemnations-against-antisemitic-un-rapporteur-francesca-albanese/#_ftn1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by טבעת-זרם (talk • contribs)

Like I am taking anything seriously from UN Watch, a "lobby group with strong ties to Israel". Al Jazeera, like it or not, is accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 13:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors have noted that Al Jazeera is problematic in coverage of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't see a single valid objection there. Edit the article with appropriate sources or AfD if desired. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Sameboat and Selfstudier here. David A (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging

@Eladkarmel: You have tagged the article and are required to explain the tags on the talk page? Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I explained in the conversation above.Eladkarmel (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "Video Evidence" subsection

A large amount of cited material detailing IDF soldiers recording themselves with detainees who had been stripped naked and dragged and beaten, along with other times of degradation and being called a whore by IDF soldiers, by user @Zanahary. They indicated that it has "zero relevant info or citations to sexual abuse" as none of the cited sources called it sexual abuse. Since its such a large section I figured I'd pull it to the talk page. Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If no source refers to it as sexual abuse, it cannot be included in the article on sexual abuse; that’s OR. Zanahary (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's abuse, but not sexual/gender-based, afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

+1. If it’s not already in any of the other articles on the war, it should certainly be included somewhere. Zanahary (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Stripe-search and humiliation of male detainees can constitute "sexual violence", admittedly the vast majority of news agencies refuse to acknowledge the potential sexual violation of denying Palestinian men's sexual dignity, except for Palestinian Return Centre.[2] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Article mainly based on reports by the UN

The sources supporting this article seem to be mostly based on UN reports or news media quoting the UN reports. Are there other reliable sources covering this topic? If there aren't other sources available, the article's title should make it explicit that these accusations are mainly coming from the UN. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated paragraph misrepents scope of fabrication

This edit introduces quote from Yasser Abuhilalah stating that the report by al-Hessi about Al Shifa hospital was fabricated. However, it also duplicates that paragraph at the top of the article, removing it from its context and potentially falsely creating the impression that Abulilalah's statement applies to all instances of sexual violence against Palestinians in the war. TbhQ (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This absolutely should not be in the lead, as it only relates to one specific allegation not the allegations in general. I will remove it from there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We should also triangulate the TOI/JP biased reporting, rather than rely solely on it. See current discussions on RSP of these sources and AJ in relation to this story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

duplicate reference

references 2 and 10 point to the same guardian article with slightly different formatting 130.180.88.101 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

8 and 29 also 130.180.88.101 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Both fixed, thanks.Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)