The Hamas human shields thing is a lie propagated by Israel. Hamas operate in Gaza, an extremely densely populated area, and Israel’s blockade turns it into an open air prison. Hamas operating near civilians is necessary because there is nowhere they can go that isn’t full of civilians. There’s little evidence to suggest that Hamas intentionally puts civilians in more danger than they would otherwise be, they just have no choice.
I hate that I ever even bought that line. No shit they operate out of mosques and shit. Where the hell else would they operate out of in such a limited region.
That’s like saying I had no choice but to beat my wife at home because if I did it in public I’d get arrested.
No where in the UN charter, Geneva convention or any legal precident does it say war crimes are acceptable if you don’t have a choice, or its ok if you will be attacked by not breaching the convention. There is a damn good reason we keep those places protected and we are looking at the suffering losing them causes.
How about, your neighbor broken into your home, killed your kids, and locked you and your wife in your bedroom. You try breaking the door down to go and drive them out of your house, but apparently that’s wrong since your wife is in such close proximity and you fighting back puts her in danger.
So what your saying is war crimes are acceptable when you are losing?
You also missed the part where I took one of my neighbors kids after throwing shit over the fence, that there is years of history between us where we both attacked eachother, and that im apparently hiding behind wife shooting at you saying “hurt her its your fault”.
While I’d admit throughout this thread you’ve been fairly constructive for someone sympathetic to Israel, this post is particularly dense with propaganda talking points. There’s not strong evidence for Hamas using civilians as physical shields, Israel just calls civilians living in the same area as Hamas is operating (with neither party having any option to leave) human shields to justify their slaughter of those civilians.
If we want to work on the house analogy earlier, you took one of the invaders and their friend that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time into the bedroom with you as prisoners. Your wife is hiding in the corner as best out of the way as you can, but the invaders keep shooting towards her anyways, she has a bullet lodged into her arm by the invaders even though she isn’t even involved, and they’re still shooting towards her. They’re also saying they are trying to get the prisoners but are shooting towards them, too. You’re pleading for them to stop shooting at you and your wife in exchange for releasing the prisoners, you aren’t even demanding your house back, but they keep firing because they actually just want all of you dead, don’t care about the prisoners in the slightest, and really just want you gone so they can have the last bit of your house.
I had a discussion on this point when we went over this at uni.
They aren’t signatories to the Geneva convention, UN Charter or any of the other rule based systems we have, however they can still done under crimes against humanity.
No criminal ever signed a declaration before they crime that they agree to follow our laws, but are prosecuted all the same.
One side is committing genocide and the other is defending their home, but sure buddy, go on about how both sides are the same. I’m sure you would have supported the Nazis too, because after all remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
War crimes are war crimes, but consider this: war crimes are worse if the warring party has the ability to mitigate them, and war crimes are worse if they are for an inherently unjust cause. Applied to this situation, killing civilians is a war crime, but it’s one thing if your best weapon is an unguided rocket, and way worse if you have the ability to make precise strikes against your enemy but choose to blow up an entire apartment building instead to intentionally commit collective punishment. And it’s even worse when you do so because your real goal is to kill all the civilians rather than the one scapegoat you used to try to justify killing them all.
i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.
It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if… for example you’re just “protecting your home” or “the other side is worse” or “you don’t have a choice”.
War crimes, like other crimes, must be considered in context. It’s ok to shoot someone in self defense charging you with a knife. It’s not ok to blow up an entire apartment building because you want the people living there dead so you can steal their land.
Shooting in self defense isn’t a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians… and if you’re claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.
Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.
I hope i get this across without getting pedantic responses.
So why is Hamas allowed to be excused for using human shields because of the population density where there is no choice, but civilians being killed by Israeli attack are completely unacceptable? Surely if its so density they don’t have a choice then Israel doesn’t either.
Other poster is correct, civilians on both sides are the only innocent ones here. No need to excuse one side as “no choice”.
I’m honestly curious. Have you ever heard of a single Palestinian accusing Hamas of using someone they know as a human shield? Has anyone ever, really?
The only “sources” backing these “well-known facts” are western media and Israeli-say-so. I’ve dealt with many Palestinians personally (I live in Egypt and we have a lot of them living here), and none of them ever complained about their families being used as human shields. Ever. You’d think some Palestinians would speak up about this by now if it were real.
You know who they unanimously consider unnecessarily brutal and cruel though? The IDF which treats them like less than dirt on a good day.
Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I’ve seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back… and we know how that went.
Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack… regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.
Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We’ve all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.
Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of “we don’t have a choice” because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn’t just apply when you are winning and its a “fair” fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don’t justify Israeli breaches.
Regardless of this claim, the point still stands. No Palestinian I’ve ever met accused Hamas of jeopardising the Palestinian people’s safety. Only Israel does, for obvious reasons.
This is like the police cornering a wanted criminal into a crowded bus and shooting everyone indiscriminately whilst blaming it on them.
I’ve also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn’t proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say “oh, your point doesn’t matter” and dismiss it out if hand.
Hamas has no choice. They, along with Palestinian civilians, have been expelled from their homes and locked into the open air prison that is Gaza. They have a valid cause to fight for, and nowhere to go. In contrast, Israel is killing Palestinian civilians because they want to steal the little patch of land that they weren’t able to steal already. It’s not a valid cause and they have no reason to be anywhere near there.
Using your discussion they had no choice but to fight. Fair point.
They absolutely had choices on where to organise, whether or not to kill and capture civilians, or if they should set up in hospitals and key infrastructure that keeps their civilians alive. Do you have a justification for this?
Where should they organize? They’re in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, no place is far from civilians. If they had a larger territory, fighting intentionally close to civilians would be much worse. But given they literally caged in by the enemy they are fighting, there is no other alternative.
As for hospitals and key infrastructure, there is no evidence that they were used in the way that Israel has accused. Israel attacked hospitals and other key infrastructure to dismantle them to prevent the Palestinians they want dead from getting any aid or relief. They lie about Hamas’ presence there only to mask their genocidal actions. If they could prove to the world they were in the right, they would have done so by now.
Because we have strong evidence Israel is not trying to avoid civilian casualties. There’s a difference between the missile attacks on boots on the ground too. When you actually have people in there, it shouldn’t be too hard to avoid killing civilians. Meanwhile, they’re doing things like literally using civilians as human shields or killing civilians collecting aid from an aid convoy.
I can accept some excuses from Israel, if it were accompanied by so much evidence that it’s on purpose. They clearly have no interest in avoiding civilian deaths, and quite probably show an interest in causing them.
Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?
I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn’t going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three things: We aren’t giving weapons to Hamas to fight, they’re on the defence, and they’re a significantly less organized less advanced force. Gorilla warfare is the stand operating practice of a less advanced force fighting a more advanced one. They can’t hide in jungles though. They only have urban places (or directly next to the border).
I don’t think Hamas is good by any means. They just are. The situation in which they were created is not of their own will. The situation they fight in is not of their design. Their existence is also, in part, a piece of Israel’s desire and force. (They funneled money to them in order to create an enemy to fight against.) I don’t fault a lion for mistreatment of their prey, but I do fault humans for how we treat livestock. One does it because of the situation in which it lives, and the other does it out of a totally lack of respect, or potentially malice.
Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.
Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals.
Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
I haven’t seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.
This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren’t allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?
For your last point, im sorry I’ve got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals.
Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
The Israelis didn’t just dress up as civilians, which would be bad, but they dressed up as medics. This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. This is not acceptable because it leads to a situation where medical workers can’t operate because they can’t be trusted to not be soldiers.
Also, the soldiers there were seemingly brought there and were critically wounded. This does not “remove the protections” of the hospital. Soldiers are allowed to be treated in a hospital without the hospital becoming a valid military target.
The Hamas human shields thing is a lie propagated by Israel. Hamas operate in Gaza, an extremely densely populated area, and Israel’s blockade turns it into an open air prison. Hamas operating near civilians is necessary because there is nowhere they can go that isn’t full of civilians. There’s little evidence to suggest that Hamas intentionally puts civilians in more danger than they would otherwise be, they just have no choice.
I hate that I ever even bought that line. No shit they operate out of mosques and shit. Where the hell else would they operate out of in such a limited region.
That’s like saying I had no choice but to beat my wife at home because if I did it in public I’d get arrested.
No where in the UN charter, Geneva convention or any legal precident does it say war crimes are acceptable if you don’t have a choice, or its ok if you will be attacked by not breaching the convention. There is a damn good reason we keep those places protected and we are looking at the suffering losing them causes.
How about, your neighbor broken into your home, killed your kids, and locked you and your wife in your bedroom. You try breaking the door down to go and drive them out of your house, but apparently that’s wrong since your wife is in such close proximity and you fighting back puts her in danger.
So what your saying is war crimes are acceptable when you are losing?
You also missed the part where I took one of my neighbors kids after throwing shit over the fence, that there is years of history between us where we both attacked eachother, and that im apparently hiding behind wife shooting at you saying “hurt her its your fault”.
While I’d admit throughout this thread you’ve been fairly constructive for someone sympathetic to Israel, this post is particularly dense with propaganda talking points. There’s not strong evidence for Hamas using civilians as physical shields, Israel just calls civilians living in the same area as Hamas is operating (with neither party having any option to leave) human shields to justify their slaughter of those civilians.
If we want to work on the house analogy earlier, you took one of the invaders and their friend that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time into the bedroom with you as prisoners. Your wife is hiding in the corner as best out of the way as you can, but the invaders keep shooting towards her anyways, she has a bullet lodged into her arm by the invaders even though she isn’t even involved, and they’re still shooting towards her. They’re also saying they are trying to get the prisoners but are shooting towards them, too. You’re pleading for them to stop shooting at you and your wife in exchange for releasing the prisoners, you aren’t even demanding your house back, but they keep firing because they actually just want all of you dead, don’t care about the prisoners in the slightest, and really just want you gone so they can have the last bit of your house.
This isn’t a conventional army. It’s an unconventional uprising against their oppressors. Normal rules do not apply.
I had a discussion on this point when we went over this at uni.
They aren’t signatories to the Geneva convention, UN Charter or any of the other rule based systems we have, however they can still done under crimes against humanity.
No criminal ever signed a declaration before they crime that they agree to follow our laws, but are prosecuted all the same.
Also worth noting, Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
Well Israel are doing their part to alleviate that.
deleted by creator
One side is committing genocide and the other is defending their home, but sure buddy, go on about how both sides are the same. I’m sure you would have supported the Nazis too, because after all remember the Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Not OP.
So your saying Hamas actions that are war crimes are justified because they are defending their home, therefore they are not the same?
War crimes are war crimes, but consider this: war crimes are worse if the warring party has the ability to mitigate them, and war crimes are worse if they are for an inherently unjust cause. Applied to this situation, killing civilians is a war crime, but it’s one thing if your best weapon is an unguided rocket, and way worse if you have the ability to make precise strikes against your enemy but choose to blow up an entire apartment building instead to intentionally commit collective punishment. And it’s even worse when you do so because your real goal is to kill all the civilians rather than the one scapegoat you used to try to justify killing them all.
i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.
It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if… for example you’re just “protecting your home” or “the other side is worse” or “you don’t have a choice”.
War crimes, like other crimes, must be considered in context. It’s ok to shoot someone in self defense charging you with a knife. It’s not ok to blow up an entire apartment building because you want the people living there dead so you can steal their land.
In the case of war crime, no they don’t.
Shooting in self defense isn’t a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians… and if you’re claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.
Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.
Removed by mod
I hope i get this across without getting pedantic responses.
So why is Hamas allowed to be excused for using human shields because of the population density where there is no choice, but civilians being killed by Israeli attack are completely unacceptable? Surely if its so density they don’t have a choice then Israel doesn’t either.
Other poster is correct, civilians on both sides are the only innocent ones here. No need to excuse one side as “no choice”.
I’m honestly curious. Have you ever heard of a single Palestinian accusing Hamas of using someone they know as a human shield? Has anyone ever, really?
The only “sources” backing these “well-known facts” are western media and Israeli-say-so. I’ve dealt with many Palestinians personally (I live in Egypt and we have a lot of them living here), and none of them ever complained about their families being used as human shields. Ever. You’d think some Palestinians would speak up about this by now if it were real.
You know who they unanimously consider unnecessarily brutal and cruel though? The IDF which treats them like less than dirt on a good day.
Good question, should clarify.
Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I’ve seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back… and we know how that went.
Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack… regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.
Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We’ve all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.
Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of “we don’t have a choice” because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn’t just apply when you are winning and its a “fair” fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don’t justify Israeli breaches.
Regardless of this claim, the point still stands. No Palestinian I’ve ever met accused Hamas of jeopardising the Palestinian people’s safety. Only Israel does, for obvious reasons.
This is like the police cornering a wanted criminal into a crowded bus and shooting everyone indiscriminately whilst blaming it on them.
I’ve also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn’t proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say “oh, your point doesn’t matter” and dismiss it out if hand.
Hamas has no choice. They, along with Palestinian civilians, have been expelled from their homes and locked into the open air prison that is Gaza. They have a valid cause to fight for, and nowhere to go. In contrast, Israel is killing Palestinian civilians because they want to steal the little patch of land that they weren’t able to steal already. It’s not a valid cause and they have no reason to be anywhere near there.
Using your discussion they had no choice but to fight. Fair point.
They absolutely had choices on where to organise, whether or not to kill and capture civilians, or if they should set up in hospitals and key infrastructure that keeps their civilians alive. Do you have a justification for this?
Where should they organize? They’re in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, no place is far from civilians. If they had a larger territory, fighting intentionally close to civilians would be much worse. But given they literally caged in by the enemy they are fighting, there is no other alternative.
As for hospitals and key infrastructure, there is no evidence that they were used in the way that Israel has accused. Israel attacked hospitals and other key infrastructure to dismantle them to prevent the Palestinians they want dead from getting any aid or relief. They lie about Hamas’ presence there only to mask their genocidal actions. If they could prove to the world they were in the right, they would have done so by now.
Because we have strong evidence Israel is not trying to avoid civilian casualties. There’s a difference between the missile attacks on boots on the ground too. When you actually have people in there, it shouldn’t be too hard to avoid killing civilians. Meanwhile, they’re doing things like literally using civilians as human shields or killing civilians collecting aid from an aid convoy.
I can accept some excuses from Israel, if it were accompanied by so much evidence that it’s on purpose. They clearly have no interest in avoiding civilian deaths, and quite probably show an interest in causing them.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
literally using civilians as human shields
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?
I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn’t going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three things: We aren’t giving weapons to Hamas to fight, they’re on the defence, and they’re a significantly less organized less advanced force. Gorilla warfare is the stand operating practice of a less advanced force fighting a more advanced one. They can’t hide in jungles though. They only have urban places (or directly next to the border).
Israel has the initiative. They get to choose when and how to take a fight (or to choose not to at all). Even when they put people in the area, they still commit atrocities, like dressing up as civilians and medical workers to assault a hospital and murdering civilians. I haven’t seen Hamas do such things.
I don’t think Hamas is good by any means. They just are. The situation in which they were created is not of their own will. The situation they fight in is not of their design. Their existence is also, in part, a piece of Israel’s desire and force. (They funneled money to them in order to create an enemy to fight against.) I don’t fault a lion for mistreatment of their prey, but I do fault humans for how we treat livestock. One does it because of the situation in which it lives, and the other does it out of a totally lack of respect, or potentially malice.
Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.
Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.
Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals. Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.
I haven’t seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.
This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren’t allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?
For your last point, im sorry I’ve got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.
The Israelis didn’t just dress up as civilians, which would be bad, but they dressed up as medics. This is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. This is not acceptable because it leads to a situation where medical workers can’t operate because they can’t be trusted to not be soldiers.
Also, the soldiers there were seemingly brought there and were critically wounded. This does not “remove the protections” of the hospital. Soldiers are allowed to be treated in a hospital without the hospital becoming a valid military target.