Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure a rational person can dispute it. Hamas has hostages and are hiding in Gaza amongst civilians, this prevents Israel from going in guns blazing. What would you call it?

Does it? Why?

It’s not preventing them from flattening entire city blocks and killing a bunch of kids along with Hamas, so I’m genuinely not sure how it prevents them from going in “guns blazing.” They’re kind of already doing that without the whole “physically going in” thing. Guns blazing from a safe distance.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

But is there anywhere is Gaza that is not full of civilians? 2 million people in 6,020km2. That is an area only a little larger than PEI.

Anywhere hospitable is going to be full of people, those areas are only going to get more dense as bombing continues.

That's a great point, but wasn't Hamas telling people not to run south like the IDF suggested?

Is not evacuating an area that will be full of combat using Human Shields?

[_Q_]

Launching attacks from an urban area isn't the same as using human shields. It's guerilla tactics.

Holding hostages in an underground tunnel is also not using human shields, it's keeping the hostages safe to use as leverage.

Going home after launching rockets to your apartment isn't using human shields, it's just having a life outside of being a militant.

Using human shields is literally grabbing your neighbour's family and hiding behind them while you shoot at your enemy.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Using human shields is literally grabbing your neighbour's family and hiding behind them while you shoot at your enemy.

Hiding can take many forms.

I would say launching rockets from atop an apartment building filled with civilians is using Humans Shields.

In theory the IDF won't counter-battery those locations because it would bring the building down with civilians inside of it.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Launching attacks from an urban area isn't the same as using human shields. It's guerilla tactics.

Holding hostages in an underground tunnel is also not using human shields, it's keeping the hostages safe to use as leverage.

Going home after launching rockets to your apartment isn't using human shields, it's just having a life outside of being a militant.

Using human shields is literally grabbing your neighbour's family and hiding behind them while you shoot at your enemy.

That's really just a semantic argument.

They are, in fact, human shields because Israel can't attack their attackers without having civilians killed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Does it? Why?

It’s not preventing them from flattening entire city blocks and killing a bunch of kids along with Hamas, so I’m genuinely not sure how it prevents them from going in “guns blazing.” They’re kind of already doing that without the whole “physically going in” thing. Guns blazing from a safe distance.

I meant it prevents them from being able to target Hamas without killing civilians, which by default kinda means yes, they are using human shields. It doesn't mean it has stop Israel from attacking. So I think we are saying the same thing, I wasn't super clear.

[_Q_]

Meanwhile, Israel actually using human shields

https://youtu.be/n36P-HUBJ70?si=wyRsZDus_aJnYyuw

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That's really just a semantic argument.

They are, in fact, human shields because Israel can't attack their attackers without having civilians killed.

Yeah, but semantics matter in this case.

Israel's ministry of defence is in downtown Tel Aviv. Is israel using human shields in this case? Many air bases are in civilian areas, are they using human shields? Many israeli soldiers have a life outside the IDF. If hamas was to launch a rocket at a nightclub with a couple of soldiers in it, is it legitimate to accuse israel of using human shields in this case?

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah, but semantics matter in this case.

Israel's ministry of defence is in downtown Tel Aviv. Is israel using human shields in this case? Many air bases are in civilian areas, are they using human shields? Many israeli soldiers have a life outside the IDF. If hamas was to launch a rocket at a nightclub with a couple of soldiers in it, is it legitimate to accuse israel of using human shields in this case?

Depends, are the IDF soldiers within the nightclub launching rockets from it?

Personal take, but setting up shop at or near a hospital is absolutely using human shields. At least with the nightclub, if I was there and saw them launching rockets, I’d nope the #### out of there, if given the opportunity. A hospital is different. People can’t really leave a hospital perse since they’re sick. So setting up rockets at or near a hospital I consider as human shields.

[Fuzzy14]

Israel's ministry of defence is in downtown Tel Aviv. Is israel using human shields in this case? Many air bases are in civilian areas, are they using human shields? Many israeli soldiers have a life outside the IDF. If hamas was to launch a rocket at a nightclub with a couple of soldiers in it, is it legitimate to accuse israel of using human shields in this case?

This comparison is so bad that I half expect that you are trolling.

The day the Ministry of Defense moves its headquarters under the Tel Aviv General Hospital, we can talk. There is also no equivalence between a military base being near civilian infrastructure and Hamas firing rockets out of people's living room window and preventing civilians from leaving buildings which have been targeted by the IDF.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

That's really just a semantic argument.

They are, in fact, human shields because Israel can't attack their attackers without having civilians killed.

This was talked about early in the conflict. Discourse plays a very important role in war and perceptions of it. I think semantic arguments are valid for that reason.

The public conscious of 1st world countries is that the civilian causality risk of intense bombing campaigns is acceptable.

Truth is, Isreal could or any other 1st world air force could kill millions of people without ever having too look them in the eyes.

The prospect of that is horrific and worth debating in times of peace and war. I think we've forgotten how good we've become at killing.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Yeah, but semantics matter in this case.

Israel's ministry of defence is in downtown Tel Aviv. Is israel using human shields in this case? Many air bases are in civilian areas, are they using human shields? Many israeli soldiers have a life outside the IDF. If hamas was to launch a rocket at a nightclub with a couple of soldiers in it, is it legitimate to accuse israel of using human shields in this case?

Ya, you completely lost me on this one...

[_Q_]

This is almost 10 years old, but in the last major war between these parties, amnesty international found no evidence of the use of human shields by Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...s-and-answers/

Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks.

Again, words matter.

Hamas using guerilla tactics that Israel doesn't like is different than using literal human shields as is suggested by them.

[WCW Nitro]

I bet the "hiding among civilians" is that a Hamas fighter lives in the same building as civilians so Israel can flatten it. And there are no formal,modern military bases in Gaza so by default everywhere Hamas is a civilian area. It's just more excuses to kill Palestinians.

[Red Slinger]

In that case, Israel can never respond to a rocket attack. Is that what you're suggesting?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by _Q_

This is almost 10 years old, but in the last major war between these parties, amnesty international found no evidence of the use of human shields by Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...s-and-answers/



Again, words matter.

Hamas using guerilla tactics that Israel doesn't like is different than using literal human shields as is suggested by them.

What is Amnesty International’s position on the firing of indiscriminate rockets and mortars from the Gaza Strip by Palestinian armed groups? Do other actions of Palestinian armed groups in Gaza since 8 July 2014 violate international humanitarian law?

According to the Israeli army, Hamas’ military wing and other Palestinian armed groups fired over 1,700 rockets into Israel from 8 to 18 July, and scores of rockets continue to be fired every day. Three civilians in Israel have been killed. Homes and other civilian properties in Israel have been damaged. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate. The rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cannot be aimed exactly at their objective and their use violates international humanitarian law. The firing of indiscriminate rockets and mortars also endangers Palestinian civilians inside the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank.

Statements by some leaders of Palestinian armed groups also indicate that they have no qualms about launching attacks against civilians and that they in fact carry out such attacks intending to kill and injure Israeli civilians. Attacks that directly target civilians and indiscriminate attacks that kill or injure civilians constitute war crimes.

neither side is blameless

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

neither side is blameless

You are absolutely 100% correct

[Fl4me5]

Originally Posted by _Q_

This is almost 10 years old, but in the last major war between these parties, amnesty international found no evidence of the use of human shields by Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...s-and-answers/



Again, words matter.

Hamas using guerilla tactics that Israel doesn't like is different than using literal human shields as is suggested by them.

Q, firstly apologies for the abrasiveness yesterday. A lot of emotions understandably.

But take me through a thought experiment here.

Your neighbour just shot up a school and is now barricading themselves in their home. The police have set up a boundary and have gone door to door asking all civilians to leave the area as they will need to use force to apprehend the perpetrator.

You decide you are entitled to remain in your home next to a violent and dangerous situation. Unfortunately, during their attempt to capture the perpetrator a gas line is shot and you are killed by the resulting explosion.

Are the police still to blame for your death? Are you not at all liable for your choice? Would your neighbors who left the area not think what a selfish, arrogant, and frankly stupid decision?

And yes, I get it that there is not much room to go elsewhere. But the notion that there is NOWHERE to go to save your life is a little hard to accept. Is it fair that you need to run to a beach to protect yourself? Probably not, but living is certainly a better decision in my mind.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I bet the "hiding among civilians" is that a Hamas fighter lives in the same building as civilians so Israel can flatten it. And there are no formal,modern military bases in Gaza so by default everywhere Hamas is a civilian area. It's just more excuses to kill Palestinians.

It's more than just militant happening to be living in the same buildings as civilians. It's having actual military headquarters, weapons storage and missile launching sites in and directly around civilians, including hospitals, mosques, and schools:

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/offic...st-agency-gaza

Hamas had it set up so that soldiers could attack Israeli civilians with rockets, then run into the, UN funded, school and access a tunnel.

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press...ne-its-schools

It's difficult to hold a conversation with people on this subject, when they are in such extreme denial of the basic facts.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by _Q_

This is almost 10 years old, but in the last major war between these parties, amnesty international found no evidence of the use of human shields by Hamas.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...s-and-answers/



Again, words matter.

Hamas using guerilla tactics that Israel doesn't like is different than using literal human shields as is suggested by them.

I don't think Israel cares that much because they are angry that Hamas killed, raped and immolated 1400 of their citizens in as horrific manner as possible to get this reaction 2 weeks ago, Hamas is happy to see as many Gazans killed, preferably women and children in dreadful fashion, as that gets them money and support, thousands of dead Gazans was always their plan, the more the better, the younger and more innocent looking the more they get paid (they and their kids aren't in Gaza after all, they live in luxury elsewhere).

In the end the only people unhappy here are the Gazans getting killed and Palestinian supporters that somehow fail to understand this was always Hamas's plan, Gazans were/are never human shields, Hamas always saw them as sacrificial lambs, shields after all implies you don't want them dead