Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 1,056 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

GentleGiant wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

However I just wanted to jump in here, I haven't read past the first page, but I noticed the OP said "three Jewish kids were kidnapped by Hamas operatives. Kids as in 16 years old"

I haven't been following this story that closely I'll admit, but to my understanding this was a bit of unconfirmed misinformation, the boys were indeed kidnapped and murdered, but I haven't heard it was done by anyone directly linked with Hamas. It's not something I'd say was beneath certain members of Hamas, but in the past they haven't been afraid to admit to something, and so I tend to think that they might not be linked. Certainly the right wing Israeli government likes to say that this was the work of Hamas, the story does play quiet well for them and their base, but as far as I know this is misinformation.

Go a few posts up from yours, I have a link showing the Israeli police admitting that it wasn't Hamas who kidnapped and killed the three teenagers (aged 16-19 btw), but a separate, independent group.

EDIT: Ahh, continued reading and saw that you had found the answer.

Again I can only apologize, I only just discovered the thread but had limited time. Lord Snow had a very fair account of what happened over the last few days but that little bit jumped out at me and I wondered if I'd missed some news story, or if Snow (being in Israel) might have been given some misinformation. I only had time to scan the first page but when I got back from work I got to read the previous page and that had what I wanted to know.

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Also, I saw an article about it earlier on Mondoweiss, but I have a preference for writers with the last name "Cockburn."

The Secret Report That Helps Israelis Cover Atrocities:
How Israel Spins War Crimes by PATRICK COCKBURN

Wait, are you implying that a spokesmen agency made a guideline book for conveying their arguments? *gasp!*

Honestly, though, the vibe from that article, is if the guideline book is some conspiracy concocted in the darkest rooms of Israel and the U.S, was not appreciated. I can assure you, by the way, that Hamas has a similar book, equally aware of the failings of it's own arguments and full of ways to avoid them. Also, every single other country and organization has them, too.

Quote:
Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

See, this is also problematic. It's the kind of one sided argument that looses all value in my mind. If I may quote a certain part of it:

"Amnesty's report acknowledges that Palestinian armed groups were endangering civilians by "firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them," but also acknowledged that mixing with the civilian population "would be difficult to avoid in the small and overcrowded Gaza Strip..."

The argument that mixing with civilians would be difficult to avoid is somehow accepted here, yet the Israeli argument that avoiding civilian deaths is difficult for the very same reason is not accepted. You can't have it both ways.

The article points out that Israel has military bases close to civilian cities - ignoring the fact that except for a couple bases in the center of the country, that were there way before cities grew around them (and are now being moved to the less populated south), that's not true.

It then, absurdly, accepts Hamas's claim in it's twitter account that it is shooting at the military bases in Israel, not at the civilians. I mean, come on, nobody can take that seriously, right?

Lastly, this:

Quote:
Furthermore, forcing civilians to act as human shields for military objectives should not be confused with activists voluntarily acting as human shields to protect hospitals and homes. The former is a war crime and should be condemned, but the latter is a courageous form of nonviolent resistance and should be praised.

.

Let me ask you a question - let's say you found an enemy soldier in a time of war. You get to kill him - that's how wars are like. Now, let's say that a civilian from that man's nationality is standing between you and your enemy, shielding him with his body. He is doing so willingly. From behind him, the enemy soldier shoots at you. Do you fire at the soldier, even if you know the man shielding him is very likely to die?

I'm all for blaming Israel for bringing things to such a situation that there's a need to shoot anyone in the first place. However, Israel is currently at war with Hamas. The army has objectives. It has a mission to carry out, and it naturally values the lives it is tasked to protect higher than those of any other nationality - because that's how armies work. By convincing civilians to shield Hamas operatives with their bodies, Hamas makes them into participants. And, when forced to choose between giving up on any chance to fulfill their mission, or killing people who *willingly* chose to put themselves in the way.. IDF is forced to handle a bad situation. Sometimes they shoot despite the civilians being there, sometimes they don't.

The article is one sided. It's way of coping with a complex reality is by choosing a side, and once it did it stops being interested in an accurate description of events, and focuses on presenting things in the way most useful to it's world view.


Is there anyone here really thinking this "war" will have any positive impact for Israel?

Reducing the number of Palestinians? There are almost 2 millions Palestinians in Gaza, so I hardly believe killing one, two or even ten thousands of them will change anything.

Submitting them? So many had friends or relatives killed while so few have real perspectives for a better future that it's hardly believable that they'll stop fighting.

Destroying tunnels? Rubbles will make tunnels needed, reconstruction effort will make them possible. So, there'll be even more tunnels in the upcoming months.

Destroying weapons? For as long as there'll be military industry Palestinians will have weapons. Destroyed rockets will be for sure replaced by new ones and, according to the customers' demand (and new technologies), they'll be more lethal than the previous ones.

Colonisation? Soon or later the war will end (even the Hundred years war did) and through legal, or illegal, immigration the Israeli's settlers will find themselves a minority in the area.

This war is only preparing the next one and, as for Iraq, it's benefiting only Iran. This religious war is not any longer between Jewish and Muslim believers, it's a chess like confrontation between sunni and chia muslims.
Over the last decade all conflicts in the Middle East benefited Iran.
Israel should prepare for peace smartly, actively and quickly otherwise it'll become a pariah state in its own geographical area if not the world.
The struggle between Israel and Iran will be economical and cultural, not military. Israel can win it, but only with Palestinians at its side.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:


The struggle between Israel and Iran will be economical and cultural, not military. Israel can win it, but only with Palestinians at its side.

The struggle between Iran and Israel about making nuclear weapons, you mean? I think Israel is an almost irrelevant part of that equation, now. The western world at large is handling it, and from the start I don't think Iran was ever seriously considering a nuclear attack against Israel.

As for the cause of fighting, it started by a provocation of Israel meant to severe the union between Hamas and Fatah. Nobody in their right mind thinks any good will come off it, but the more objective people can see that by this point, the ball is already rolling and it will take a whole lot more than Israel or Hamas are yet willing to give in order to stop it.

In other news. Following an increasing feeling of dread that I had over the past few days, I talked with my father. He's not old, but due to the young age of Israel, he's almost as old as his country. He might have missed a couple of decades and was probably too young and during the next couple to really remember them, but his recollection is a decent record of Israel's existence.

So I asked him if racism was ever so rampant (both in the streets and in the politics) as it is now. The evidence kept piling up - with important Israeli leaders calling to shun any Israeli-Palestinian place of business that went into a strike during the war. With the minister in charge of the police force said that "now is not the time to protest or rally". With Israeli Arabs being fired from their jobs for no real reason. With every public figures who even dares say they feel sorry at the death of Palestinian children being cast away and bullied. With leftist rallies being violently assaulted by maniacs in the street. With a radio interview where a university professor suggested that the only way to make Hamas operatives reconsider their attacks is to rape their mothers and sisters.

So I asked him that question, and (despite him being much more pro Israel than I am), he answered that no, this is new to him.
It seems that the adults of today - the children who grew up with the occupation, have finally started to snap. I don't even want to imagine how things could look a decade from now, if the conflict wouldn't end.


Lord Snow wrote:
Angstspawn wrote:


The struggle between Israel and Iran will be economical and cultural, not military. Israel can win it, but only with Palestinians at its side.

The struggle between Iran and Israel about making nuclear weapons, you mean? I think Israel is an almost irrelevant part of that equation, now. The western world at large is handling it, and from the start I don't think Iran was ever seriously considering a nuclear attack against Israel.

As for the cause of fighting, it started by a provocation of Israel meant to severe the union between Hamas and Fatah. Nobody in their right mind thinks any good will come off it, but the more objective people can see that by this point, the ball is already rolling and it will take a whole lot more than Israel or Hamas are yet willing to give in order to stop it.

In other news. Following an increasing feeling of dread that I had over the past few days, I talked with my father. He's not old, but due to the young age of Israel, he's almost as old as his country. He might have missed a couple of decades and was probably too young and during the next couple to really remember them, but his recollection is a decent record of Israel's existence.

So I asked him if racism was ever so rampant (both in the streets and in the politics) as it is now. The evidence kept piling up - with important Israeli leaders calling to shun any Israeli-Palestinian place of business that went into a strike during the war. With the minister in charge of the police force said that "now is not the time to protest or rally". With Israeli Arabs being fired from their jobs for no real reason. With every public figures who even dares say they feel sorry at the death of Palestinian children being cast away and bullied. With leftist rallies being violently assaulted by maniacs in the street. With a radio interview where a university professor suggested that the only way to make Hamas operatives reconsider their attacks is to rape their mothers and sisters.

So I asked him...

Jesus Christ.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}. Lack of water security. Ceding their very legitimate claims to land.

There never has been a "Palestinian state". Prior to WW1, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. From 1918 to 1948, it was controlled by the British. From 1918-1922, the size of the mandate was Israel+Jordan.

Fact of the matter is that the area known as Palestine was occupied by a Palestinean majority and a small Jewish minority. No matter whether it was called a "state" a "territory" or a "mandate", that was what it was composed of by population, up to the middle of the last century.

At the close of the Mandate, vast numbers of Palestineans were driven from their homes, by Jewish mobs, with the civic and military authorities either looking the other way or actively assisting, and their assets were seized by the emerging Israeli nation. Those who tried to recover their assets and homes were arrested, and then deported.


Lord Snow, it is difficult to format a response to your post without coming across all wall-of-texty with every other sentence in a quotes tag, so I'm just going to free form it:

Re: Frank Luntz's report: I am not implying anything. I am posting an article by one of my favorite Middle East reporters with the word "Cock" in his surname. If readers are able to detect echoes of Luntz's work in their preferred news outlet of choice, or in this thread, then I find it well worth posting. If there is a handbook for Hamas, I'd be happy to look at articles about it.

Re: The 5 Misconceptions Piece: Well, it's not like I prefaced the post with a disclaimer about Islamist propaganda or anything. That being said, I find your specific criticisms to be based on misreadings of the text. Perhaps, Islamist propaganda disclaimer, the text is purposefully misleading, but still:

Spoilered to prevent wall of text:

Spoiler:

1) I'm not sure how "accepted" the argument is that they have no choice but to mix with civilians. One of the links that you can click leads to one Frank Roth saying that it is still illegal. The point, however, is that it doesn't qualify as using "human shields," which, of course, is the point of the section of the article.

2) I don't see any non-acceptance of the idea that it would be difficult to avoid civilian casualties by lobbing missiles into a concentration camp. What I do see is a rejection of the idea that Israel never targets civilians. To substantiate this, reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are cited.

3) The article points out that an Amnesty International points out that "The report also points out that Israel behaves similarly by placing military bases and headquarters in or around residential areas of Israeli cities and conducting military activities 'close to civilian areas in the south of Israel.'"

3) The article does not absurdly accept Hamas's twitter account claims.
The article is employing a rhetorical device, which, for the sake of argument, accepts Hamas's twitter account claims:

"Anyone who paid attention to the twitter account of Hamas' military wing (recently suspended) would have noticed that whenever they announced they were launching rockets at Israeli cities, they would claim they were targeting military bases. It would be absurd to blame potential Israeli civilian casualties on the Israeli Defense Force for placing military bases close to residential areas. But blaming Palestinian civilian casualties on Hamas is quite normal."

As to your hypothetical question, I have no answer, because as a lifelong opponent of imperialist militarism, I would never voluntarily serve in an occupation army. If drafted, I'd either follow the precedent of the refuseniks and refuse to serve, or the Bolsheviks and organize for international proletarian socialist revolution within the army.

The part about "voluntarily serving as a human shield" is in reference to hospitals and homes, not Hamas operatives. Unfortunately, the youtube video that the article links to demonstrate its point has already been taken down.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

** spoiler omitted **...

The Palestinian Interior Minister disagrees.

Last week, a vacant UN school was found to be storing rockets. It was directly in between two other schools that were being used as shelters for 3000 civilians.

Putting civilians in danger is a matter of inevitability though, whether Hamas puts rockets near them or not... because there's no where else to put them. So then it comes down to the simple fact that the very act of resistance means that civilians are endangered.

Just curious, does your worker's revolution have a plan for abolishing religion in the region?


Again, pointing out that Hamas endangers their own civilians is NOT to place the blame on Hamas for their deaths. Israel is to blame for the bullets it fires, the missiles it launches, etc.

Rather, it is to show that Hamas has a stake in continued fighting instead of being an agent of peace.

Israel needs just enough civilian deaths to hold up to their people and say "This could be your son or daughter, will you vote for us to do what is necessary?"

Neither side is looking for peace. They both want victory over the other, to drive them into the sea as it were.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

** spoiler omitted **...

The Palestinian Interior Minister disagrees.Last week, a vacant UN school was found to be storing rockets. It was directly in between two other schools that were being used as shelters for 3000 civilians.

Putting civilians in danger is a matter of inevitability though, whether Hamas puts rockets near them or not... because there's no where else to put them. So then it comes down to the simple fact that the very act of resistance means that civilians are endangered.

Of course the misconceptions article describes the weapons in that school as "the first of its kind", despite the IDF claiming this kind of thing and using it as justification in previous operations.

The article also points out that the IDF has used Palestinians as human shields, in the most direct and egregious fashion, and the soldiers involved have suffered only minor punishments.


Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Assuming the translation is accurate, your youtube video is hardly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. "They" have formed human shields, not "we use them as human shields."

Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time. It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop.

As for abolishing religion, no, I'm pretty sure my comrades in the region don't have a plan for that. It would be rather anti-Marxist.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Dude, why do you think I said "for what it is worth"?

Because you put a LOT of stock in what Israel says and its justifications, buying into some really, really bad arguments.

I don't, actually. I put a lot of stock into the fact that Israel ignores tons of missiles yearly, but as to what they say, I know better.

Quote:
Quote:
They are saying the shell didn't cause any casualties actually. An airburst shell designed entirely to kill the most people possible...

When you use the word "Actually" you're supposed to be correcting someone. You don't appear to be doing that, and you appear to be hinting at something without outright saying it. Out with it.

So why not just come out and claim a false flag operation? Because thats ridiculous with the un sitting right there. Of course they can't admit how often these things go off course, because then they couldn't use them around civilians.

ACTUALLY, they are admitting the shell went off course. They don't deny that it hit the school. They are saying that DESPITE it hitting the school they don't believe the casualties at the school were from the shell. So yes, in a round about way they are saying that the deaths there are a false flag operation.

I said, for what it is worth, because I find it hard to believe that a mortar, launched by one of the best trained and best equipped militaries in the world, specifically designed for killing as many people as possible, could hit an occupied civilian target and not kill anyone, despite the IDF's claims.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hmm, well, I'm nowhere near looking through all of the links yet, so it is quite possible that I am falling victim to Islamist propaganda, but I'll link them anyway:

Five Misconceptions About the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Hessam Akhlaghpour

In particular, I was interested in the assertions in Point 4:

Misconception 4. Hamas uses human shields.

Israel tries to explain the high civilian tolls by blaming Hamas for using human shields. The claim is that Hamas stores weapons and launches rockets near residential areas, leaving Israel with no choice but to bomb those locations.
That Hamas launches and stores rockets near densely populated residential areas must inevitably be true, since Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth and if Hamas had designated an area for military operations, it would be instantly pulverized by Israeli forces. But, this does not necessarily qualify as using "human shields," defined as "intentionally using civilians to shield a military objective." So, for example, the weapons that were discovered in one UNRWA school last week (an incident described as "the first of its kind), does not confirm the "human shield" allegations, because the school was vacant at the time.

Amnesty International investigated Israel's previous claims in 2009 and found "no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants or prevented them from leaving commandeered building." The same report found that on several occasions the Israeli forces, however, "had forced Palestinians to serve as human shields," as also confirmed by Human Rights Watch and the UN.

Amnesty's report acknowledges that Palestinian armed groups were endangering civilians by "firing rockets from residential areas and storing weapons, explosives and ammunition in them," but also acknowledged that mixing with the civilian population "would be difficult to avoid in the small and overcrowded Gaza Strip, and there is no evidence that they did so with the intent of shielding themselves." The report also points out that Israel behaves similarly by placing military bases and headquarters in or around residential areas of Israeli cities and conducting military activities "close to civilian areas in the south of Israel."

Anyone who paid attention to the twitter account of Hamas' military wing (recently suspended) would have noticed that whenever they announced they were launching rockets at Israeli cities, they would claim they were targeting military bases. It would be absurd to blame potential Israeli civilian casualties on the Israeli Defense Force for placing military bases close to residential areas. But blaming Palestinian civilian casualties on Hamas is quite normal.

Furthermore, forcing civilians to act as human shields for military objectives should not be confused with activists voluntarily acting as human shields to protect hospitals and homes. The former is a war crime and should be condemned, but the latter is a courageous form of nonviolent resistance and should be praised.

How about defining the word "close to" as relates to both Israel and to Hamas?

Regardless, you acknowledge that Israel has designated military targets and non-military targets, where as Hamas does not. The claim is because if Hamas had dedicated military targets they would immediately be crushed, and that is undoubtably correct. However, it would help reduce civilian casualties, would it not? Hamas chooses to fight the way they do because they value fighting more than they value the lives of people around them.

Liberty's Edge

Lord Snow wrote:

o I asked him if racism was ever so rampant ... and (despite him being much more pro Israel than I am), he answered that no, this is new to him.

It seems that the adults of today - the children who grew up with the occupation, have finally started to snap. I don't even want to imagine how things could look a decade from now, if the conflict wouldn't end.

That's not good. Not surprising but not good.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Assuming the translation is accurate, your youtube video is hardly the smoking gun you seem to think it is. "They" have formed human shields, not "we use them as human shields."

Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time. It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop.

As for abolishing religion, no, I'm pretty sure my comrades in the region don't have a plan for that. It would be rather anti-Marxist.

Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?


ShadowcatX wrote:
How about defining the word "close to" as relates to both Israel and to Hamas?

I checked out the Amnesty International report linked in the article, and, upon cursory examination, I don't see those words anywhere on the page. I google the quote, find it cited by other sources, including Agent France Presse and wikipedia, but still can't find the report that actually says those words. I leave it other googlers to find it because I have to go to work soon.

Quote:
Regardless, you acknowledge that Israel has designated military targets and non-military targets, where as Hamas does not.

I don't recall acknowledging any such thing. If you are referring to something in the piece that you quoted, I would point out that Hessam Akhlaghpour wrote it, not I.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?

"Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time.It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop."

Hmm, I wonder what that might mean.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Because Hamas has absolutely no reason to lie about committing war crimes, amIright?

"Look, I am not a fan of Hamas. You can look through my post record in this thread and the one Lord Snow started last time.It wouldn't surprise me if they did use human shields; at the same time, I'm not just going to accept the word of you, Lord Snow or, particularly, Doug's Workshop."

Hmm, I wonder what that might mean.

Especially since the video was submitted as evidence that Hamas had admitted to using its people as human shields. It's hardly reasonable to make that claim for the video, then claim the person in the video is lying when when he doesn't admit to doing so.

He may be lying. They may be using people as human shields. This video is not evidence of them committing war crimes.

Personally, I'm going with the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Int.

The Exchange

@Anklebiter - I think most of what you said in your replay to me is reasonable. I did misread a couple of things in that article (honestly, once I saw that line that quoted the Hamas twitter claims, I just shook my head and, perhaps prematurely, decided not to take it seriously because it didn't seem to take reality seriously).

However, I do think you cheat once in your replay -

Quote:
As to your hypothetical question, I have no answer, because as a lifelong opponent of imperialist militarism, I would never voluntarily serve in an occupation army. If drafted, I'd either follow the precedent of the refuseniks and refuse to serve, or the Bolsheviks and organize for international proletarian socialist revolution within the army.

We are discussing military ethics. The whole context of the discussion is an attempt to discern which bastard is doing what horrible thing currently. The line I'm holding is that I feel that the IDF is being treated unfairly - that it is blamed for it's actions, when often there simply is no better way to accomplish it's objectives, and no army would really fare much better in there situations. By the way - while I am not as anti military as you are, I would have never agreed to fight or kill anyone, especially not in the kind of circumstances as in the current war.

So dodging a truly difficult question (the kind of question that unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform - that is, IDF soldiers - face now every hour of every day) with a noncommittal "can't answer because I'll never be in that situation" is not a serious response. The entire point I was trying to make is that things are not as clear cut as that article made them out to be in the question of civilians purposefully grouping around Hamas operatives to protect them.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}. Lack of water security. Ceding their very legitimate claims to land.

There never has been a "Palestinian state". Prior to WW1, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. From 1918 to 1948, it was controlled by the British. From 1918-1922, the size of the mandate was Israel+Jordan.

Fact of the matter is that the area known as Palestine was occupied by a Palestinean majority and a small Jewish minority. No matter whether it was called a "state" a "territory" or a "mandate", that was what it was composed of by population, up to the middle of the last century.

At the close of the Mandate, vast numbers of Palestineans were driven from their homes, by Jewish mobs, with the civic and military authorities either looking the other way or actively assisting, and their assets were seized by the emerging Israeli nation. Those who tried to recover their assets and homes were arrested, and then deported.

Now, to give a more fair description of events, that was during the 1948 war, known as "The war of independence" by Israelis and "The disaster" by Palestinians. It wasn't a war like the one today, with Israel boasting an army a thousand times more powerful than anything the Palestinians could manage. It was a war with Israelis having a serious disadvantage, facing armies of not only the Palestinians but also of all the surrounding countries - Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt. The war was started by the Palestinians, who refused to accept the U.N'd vote for an Israeli country in the middle east.

And, as real wars go, that one was brutal. One out of every hundred Jews in the area at the time was killed during that war. Since the Arabs lost, they took a harder blow, and once the chaos of war was unleashed the Israeli leadership made a mistake - one that Israel still pays for today - in deciding to make many Palestinians into refugees. You must understand, though, that it was a different time and a different kind of war - a war for survival against a foe that wanted the Jews gone from the area. So describing things with a sentence like "with the civic and military authorities either looking the other way or actively assisting" is not an accurate description. There were no "civic authority", there was a hastily put together war council.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
The line I'm holding is that I feel that the IDF is being treated unfairly - that it is blamed for it's actions, when often there simply is no better way to accomplish it's objectives, and no army would really fare much better in there situations.

If your objective is bad then it doesn't matter how few civilian casualties you have by military standards: you're killing innocent people for all the wrong reasons. That's the case whether you're fighting to maintain a racial aparthied or invading a country for its oil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

@Anklebiter - I think most of what you said in your replay to me is reasonable. I did misread a couple of things in that article (honestly, once I saw that line that quoted the Hamas twitter claims, I just shook my head and, perhaps prematurely, decided not to take it seriously because it didn't seem to take reality seriously).

However, I do think you cheat once in your replay -

Quote:
As to your hypothetical question, I have no answer, because as a lifelong opponent of imperialist militarism, I would never voluntarily serve in an occupation army. If drafted, I'd either follow the precedent of the refuseniks and refuse to serve, or the Bolsheviks and organize for international proletarian socialist revolution within the army.

We are discussing military ethics. The whole context of the discussion is an attempt to discern which bastard is doing what horrible thing currently. The line I'm holding is that I feel that the IDF is being treated unfairly - that it is blamed for it's actions, when often there simply is no better way to accomplish it's objectives, and no army would really fare much better in there situations. By the way - while I am not as anti military as you are, I would have never agreed to fight or kill anyone, especially not in the kind of circumstances as in the current war.

So dodging a truly difficult question (the kind of question that unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform - that is, IDF soldiers - face now every hour of every day) with a noncommittal "can't answer because I'll never be in that situation" is not a serious response. The entire point I was trying to make is that things are not as clear cut as that article made them out to be in the question of civilians purposefully grouping around Hamas operatives to protect them.

Of course much of the worst of this isn't done by "unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform", especially ones in imminent danger from Hamas operatives being shielded by civilians, it's being done by airstrikes and missiles and artillery, generally from a nice safe distance. The kids on the ground aren't so much the problem. Though there were some nasty incidents in previous operations and I'm sure more will come to light in the aftermath of this one.

Nonetheless, it's not the soldiers I blame, it's the leaders - political and military. They set the objectives. They know how the operation will go. They know that any military operation in this kind of urban setting will have a high civilian toll, even without human shields. They also know that it's futile, militarily. Mowing the lawn, as it's been called. Even assuming this was about the rockets, peace deals slow the rockets to a trickle, offensives bring far more. Of course, that's not the point, just an excuse.

The Exchange

Quote:


Of course much of the worst of this isn't done by "unsophisticated, normal, frightened kids in uniform", especially ones in imminent danger from Hamas operatives being shielded by civilians, it's being done by airstrikes and missiles and artillery, generally from a nice safe distance. The kids on the ground aren't so much the problem. Though there were some nasty incidents in previous operations and I'm sure more will come to light in the aftermath of this one.

But I hope the analogy is clear - Hamas IS shooting at Israel, and it managed to convince non combatants to shield it with their bodies. It's not the exact same situation I described in my made up scenario, but it raises similar question.

Quote:


Nonetheless, it's not the soldiers I blame, it's the leaders - political and military. They set the objectives. They know how the operation will go. They know that any military operation in this kind of urban setting will have a high civilian toll, even without human shields. They also know that it's futile, militarily. Mowing the lawn, as it's been called. Even assuming this was about the rockets, peace deals slow the rockets to a trickle, offensives bring far more. Of course, that's not the point, just an excuse.

I agree, but wish to remind you that the exact same thing could be said about the Hamas leadership.

In this round of fighting, my country's leadership decided that a Hamas-Fatah union is unacceptable, and were willing to go to war to prevent it. Hamas thought the humiliating invasion performed by the IDF following the murder of the three Israeli children was unacceptable, and were willing to go to war to retaliate. Of course, I think that my government is totally, one million percent wrong about the Hamas-Fatah government. Not only do I think it was not worth going to war for, I think it's an important and much needed step in the way to a two country solution, a liberation of the Palestinian people and true peace in the region.


It's also important to note that Hamas doesn't recognize a difference between "civilian" and "military." Look at their charter.

From Hamas' point of view, they aren't hiding their weapons in civilian areas, because those areas don't exist. Children are not students, they're future martyrs.

Of course, lots of people in the rest of the world see it differently, but representatives of Hamas are being "truthful" when they state "We don't put weapons in civilian areas."


Doug's Workshop wrote:

It's also important to note that Hamas doesn't recognize a difference between "civilian" and "military." Look at their charter.

From Hamas' point of view, they aren't hiding their weapons in civilian areas, because those areas don't exist. Children are not students, they're future martyrs.

Of course, lots of people in the rest of the world see it differently, but representatives of Hamas are being "truthful" when they state "We don't put weapons in civilian areas."

I on't think it's that simple Doug, it's a war. What Hamas should do from your point of view (considering Gaza is one of the area of the world with the strongest density), to gather themselves and all their weapons in an isolated building? Really?

Moreso to limit Hamas to a terrorist organisation is a bit simple, even if they target civilians. Many Palestinians support Hamas, they were even able to win elections. Lets even accept they were cheating, to consider that one third of the population (over 500,000 people) are terrorists is nothing but ridiculous.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

What I mean is that a lot of prime ministers came in from the military. Netanyahu, Sharon, Barak,Netanyahu :), Peres, Rabin, Shamir, Peres, Shamir, Peres, shamir, peres...

The military's opinion is thus very well represented politically.

Alright, that makes sense, then. For a minute I thought you were suggesting that their military was out of control.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't consider someone threatening to put you in jail to be justification for oppressing someone else.

I think in that regard we disagree along the Law/Chaos axis, as it were. You favor them not being there to begin with, I favor them simply refusing any unlawful orders and being incarcerated then to serve as an example of the correct think to do when given an incorrect order.

---

Lord Snow wrote:
Let me ask you a question - let's say you found an enemy soldier in a time of war. You get to kill him - that's how wars are like. Now, let's say that a civilian from that man's nationality is standing between you and your enemy, shielding him with his body. He is doing so willingly. From behind him, the enemy soldier shoots at you. Do you fire at the soldier, even if you know the man shielding him is very likely to die?

First off, he doesn't "get" to kill the enemy, he HAS to kill the enemy. Both because he's at war, and because the other guy is trying to kill him.

Second off, there's a difference between using someone as a shield against their will and someone willingly trying to shield a fighter. However, despite this difference, NEITHER IS A REASON NOT TO SHOOT BACK. In either case, the shielded party is trying to kill the example soldier.

---

Angstspawn wrote:
Is there anyone here really thinking this "war" will have any positive impact for Israel?

Yes. The goals you have listed are not the actual goals.

It is not a 'war', it is a series of targeted assassinations.

The Israeli military is systematically wiping out various Hamas leaders and other terrorists that have recently caused them problems or are sufficiently skilled at organizing offensive campaigns. As side effects, they are destroying enemy weaponry caches whenever possible while also destroying enemy access to the combat area (those tunnels that get mentioned so often).
Don't think this is true? Notice how every single day since the conflict started at least one Hamas leader (of whatever level) has had his home destroyed by targeted strikes.
Israel doesn't expect this to completely end Hamas or the other terrorist organizations. They expect it to cripple their long-term strategy for a few more years to keep them a relatively contained threat. "Mowing the lawn" is a pretty close analogy.

---

LazarX wrote:
Fact of the matter is that the area known as Palestine was occupied by a Palestinean majority and a small Jewish minority. No matter whether it was called a "state" a "territory" or a "mandate", that was what it was composed of by population, up to the middle of the last century.

That stuff has been going on since before the Roman Empire first conquered its way through the Middle East. There is no side that HASN'T lived there for millennia into the past. That's why it's so complicated and will likely go on until humanity is extinct.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
I think in that regard we disagree along the Law/Chaos axis, as it were. You favor them not being there to begin with, I favor them simply refusing any unlawful orders and being incarcerated then to serve as an example of the correct think to do when given an incorrect order.

What constitutes a lawful order in this case? The entire occupation is illegal (israel has occupied the palastinian areas by controlling all of the access points to it)

Even just standing there with a gun is perpetuating their imprisonment and deprivation.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Let me ask you a question - let's say you found an enemy soldier in a time of war. You get to kill him - that's how wars are like. Now, let's say that a civilian from that man's nationality is standing between you and your enemy, shielding him with his body. He is doing so willingly. From behind him, the enemy soldier shoots at you. Do you fire at the soldier, even if you know the man shielding him is very likely to die?

First off, he doesn't "get" to kill the enemy, he HAS to kill the enemy. Both because he's at war, and because the other guy is trying to kill him.

Second off, there's a difference between using someone as a shield against their will and someone willingly trying to shield a fighter. However, despite this difference, NEITHER IS A REASON NOT TO SHOOT BACK. In either case, the shielded party is trying to kill the example soldier.

First, this is an analogy, not the actual situation. As far as I know Hamas hasn't even been accused of this. Not in the direct, close range shooting at the IDF from behind Palestinian civilians. They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc. The IDF however actually has used Palestinian civilians in the way described. We know this because they've convicted a few of their soldiers for this. Sentenced them to a slap on the wrist (demotions and suspended sentences for war crimes).

Second, even in the analogy, are there no other choices? Sure, fire back to defend yourself, but do you have to push the attack despite civilian casualties? Theoretically, sometimes you might, but in a situation like this where Israel is so dominant militarily, it's hard to think they can't find another way.

Third, as you say below, this isn't war. Not just in terms of goals, but even legally. Gaza is not a separate country at war with Israel. Under international law, Israel remains the occupying power over Gaza. That gives them obligations they are ignoring. They have the right to fight resistance movements, but they also have the responsibility to protect Palestinian civilians.


Angstspawn wrote:

I don't think it's that simple Doug, it's a war. What Hamas should do from your point of view (considering Gaza is one of the area of the world with the strongest density), to gather themselves and all their weapons in an isolated building? Really?

If it's not that simple and "it's a war", why are you unwilling to extend that same courtesy to Israel's actions?

What should Hamas do? Not hide amongst civilians (not that they tell the difference). Not put stockpiles inside neutral or protected areas? That'd be a simple start, if you want to try and make the sides equivalent.
What they should REALLY do, though, is not put stuff like this into their Covenant:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it""

"It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out. "
(Article Six--Which states there will only be peace once Islam owns the entire area.)

"Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes. "
(Article Eight--Nothing is better than killing and dying for the cause.)

"Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission. "
(Article Twelve--There is no military/civilian divide. Anyone can and should participate.)

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. "
(Article Thirteen--Well, there goes peaceful reconciliation through external 3rd parties. Also, the only 'end' will be through jihad.)

"In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. "
(Article Fifteen--Jihad is mandatory, the population who may be 'innocent civilians' MUST be convinced to fight directly.)

That's less than HALF the Articles in their charter. By all means, I can keep going. Article 32, for instance, is a real hoot, as it forbids any 'Western-style' peace process that might turn the populace away from jihad against Israel.

Angstspawn wrote:
Moreso to limit Hamas to a terrorist organisation is a bit simple, even if they target civilians. Many Palestinians support Hamas, they were even able to win elections. Lets even accept they were cheating, to consider that one third of the population (over 500,000 people) are terrorists is nothing but ridiculous.

If an organization's charter expressly calls for the extermination of a group of people, tells its adherents that there is no peaceful alternative (short of murdering ALL its enemies), instructs its followers to become unlawful combatants, calls on mothers to train their sons and daughters to be child soldiers, that the greatest thing its adherents can do in life is murder and be killed for their religious beliefs....

Seriously, what else could it be EXCEPT a terrorist organization? What do you call that?

So what if a sizeable portion of the population voted for them? Amazingly enough, many dictators throughout history have been rightfully and lawfully put into that position by the cooperation of their citizens. It just means that a third of the population actively supports a terrorist organization.

I don't think anyone's saying that large of the population is terrorists. They are certainly supporters/enablers of such, and it's a stated goal of Hamas to convert them into its minions.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
What should Hamas do? Not hide amongst civilians (not that they tell the difference). Not put stockpiles inside neutral or protected areas? That'd be a simple start, if you want to try and make the sides equivalent.

Please point to the map where exactly they would go to do that.

Can you explain how to carry out a fight against someone as heavily armed as Israel in that fashion AND accomplish their goals?


While Hamas has as it's stated goals taking over all of Israel and killing all the Jews, it's made remarkably little progress towards either goal and has often made overtures towards compromise and moderation. Not changing it's charter, but long term peace deals and power sharing arrangements with Fatah.

Meanwhile, while Israel does not claim to want to take over all of Palestine or kill Arabs, it's making steady progress towards the first and racking up quite a body count on the second. But it talks much nicer about it.

If you look at public statements, Israel is obviously the good guy and Hamas the dangerous aggressor. If you look at actions, things are much less clear.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:
What should Hamas do? Not hide amongst civilians (not that they tell the difference). Not put stockpiles inside neutral or protected areas? That'd be a simple start, if you want to try and make the sides equivalent.

Please point to the map where exactly they would go to do that.

Can you explain how to carry out a fight against someone as heavily armed as Israel in that fashion AND accomplish their goals?

Forget "accomplish their goals". How about "Get all the moderates who aren't willing to hide among civilians killed off, leaving only those who aren't so scrupulous."

Evolution in action. (Well, not really, but in the metaphorical sense a group can evolve.)


BigNorseWolf wrote:

What constitutes a lawful order in this case? The entire occupation is illegal (israel has occupied the palastinian areas by controlling all of the access points to it)

Even just standing there with a gun is perpetuating their imprisonment and deprivation.

YOU say the entire occupation is illegal. This does not mean you are correct. From your point of view, because of that, the entire thing is considered one massive unlawful exercise.

I have no problem with the IDF killing members of a terrorist organization whose established goal is to annihilate Israel.

However, I do have a problem with using indirect fire at a target that you do not have under direct observation. I have a problem with any commands that amount to 'shoot all targets on sight'. I have a problem with blowing up tunnels without knowing if anyone is actually in them first. I have a problem with driving a 50+ ton tank through a house without having confirmed likewise, etc. I will have a problem with the land being occupied permanently after the military action.

Despite this, however, when it comes to a 'moral high ground', they are well above Hamas, though obviously quite below the innocent bystanders.

There are many things I do not have a problem with that you likely would not agree with at all, but that's for another time.

---

TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it. When has Hamas ever done that? At least the IDF is trying to correct that problem.

TheJeff[/b wrote:
Sure, fire back to defend yourself, but do you have to push the attack despite civilian casualties? Theoretically, sometimes you might, but in a situation like this where Israel is so dominant militarily, it's hard to think they can't find another way.

Yes. Otherwise 'hiding behind human shields' becomes the dominant tactic--because it would always work. They'd then ALWAYS hide behind innocents, and the IDF would be unable to do anything at all. And when their enemies actually start to inflict damage, they'd have to retreat until their losses convinced them to not let that tactic be a viable one.

Clearly you'd prefer this, and I'm sure Hamas would as well (NOT accusing you of anything, honest, sorry if that came out wrong), but allowing it to be a viable tactic is exactly what should not happen.
But, I agree, this can be modified by tactics, but only so far. Calling in assistance in the form of another squad flanking the target and killing him when he can't use a civilian as cover, for instance. But eventually the shield tactics would adapt as well. The solution is to not let that escalate.

TheJeff wrote:
Not just in terms of goals, but even legally. Gaza is not a separate country at war with Israel.

No, but Israel IS at war with Hamas, both officially and unofficially (cause Hamas is, by its own Charter, permanently at war with Israel). If Israel was at war with Gaza, it'd be a pretty short fight.

---

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Can you explain how to carry out a fight against someone as heavily armed as Israel in that fashion AND accomplish their goals?

Actually, the sad thing is that I -can- do this. Hamas is sloppy on a tactical level, mostly because of how little they value life and due to their methods of manipulating public perception to their advantage. They also devote an unnecessary amount of time to their religious pursuits at the detriment of their military studies, but that is necessary for the support level they crave.

I'd really rather not give any advice, though, as someone might get ideas about me, and honestly, I'd hate for those ideas to get around. Plus, it would require them to break some of the shackles of their Charter.
But, that's a side point. Are you saying that Hamas should be able to do whatever they want in a fight merely because they are the lesser-armed side, but that we should hold Israel accountable for every single thing that seems in the least bit shifty?
Even then, though, this is still not the real point, and even I am getting distracted. The point is that they should not be picking fights at all.


Arturius Fischer wrote:

YOU say the entire occupation is illegal. This does not mean you are correct.

Is there an argument that I'm wrong? Who's standard are we going to use? Israels?

Quote:
From your point of view, because of that, the entire thing is considered one massive unlawful exercise.

I'm more concerned that its one massive immoral exercise in some combination of racism and land theft.

Quote:
I have no problem with the IDF killing members of a terrorist organization whose established goal is to annihilate Israel.

If someone imprisoned you in the Palestinian territories you might want to shoot them too.

Quote:
Despite this, however, when it comes to a 'moral high ground', they are well above Hamas, though obviously quite below the innocent bystanders.

I cannot reconcile this position with the massive amount of death and suffering Israel is causing, both with their military strikes and daily economic deprivation.


thejeff wrote:

While Hamas has as it's stated goals taking over all of Israel and killing all the Jews, it's made remarkably little progress towards either goal and has often made overtures towards compromise and moderation. Not changing it's charter, but long term peace deals and power sharing arrangements with Fatah.

Meanwhile, while Israel does not claim to want to take over all of Palestine or kill Arabs, it's making steady progress towards the first and racking up quite a body count on the second. But it talks much nicer about it.

If you look at public statements, Israel is obviously the good guy and Hamas the dangerous aggressor. If you look at actions, things are much less clear.

Indeed. Israel should just, I don't know, rely upon the incompetence of people who want openly want to eradicate them from actually accomplishing that goal? That sounds like a plan.

If Israel wanted to take over Palestine, it would have been done in days, a week at most. The IDF also wouldn't care about a thousand or so casualties in a population of millions. Unlike their enemies, that have proven to be quite competent, as any brief look at history (Six Days War, perhaps) will demonstrate.

Also, it's ironic to say that the IDF wants to kill Arabs when it tries to minimize innocent casualties (though it could try a bit harder, no disagreement there) while Hamas openly admits it wants to wipe out Israelis. One side is trying to avoid killing, the other openly craves it. If this is doubted, please give examples of how Hamas attempts to limit civilian casualties.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Is there an argument that I'm wrong? Who's standard are we going to use? Israels?

You stated an opinion. It is neither inherently right or wrong, and there's no need for an argument to refute it. In addition, it is not the burden of the one who disagrees to disprove it. It is up to you to prove the claim first, giving examples that can be proven true or false.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm more concerned that its one massive immoral exercise in some combination of racism and land theft.

That's exactly what the Hamas charter reads like. I don't see this the same way you do, but I can understand why you would have those concerns. Even if they are falsifiable, it's still good to have those concerns to keep the eye of scrutiny on the subject at all times.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If someone imprisoned you in the Palestinian territories you might want to shoot them too.

Considering the "Palestinian Territories" are adjacent to other nations through which they can evacuate (nevermind all the tunnels), I wouldn't call it 'imprisonment'. Unless, you know, those other nations also built walls and enforced them to keep the population in. But none of them do that, of course.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I cannot reconcile this position with the massive amount of death and suffering Israel is causing, both with their military strikes and daily economic deprivation.

I can. Though, to be fair, I think we have different ideas of 'massive'. In addition, side you condemn is at least trying to make the effort to reduce it (to the degree of being willing to condemn and jail those who break their laws of war), whereas the other side makes every effort to make it worse (and doesn't even HAVE laws of war).

Now, the economic situation? That's a different story altogether. Does it make what either side does in a shooting conflict 'better' on a sliding scale of morality? No.

---

Anyway, it's been fun! I'll drop back by again later, but my GF is quite hungry and I needs to fetch her some food. =D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:


TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it. When has Hamas...

A) The point of the first part of the argument was to differentiate it from the direct analogy of a guy shooting at the soldier from behind a civilian, where the soldier is in direct threat. Given the effectiveness of the rocket attacks, maybe teh rockets are closer to a militant shooting a rifle at a tank from behind a civilian.

Beyond that, these are accusations by the IDF. Which is not exactly an impartial 3rd party. The UN claims the weapons found in a vacant school recently were the first time. There is little to no hard evidence supporting the IDF's claims, other than that there is rocket fire from within Gaza. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have investigated and not been able to confirm. Despite this Israel has been bombing protected sites for years. There is actually a process for handling these situations under the Geneva Conventions and it has not been followed.

And yes, Israel has prosecuted it's own soldiers. Twice, after a good deal of publicity. And, as I said, it's given them a slap on the wrist.

Israel can't be at war with Hamas. Not legally. That's the point. They can fight them, but they can't be at war with them. Legally that matters. They have obligations and responsibilities that they are ignoring and violating.

Frankly, what they should do is not conduct military operations in a dense urban environment unless seriously threatened. Not use attempt to provoke Hamas into open conflict for political advantage. Not use the excuse of looking for kidnapped teens they already know are dead to rampage through the West Bank. Not try to assassinate Hamas agents and kill a dozen civilians when you screw up (that was before the current mess, btw). Not do all of this as Hamas and Fatah are working on a reconciliation and unity government, while Hamas is doing it's best to hold to the last peace agreement and is likely to moderate even further as well as play an overall lesser role in the new government. Because what it looks like they're doing is trying to stop that.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
thejeff wrote:

While Hamas has as it's stated goals taking over all of Israel and killing all the Jews, it's made remarkably little progress towards either goal and has often made overtures towards compromise and moderation. Not changing it's charter, but long term peace deals and power sharing arrangements with Fatah.

Meanwhile, while Israel does not claim to want to take over all of Palestine or kill Arabs, it's making steady progress towards the first and racking up quite a body count on the second. But it talks much nicer about it.

If you look at public statements, Israel is obviously the good guy and Hamas the dangerous aggressor. If you look at actions, things are much less clear.

Indeed. Israel should just, I don't know, rely upon the incompetence of people who want openly want to eradicate them from actually accomplishing that goal? That sounds like a plan.

If Israel wanted to take over Palestine, it would have been done in days, a week at most. The IDF also wouldn't care about a thousand or so casualties in a population of millions. Unlike their enemies, that have proven to be quite competent, as any brief look at history (Six Days War, perhaps) will demonstrate.

Also, it's ironic to say that the IDF wants to kill Arabs when it tries to minimize innocent casualties (though it could try a bit harder, no disagreement there) while Hamas openly admits it wants to wipe out Israelis. One side is trying to avoid killing, the other openly craves it. If this is doubted, please give examples of how Hamas attempts to limit civilian casualties.

If Israel wanted to take over Palestine while not overtly committing genocide or even ethnic cleansing because they still need to keep at least the US on their side, it's really hard to imagine a better strategy: herd the worst terrorists into a tiny area, keep expanding into the best land in the West Bank, use the terrorists as an excuse to keep the Palestinians under your thumb, provoke them into violence whenever it looks like moderation might start making you look bad.

I don't really think there's any such grand scheme. I suspect it's far more a matter of short term muddling through and political advantage. Keeping the various domestic parties inline and keeping them focused on the external enemy, cause that gets you support.


Lord Snow wrote:

Let me ask you a question - let's say you found an enemy soldier in a time of war. You get to kill him - that's how wars are like. Now, let's say that a civilian from that man's nationality is standing between you and your enemy, shielding him with his body. He is doing so willingly. From behind him, the enemy soldier shoots at you. Do you fire at the soldier, even if you know the man shielding him is very likely to die?

I'm all for blaming Israel for bringing things to such a situation that there's a need to shoot anyone in the first place. However, Israel is currently at war with Hamas. The army has objectives. It has a mission to carry out, and it naturally values the lives it is tasked to protect higher than those of any other nationality - because that's how armies work. By convincing civilians to shield Hamas operatives with their bodies, Hamas makes them into participants. And, when forced to choose between giving up on any chance to fulfill their mission, or killing people who *willingly* chose to put themselves in the way.. IDF is forced to handle a bad situation. Sometimes they shoot despite the civilians being there, sometimes they don't.

Is that why the Israeli military has used children as human shields too?

Edit:
Note, this has continued to happen (documented up to 2013), even after the incident reported in Anklebiter's article further up, which was in 2010.


Arturius Fischer wrote:


You stated an opinion. It is neither inherently right or wrong, and there's no need for an argument to refute it.

Don't give me epistemic nihlism as an answer. Its horsepucky.

Quote:
In addition, it is not the burden of the one who disagrees to disprove it. It is up to you to prove the claim first, giving examples that can be proven true or false.

Which is why I asked what legal standard you wanted to use.

Quote:
That's exactly what the Hamas charter reads like. I don't see this the same way you do, but I can understand why you would have those concerns. Even if they are falsifiable, it's still good to have those concerns to keep the eye of scrutiny on the subject at all times.

I'm more concerned with actions than political rhetoric.

Quote:
Considering the "Palestinian Territories" are adjacent to other nations through which they can evacuate (nevermind all the tunnels), I wouldn't call it 'imprisonment'. Unless, you know, those other nations also built walls and enforced them to keep the population in. But none of them do that, of course.

This is factually false.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I cannot reconcile this position with the massive amount of death and suffering Israel is causing, both with their military strikes and daily economic deprivation.
I can.

How?

Quote:
Now, the economic situation? That's a different story altogether. Does it make what either side does in a shooting conflict 'better' on a sliding scale of morality? No.

Of course it does. If someone is making your life a living hell you have a right to fight against them. A few rocket attacks don't qualify. Denying someone something as basic as concrete for a building material in an environment where thats the ONLY viable building material? Does.


Lord Snow wrote:

@Anklebiter - I think most of what you said in your replay to me is reasonable. I did misread a couple of things in that article (honestly, once I saw that line that quoted the Hamas twitter claims, I just shook my head and, perhaps prematurely, decided not to take it seriously because it didn't seem to take reality seriously).

However, I do think you cheat once in your replay -

I am sorry that you think I am cheating.

You ask me what I would do if I was a kid in a uniform. When I was 18 I was the (not very good) organizer for the Boston Spartacus Youth Club.

If you were to ask me what I would do if I was someone other than myself, then I'd say I'd probably behave like any other scared kid given a weapon and told to go kill other people with weapons who are trying to kill me. Which, if anything I've ever read in the last twenty years is any indication, is often not very well.

And then I would refer you to Comrade Jeff's reply, particularly the second part.


Lord Snow wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}. Lack of water security. Ceding their very legitimate claims to land.

There never has been a "Palestinian state". Prior to WW1, it was part of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. From 1918 to 1948, it was controlled by the British. From 1918-1922, the size of the mandate was Israel+Jordan.

Fact of the matter is that the area known as Palestine was occupied by a Palestinean majority and a small Jewish minority. No matter whether it was called a "state" a "territory" or a "mandate", that was what it was composed of by population, up to the middle of the last century.

At the close of the Mandate, vast numbers of Palestineans were driven from their homes, by Jewish mobs, with the civic and military authorities either looking the other way or actively assisting, and their assets were seized by the emerging Israeli nation. Those who tried to recover their assets and homes were arrested, and then deported.

Now, to give a more fair description of events, that was during the 1948 war, known as "The war of independence" by Israelis and "The disaster" by Palestinians. It wasn't a war like the one today, with Israel boasting an army a thousand times more powerful than anything the Palestinians could manage. It was a war with Israelis having a serious disadvantage, facing armies of not only the Palestinians but also of all the surrounding countries - Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt. The war was started by the Palestinians, who refused to accept the U.N'd vote for an Israeli country in the middle east.

And, as real wars go, that one was brutal. One out of every hundred Jews in the area at the time was killed during that war. Since the Arabs lost, they took a harder blow, and once the chaos of war was unleashed the Israeli leadership made a mistake - one that Israel still pays...

I've been chatting with my friend, Omar the Former Arab Terrorist Omar the Arab Convicted of False Communication of Intention to Use an Explosive Device on an Airline, about various things related to Israel, Palestine, the Stern Gang, Labor Zionism, Poale Zion, various strands of Pan-Arabism, etc., etc., and we got around to the '48 war. "Boy," I opined, "All sides pretty much sucked in that one, huh?" "Yeah," he agreed, "They all sucked."


Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.

That is, in fact, exactly what using them as human shields is. They count on the Israelis not firing into those areas because they are hiding among the population. And it's not just accusations, those things have actually happened. Sometimes it even works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The difference, as you've pointed out, is that Israel considers this to be wrong and is willing to prosecute their own people who do it. When has Hamas...

I noticed that one of the dudes cited in the Islamist propaganda piece above made a distinction between careless endangering of civilians and "human shields."

I go looking for the UN definition of "human shields," but got bored and settled for wikipedia.

"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets. It may also refer to the use of persons to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing them to march in front of the soldiers. A third meaning is when a combatant holds another person in front of them to shield them from projectiles (usually bullets), often by holding then in a headlock or nelson hold."

Anyone else got anything?

Liberty's Edge

So not letting someone have concrete (which they seem to have had in the tunnels) makes it acceptable to fire rockets at someone, but someone firing rockets at you doesn't make it acceptable to return fire.


thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, these are accusations by the IDF. Which is not exactly an impartial 3rd party. The UN claims the weapons found in a vacant school recently were the first time.

Hmmm... are the accusations by Hamas an impartial 3rd party?

thejeff wrote:
There is little to no hard evidence supporting the IDF's claims, other than that there is rocket fire from within Gaza.

Rocket fire being, apparently, not hard evidence.

thejeff wrote:

Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have investigated and not been able to confirm. Despite this Israel has been bombing protected sites for years. There is actually a process for handling these situations under the Geneva Conventions and it has not been followed.

And yes, Israel has prosecuted it's own soldiers. Twice, after a good deal of publicity. And, as I said, it's given them a slap on the wrist.

Israel can't be at war with Hamas. Not legally. That's the point. They can fight them, but they can't be at war with them. Legally that matters. They have obligations and responsibilities that they are ignoring and violating.

Well, there's that. Again, Israel is the only one who has actually bothered to prosecute its people when they do wrong. That puts them above their opponents.

In addition, are both Israel and Hamas a party of the Geneva Conventions? You should read those things very carefully... especially the part where if you and your opponent are not a party to those accords then you are not obliged to be limited by them. It's recommended, and considered a 'good on you' if you do, but if you're fighting a non-signatory, it really doesn't matter.

thejeff wrote:
Frankly, what they should do is not conduct military operations in a dense urban environment...

An overly simplistic approach toward a complicated subject. Perhaps terrorists shouldn't launch rockets at people who are willing to go to war over it? See--equally simplistic.

---

GentleGiant wrote:
Is that why the Israeli military has used children as human shields too?

Oh... THAT's how?

Having them stand in front of the military so other children don't throw stones at them? Not seeing much of a problem here. It's a better alternative to, say, shooting them or running them over. Kids shouldn't be chucking rocks at tanks and soldiers. Usually they don't do that sort of thing on their own, it's something that has to be taught.
Hmm... Wonder who taught them...
See above for 'effective tactics'. This is actually a pretty good temporary solution.
The other, having them search buildings? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE. And I'm not kidding. Four per year is pretty low, but that's still four per year too many. The people who ordered it and the people who enforced it should be prosecuted and detained as required by law (and if there isn't a law, there should be one).
Does this completely undermine all the other things done on either side? No. But it does need to be corrected.
What they should really do is get confirmed members of a certain terrorist organization to do this job instead. Preferably at gunpoint. Then you have an unlawful combatant undoing the work of others and if the house explodes, no major loss. If he succeeds, however, give him a quote (say, 5 houses) and then set him free while loudly and publicly thanking him for his great service to Israel. Then you don't look bad for what eventually happens to him, as his own organization will tear him apart.

---

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Don't give me epistemic nihlism as an answer. Its horsepucky.

Which is why I asked what legal standard you wanted to use.

Horsepucky? Sounds like another opinion to me. ;)

The one you prefer to begin with, obviously. I wouldn't ask you to support it by some legal system you don't understand.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm more concerned with actions than political rhetoric.

As am I.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
This is factually false.

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to quote the part that disproves it, instead of linking an entire article and claiming my own comment is false?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If someone is making your life a living hell you have a right to fight against them. A few rocket attacks don't qualify. Denying someone something as basic as concrete for a building material in an environment where thats the ONLY viable building material? Does.

In your belief system, does that mean you have the right to fight any way possible, even in ways that are considered atrocious by everyone else, and in so doing expect everyone to get grumpy at your enemies if they retaliate somewhat in kind? Cause if so, then no, I don't agree with you at all. Down that road of relativism lies only pure emotional conviction with no rationality. Rationality is necessary for peace.

As for a 'few rocket attacks' not qualifying, well, what DO they qualify as if not fighting? Do you they 'count' as anything at all, or are deliberate attempts to kill random people just supposed to be written off as 'accidents' or 'acts of nature'? Cause I'd like to know other nations out there that have no problems whatsoever with another lobbing rockets at them on a near-daily basis, or even two counties within the same country letting that go. And don't try the "Well, they fire at military targets but the accuracy is terrible" defense, because that would mean that the IDF could deliberately use weapons with terrible accuracy and be equally blameless.

Denying the use of concrete in tunnels to reinforce the same tunnels you use to launch attacks through a border with your enemy? Not seeing a problem. Of course, that's assuming you're referring to the tunnel concrete.
If, however, you're referring to some sanctions against importing concrete or the like, perhaps some blockade on it? Yeah, that's total BS. It's not like they're rushing to make buildings out of wood out that way. But like I said, the economic side is different from the military side.

---

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets. It may also refer to the use of persons to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing them to march in front of the soldiers. A third meaning is when a combatant holds another person in front of them to shield them from projectiles (usually bullets), often by holding then in a headlock or nelson hold."

Hmmm. I can work with that. Let's break it down.

Type 1: Placement of non-combatants around combat targets to deter enemy from attacking those targets.
That's pretty much the Hamas modus operandi. Does not apply to the 'rock shields' above, as that is noncombatant VS noncombatant.

Type 2: Generally what I think of as 'human shields', taking random peeps to shield combatants from other combatants.
Reprehensible. Note that amongst groups that both follow the 'rules of war', a POW counts as a non-combatant at this point (or 'random peep' in the above).

Type 3: Physically manhandling another to serve as a literal shield.
Reprehensible, foolish, and inefficient (the Lawful part of my alignment requires that I state all of these). It's like Type 2, but with the added idiocy of having to continuously struggle with someone who will likely wait to break free. Plus, if Shieldbearer #1 wants to maintain control of his 'shield', he's not going to be shooting much.

Not sure how the U.N. defines it either, but would like to see if someone else wants to do the legwork.

---

ShadowcatX wrote:
So not letting someone have concrete (which they seem to have had in the tunnels) makes it acceptable to fire rockets at someone, but someone firing rockets at you doesn't make it acceptable to return fire.

I know, right? I hope no one is actually saying this, or it makes the anti-Israeli side look like the timey-wimey one.


Wikipedia wrote:
"Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets. It may also refer to the use of persons to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing them to march in front of the soldiers. A third meaning is when a combatant holds another person in front of them to shield them from projectiles (usually bullets), often by holding then in a headlock or nelson hold."

Citizen Fischer wrote:

Hmmm. I can work with that. Let's break it down.

Type 1: Placement of non-combatants around combat targets to deter enemy from attacking those targets.
That's pretty much the Hamas modus operandi. Does not apply to the 'rock shields' above, as that is noncombatant VS noncombatant.

Comrade Anklebiter writes:

Actually, whether or not that is Hamas's modus operandi is pretty much what is under contention.

For example, here is the first article that gets spit out of my search engine when I look for "Hamas" and "human shields":

Is Hamas using human shields in Gaza? The answer is complicated

As I've said before, no expert here, just a dude who loads trucks who happens to be a lifelong communist with a passing interest in world affairs and a search engine, but, if the case was as clear as many seem to think, then I have a hard time understanding why CNN reports that it is "complicated" or that they've got someone from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (which sounds like a plutocrat thing to me, but I could be wrong) saying "It would be impossible at this point to say how much truth there is to the human shield argument." I'm sure there's a CAMERA article or Breitbart report that claims otherwise, but I find it hard to believe either of them are purveyors of Islamist propaganda.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to quote the part that disproves it, instead of linking an entire article and claiming my own comment is false?

You said the other countries did not wall off the palastinian areas. The pertinant bit of information is the labled picture of the wall there between Egypt and Gaza.


Well, I'm almost there, but not quite.

Rule 97. Human Shields

Red Cross cites "Third Geneva Convention (with respect to prisoners of war), the Fourth Geneva Convention (with respect to protected civilians) and Additional Protocol I (with respect to civilians in general)" as the source of the legal definition of "human shields."

They also summarize the following:

Definition of human shields

Spoiler:

The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]

In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]

It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.

I'm getting tired, so I may be getting sloppy, but I don't see how hiding rockets in a vacant school is "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations." I mean, how are you rendering a point immune from military operations if you're hiding rockets there?

I don't know. Maybe I'm descending into sophistry, but I have a cynical suspicion that international law is all about sophistry.

The Exchange

Quote:


rst, this is an analogy, not the actual situation. As far as I know Hamas hasn't even been accused of this. Not in the direct, close range shooting at the IDF from behind Palestinian civilians. They've been accused of firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc. The IDF however actually has used Palestinian civilians in the way described. We know this because they've convicted a few of their soldiers for this. Sentenced them to a slap on the wrist (demotions and suspended sentences for war crimes).

From wikipedia:

Spoiler:

Israel has accused Hamas of using children as human shields. The Israeli government released video footage in which it claims two militants are shown grabbing a young boy's arm from behind holding him to walk in front of them toward a group of people waiting near a wall. The IDF argues the militants were placing the boy between themselves and an Israeli sniper. The second scene shows an individual, described as a terrorist, grabbing a school boy off of a floor, where he is hiding behind a column from IDF fire, and using him as a human shield to walk to a different location.[301]

After 15 alleged militants sought refuge in a mosque from Israeli forces, the BBC reported that Hamas radio instructed local women to go the mosque to protect the militants. Two women were later killed when Israeli forces opened fire.[302]

In November 2006, the Israeli Air Force warned Muhammad Weil Baroud, commander of the Popular Resistance Committees who are accused of launching rockets into Israeli territory, to evacuate his home in a Jabalya refugee camp apartment block in advance of a planned Israeli air strike. Baroud responded by calling for volunteers to protect the apartment block and nearby buildings and, according to The Jerusalem Post, hundreds of local residents, mostly women and children, responded. Israel suspended the air strike. Israel termed the action an example of Hamas using human shields.[303] In response to the incident, Hamas proclaimed: 'We won. From now on we will form human chains around every house threatened with demolition.'"[304] In a November 22 press release, Human Rights Watch condemned Hamas, stating: "There is no excuse for calling civilians to the scene of a planned attack. Whether or not the home is a legitimate military target, knowingly asking civilians to stand in harm's way is unlawful."[305] Following criticism, Human rights Watch issued a statement saying that their initial assessment of the situation was in error. They stated that, on the basis of available evidence, the home demolition was in fact an administrative act, viewed in the context of Israel's longstanding policy of punitive home demolitions, not a military act and thus would not fall within the purview of the law regulating hostilities during armed conflict, which had been the basis for their initial criticism of Hamas.[302]

When the UN-sponsored Goldstone Commission Report on the Gaza War was commissioned in 2009, it stated that it "found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack" though they deemed credible reports that Palestinian militants were "not always dressed in a way that distinguished them from civilians".[306] It criticised a statement issued by a senior Hamas figure before Operation Cast Lead that explained Hamas' logic behind the use of women, children and the elderly as human shields.[307]

Hamas MP Fathi Hamed stated that "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel ... the elderly excel at this ... and so do the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children."[308]

Following the release of the Goldstone Report, the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan Col. Richard Kemp was invited to testify at the UN Human Rights Council 12th Special Session that during Operation Cast Lead Israel encountered an "enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population".[309][310]

The commander of the military wing of the PFLP-GC in the Gaza Strip stated in an interview that some areas did not present a problem because of the "population and building density" that would "provide the resistance with a shield".[307]

So Hamas kind of is accused of more than just "firing rockets from near civilians, storing weapons near civilians, having civilians on/in buildings Hamas was using, etc.". They were proven to make effort to involve unarmed citizens to protect them. You can choose to call them human shields, or anything else, but as I hope my analogy proved the distinction is not so clear, and the morality of shooting citizens who willingly chose to protect their soldiers with their bodies is also not clear cut.

Quote:

Is that why the Israeli military has used children as human shields too?

Edit:
Note, this has continued to happen (documented up to 2013), even after the incident reported in Anklebiter's article further up, which was in 2010.

I suspect so, yes. Unsuprisngly, there are scumbags in the IDF too. I really wish they were punished the way they deserve to be.


Well, the argument was that Hamas is really, really bad because they use "human shields" (depending on the definition of that) and Israel doesn't!
Except they do.
Now granted, they don't put their own population at risk... because they use Palestinian kids as their human shields instead of Israeli citizens.

551 to 600 of 1,056 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.