fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Hamas is an Islamist militant group based in the Gaza Strip, which has been designated by the US, the EU and other countries as a terrorist group. Hamas has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. Although the definition of human shields is not consistent among states and inter-governmental organisations, the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) states the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.”1

Hamas relies on the Israeli government’s aim to minimise collateral damage, and is also aware of the West‘s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. Hamas’ use of human shields is therefore likely aimed at minimising their own vulnerabilities by limiting the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) freedom of action. It is also aimed at gaining diplomatic and public opinion-related leverage, by presenting Israel and the IDF as an aggressor that indiscriminately strikes civilians.2

Hamas’ most common uses of human shields include:

Firing rockets, artillery, and mortars from or in proximity to heavily populated civilian areas, often from or near facilities which should be protected according to the Geneva Convention (e.g. schools, hospitals, or mosques).

Locating military or security-related infrastructures such as HQs, bases, armouries, access routes, lathes,3 or defensive positions within or in proximity to civilian areas.

Protecting terrorists’ houses and military facilities, or rescuing terrorists who were besieged or warned by the IDF.4

Combating the IDF from or in proximity to residential and commercial areas, including using civilians for intelligence gathering missions.

By engaging in these acts, Hamas employs a win-win scenario: if indeed the IDF uses kinetic power, and the number of civilian causalities surges, Hamas can use that as a weapon in the lawfare5 it conducts. It would be able to accuse the IDF (and Israel) of committing war crimes, which in turn could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. On the other hand, if the IDF limits its use of military power in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less vulnerable to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight.

Hamas’ growing strategic distress in the face of recent geopolitical developments will probably push the organisation towards a more pragmatic strategy in the near future. However, the movement is simultaneously preparing itself for yet another round of armed conflict with Israel. If this indeed happens, and in light of the success of the human shield practice, there is every reason to believe Hamas will continue resorting to the use of civilians as human shields.

Edit: FTA, since people think this is whataboutism :)

The Israeli army said it attacked a Hamas command centre "disguised in the humanitarian area in Khan Younis" and that "many steps were taken to reduce the chance of harming civilians, including the use of precision weaponry, aerial surveillance and additional intelligence information".

Edit 2: ITT Hamas? You mean Israel? If not obvious by this point, the effort is to discredit/downplay anything critical of Hamas, turn discussion about Hamas activities into whataboutisms towards Israel, and reframe arguments against Hamas activities as a defense of genocide. Rinse, repeat in every thread about this conflict. Kinda boring after a while.

Yea thought that sounded familiar.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210507-iran-s-khamenei-says-israel-not-a-country-but-a-terrorist-base

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called Israel "not a country, but a terrorist base" during a speech on Al-Quds Day, an annual show of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Tensions have been running high between the two arch-foes following a series of maritime attacks, an explosion at an Iranian nuclear facility and the assassination of a top nuclear scientist that Tehran blamed on Israel.

The Islamic republic does not recognise the Jewish state, and supporting the Palestinian cause, as well as armed groups such as Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah, has been a pillar of Iran's foreign policy since its 1979 revolution.

"Israel is not a country, but a terrorist base against the nation of Palestine and other Muslim nations," Khamenei said in live televised remarks.

I'm not sure I'd listen to the Ayatollah.

Those that use the phrase definitely know what they're saying and how they're saying it. I could think of any other number of ways to convey a message of "liberation" without such loaded language, but this is a choice to use that phrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

Al Qaeda

Among the materials recovered by American forces during the killing of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was a speech addressed to the American people, in which bin Laden proposed economic and security guarantees in exchange for a "roadmap that returns the Palestine land to us, all of it, from the sea to the river, it is an Islamic land not subject to being traded or granted to any party."

Hezbollah

On September 27, 2008, Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah stated at a rally "Palestine, from the sea to the river is the property of Arabs and Palestinians and no one has the right to give up even a single grain of earth or one stone, because every grain of the land is holy. The entire land must be returned to its rightful owners."

Iran

Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, in 2023, used the phrase, saying "The only solution is a Palestinian state from the river to the sea", meaning that the only solution to the conflict would be a Palestinian state encompassing all of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/middle-east-monitor/

According to Andrew Gilligan, the Middle East Monitor promotes a strongly pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Hamas viewpoint. Anshel Pfeffer described MEMO as a “conspiracy theory-peddling anti-Israel organisation”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Monitor

MEMO is regarded as an outlet for the Muslim Brotherhood and its website strongly promotes pro-Hamas related content.

MEMO is financed by the State of Qatar. It is led by Daud Abdullah, former assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain and the current director of British Muslim Initiative.

I don't get why this source is allowed to be posted here.

Me thinks you didn't read the whole thing

Is that what I was suggesting? Or were you just suggesting that based on your anecdotal experience in the military you can confirm that Blinken and Miller don't know what they're doing? Or, even better, are you basing this on a book about Vietnam? That you can succinctly reduce down the reason against everything cited in the article as "Bibi hates brown people" tells me your analysis is one dimensional (perfect for your intended audience). For one second, do you think that private discussions between interlocuters might not show from the outside? That foreign affairs, which is part of the council on foreign relations, might have some insight into how a "moonshot" like this might work out? And discussing the potential motivations of the involved countries for how these interwoven goals could be achieved?

No, Bibi hates brown people, and shit like this is for suckers. Talk about lobbing easy criticism...

Go away.

I'll email the amazon link for the book to Blinken and Miller.

Edit: if anyone didn't figure it out, I'm rejecting the baseless idea put forth that they know better than the professionals. Next we'll see mozz giving state department briefings instead of Miller, because they clearly know better than those fools.

leans back in chair, twirling moustache, sipping cognac

Why sweet lemming, they're the author of the book that's going to open Blinken's and Miller's eyes to the truth!

No totally, that's why Blinken and Miller should take notes from Lemmy. And they should probably read that book too. I'm sure they'll change course because clearly we know they don't know what they're doing. It's only one way.

Yea, we know so much better than them.

Blinken and Miller ought to hang out on Lemmy more.

Agree. While I had no problems with any of the potential VP picks, I hope she made the correct choice.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-walz-and-not-shapiro-for-vice-president/

In two respects, however, Harris’ choice could have negative consequences. First: During her years in the Senate and her failed quest for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she adopted a number of progressive positions—endorsing the Green New Deal, opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for All (including for undocumented immigrants), and comparing ICE to the KKK—that she is now repudiating. Choosing a running mate seen as strongly progressive could make it more difficult to separate herself credibly from her past record.

Second: In the context of the Electoral College, Harris’ choice could backfire. While Walz’s Minnesota is safely Democratic, Shapiro presides over the most important swing state in the 2024 election. Although many pundits see Walz as especially appealing to rural and working-class voters, the evidence suggests otherwise. Compared to Biden’s 2020 performance in Minnesota, Walz received the same share of the vote overall (52%), and he did no better than Biden among rural and small-town voters, working-class voters, and Republican identifiers while running four points behind Biden among Independents.

By contrast, Shapiro far exceeded Biden’s 2020 baseline statewide, racking up 57% of the vote compared to Biden’s 50%. And he outpaced Biden in virtually every electoral group, exceeding the president’s share by seven points among rural and small-town voters, seven points among non-college voters, nine points among Republicans and voters leaning Republican, and five points among Independents.

Hmm... are you talking about Zack Beauchamp? Or someone else with publications that represent what you're saying?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/6/20754828/el-paso-shooting-white-supremacy-rise

https://www.vox.com/politics/357963/republicans-white-identity-politics-newsletter

https://www.vox.com/politics/356824/liberalism-way-of-life-lefebvre

https://www.vox.com/politics/361136/far-right-authoritarianism-germany-reactionary-spirit

But whatever, facts don't matter here, considering how many comments want to trash this article (without reading past the title :) )

Well, he didn't just crawl out of a hole, he has a record. The article is making the claim that he has the potential to bring together different elements of the democratic party, which ultimately is the party of everyone else that isn't voting Trump. This is a big tent with a lot of perspectives, and while democrats are largely united against Trump, that doesn't inherently mean they're just as united behind the candidate (as we just saw), and those kind of things are ripe for Republicans to pick at and promote infighting.

The author is making a distinction between progressive and leftist, and this interpretation may vary from reader to reader, considering in many ways the two views share many similarities. I personally have no issue with the classification, calling his accomplishments progressive or leftist makes little difference to me, but it could be viewed differently by others who may have drawn a line between the two labels. Manchin and AOC rallying behind Walz does appear to lend credence to the idea that he could be a unifying force.

Good talk.

Edit: no follow ups.... guess they didn't read the article past the headline? :)

Edit 2: they clearly didn't lol

I think that's a pretty simplistic take considering we just swapped our candidate less than 6 months before the election. I agree with the article's take that Walz has potential to unify the differing democratic coalitions, and don't see any evidence of your claim.

Walz’s elevation earns the left a big victory. Yet because Walz himself isn’t of the left, the pick seems intended to serve a unifying purpose: a candidate who appeals to all different stripes of Democrats for different reasons. The fact that Democrats across the political spectrum seem thrilled by the pick — with effusive support coming from people ranging from Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) — seems to validate the theory.

It’s important to be clear: The VP selection matters way less for elections than people think. It’s much more important to select a potential president than an optimal running mate.

But you can see why Harris sees picking Walz as smart politics. It allows her to simultaneously hand the left a win without necessarily tacking left — potentially keeping her coalition united even as she works to win over the general election’s decisive centrists.

I think its important to recognize the value this VP pick can bring, and I've not known vox to try to suggest something like that without reason.

Edit: I'm also going to add that your reply is a disingenuous attempt to falsely turn this into a binary unified or not unified condition, not that the article is making such a claim. I entirely reject your statement.

You don't say...

When he was 20... And yes, not all pro Palestinian protesters are the same as one another either, so I agree with him on a case by case basis. Tim Walz hasn't divested from Israel and supports their right to defend themselves. But that doesn't earn him a nickname.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/josh-shapiro-israel-policy-positions-b2591439.html

Shapiro has since made a point of repudiating the views he expressed in that article, which was first surfaced by the Philadelphia Inquirer late last week. He told reporters that he no longer feels that way and stressed his young age at the time he authored the opinion piece.

“I was 20,” he said. “I have said for years, years before October 7, that I favor a two-state solution — Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully side-by-side, being able to determine their own futures and their own destiny.”

...

Despite his now-repudiated youthful views on the conflict, Shapiro’s positions on Israel and Gaza are in line with the mainstream of the Democratic Party and match those of most American Jews.

I have no beef with any of the candidates and I support Walz now that he's on the ticket. But the "genocide Josh" shit is uncalled for and is antisemitic, considering how unevenly that cudgel is employed. I agree with what the axios and nyt articles put forth, and the politicians calling out the nonsense.

https://www.newsweek.com/dont-fall-misinformation-campaign-josh-shapiro-progressive-choice-vp-opinion-1933039

So, is he a monstrous right-winger on Israel?

Not at all. His position on Israel is correct, though his optics are terrible. Like all sane people, Shapiro supports a two-state solution and a free, independent Palestine. As for his support for Israel, consider his remarks about its leader: "I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time," Shapiro said in January, months before Chuck Schumer came out against Netanyahu. I couldn't agree more—and Shapiro was ahead of the curve in pointing this out. That was also about the same time Bernie Sanders was still calling for a "humanitarian pause" in Gaza instead of a ceasefire. It took three more months for Sen. Sanders to call Netanyahu an "awful, awful leader." When did Shapiro first call Netanyahu a "terrible leader"? Back in November of last year, well before almost any other major politician.

It's true that Gov. Shapiro has been a reactionary about campus protests against Israel. He came out strongly against them, saying we wouldn't tolerate "people dressed up in KKK outfits." Then he instituted a dumb executive order calling for state employees who protest in a "scandalous or disgraceful" way to be fired. No doubt anything that criticizes Israel would have qualified, though we never got to find out; by that time, all the protests against Israel had been disbanded and the students arrested.

But the pro list is much longer than this one con. Governor Shapiro also busted the pedophiles inside the Catholic Church. Do you know how much courage it takes to take on the Catholic Church when you're a Jewish politician? I respect that strength and moral clarity. Over 300 predator priests were outed. Countless children were saved.

Yes, he has frustrating positions, like his recent push to lower corporate taxes in his state and his advocacy for school vouchers. Yes, he's nowhere near ideal. But which Democrat is? Do you think Kamala Harris is going to change our position on Israel? Please don't tell me you're that naïve. And even if you think that, then great, you don't have to worry about Shapiro's position! He's not in charge, she is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/06/us/politics/tim-walz-harris-vp-policies.html

Mr. Walz has not spoken extensively about Israel or Gaza.

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks, he condemned Hamas while saying he supported a deal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, writing on social media: “The vast majority of Palestinians are not Hamas, and Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. We cannot let terrorists like Hamas win.”

But he has been largely silent since then, even after calls from protesters in Minnesota for the state to divest from Israeli companies.

https://forward.com/news/636147/mark-kelly-vp-pick-gabby-giffords-jewish-israel/

Kelly is a member of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism and is a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act, which was introduced in the Senate in April. It proposes the appointment of a new presidential adviser dedicated to antisemitism, separate from Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, who holds a cabinet-level position focused on global antisemitism.

In 2021, he decried an incident of vandalism at Congregation Temple Chaverim where his wife is a member — a rock thrown through a window. “Antisemitic attacks fly in the face of who we are as a country and as a state,” he said. “There is no place for hate in Arizona.”

In response to the campus pro-Palestinian protests, Kelly suggested deploying the U.S. National Guard would be an option to deal with violent demonstrators, though he said he did not think it would be necessary.

Edit: I think the take home from all of this is that I'm super glad Israel-Hamas is not going to be a hot topic this election anymore :)

Wait until people realize Harris and all the VP candidates have similar views on Israel.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/01/josh-shapiro-israel-gaza-harris-jewish

Between the lines: A story in The Atlantic on Wednesday noted that Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the two other top VP contenders, are not facing such campaigns despite having similarly pro-Israel politics.

"Activists have not organized in force to discredit any of the non-Jewish contenders for vice president on these grounds. There are no viral memes against 'Killer Kelly' or 'War-Crimes Walz,'" author Yair Rosenberg wrote.

Several high-profile Jewish lawmakers, including Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), have since called out what they say is an antisemitic double standard.

What they're saying: Rep. Kathy Manning (D-N.C.) told Axios in a statement that Shapiro has been a "highly successful governor" whose position on Israel "is in line with the position of the Biden-Harris Administration."

"To judge him differently from any other potential VP candidate simply because he is Jewish is highly offensive and smacks of antisemitism," she said.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a progressive who has criticized the Israeli war effort, said she hopes "all the potential VP picks are being given the same level of scrutiny on all the issues."

"This is but another example that those who claim to be anti-Zionist are in fact, antisemites. Josh Shapiro has supported Israel, as have all the others that Harris is considering," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), noting Kelly's "strong record of voting pro-Israel."

Edit: none of this changes my support for Harris/Walz. Down vote away, truth hurts.