Outrage over ‘massacre’ in Gaza as Israel rescued four hostages
fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world Posts 268Comments 485Joined 2 yr. ago
fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world
Posts
268
Comments
485
Joined
2 yr. ago
Dropped this in another thread, feel it's applicable here.
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 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.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.
Hamas actions are their own, no one forced them to put civilians in danger. While netanyahu needs to go, he is not to blame for the attrocities Hamas commits against their own people. Notwithstanding netanyahu's errors, this is not just the way it goes.
While not all of them were combatants, it only makes sense that Hamas would hold civilians in direct danger because they can't win otherwise. IDF would wipe the floor with Hamas in direct conflict as Israel's military power is far greater than Hamas, so Hamas is resorting to using civilians to prevent military action around their territory. Hamas then can use this against Israel in a lawfare sense when netanyahu attacks.
The issue ultimately is the intentional presence of civilians in these active military areas. Normally you wouldn't bomb schools, but when Hamas sets up shop in these typically protected areas and starts launching missiles from them they start losing that protection. This is a win-win for Hamas, they can call Israel out for being reckless if they're attacked and use down time to recuperate when Israel is restrained. Though, if you can't win without subjecting your own people to your own deliberate war crimes, I think you have an obligation to surrender, you clearly don't have your own people's interest at heart.
So, sure one could say "what else is Hamas supposed to do? They're outgunned, how else are they supposed to fight?" Answer is you don't. Hamas shouldn't have attacked in October and made the choice to subsequently hide behind civilians, they should surrender for the better of Palestinians.
Can you cite where in that article your claim is substantiated?
Edit: Again, not saying it hasn't happened, but that article doesn't say that. And I think it does matter unless you can prove that Israel is purposefully targeting non combat zones with no inclination that Hamas is hiding there. Israel itself has attacked areas deemed non combat zones, mistakes I don't excuse, but this is by Hamas' design.
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 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.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.
The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.
Ok buddy, I think you're getting worked up. I'm not cherry picking anything, and your "whitewashing" claim is unfounded even in the linked article. I'm not continuing either of the conversations I'm having with you as a result.
Right, I didn't deny that happened. I think there's more to deciding linking to Turkish state media than CNN, like you're trying to legitimize a propaganda outlet (hence I said also). So you're not against holding hostages in combat free zones? Good! Who is that incumbent upon? Because I know who has direct control of those hostages.
I don't think you have an understanding of their military choices to make that claim, and I'm kind of confused as to your point so I'm going to cut to the chase. Are you suggesting it's ok that Hamas does this because Israel has (not equivalently, let's not get ahead of ourselves and say I agree with you)?
Edit: because you're getting fiesty with me in the other comment, I'm not continuing this with you.
Yep, and the agencies disseminating these things come from a typical cast of characters (hello Turkey and Iran!). It's great that more aid is getting to Palestinians.
US-Built Pier Used in Israel’s Brutal Nuseirat Camp Attack in Gaza: Report
According to a report by The Cradle online news magazine, the Israeli forces carried out the assault on Saturday, killing hundreds of Palestinians and retrieving four Israeli captives.
"The troops were then flown out of Gaza via the US-built pier, which had been reinstalled on the coast on Friday after undergoing tens of millions in repairs," The Cradle stated.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-support-israeli-forces-rescue-hostages-gaza/
Video circulating online Saturday shows an IDF helicopter taking off from the beach with the U.S. pier in the backdrop. Two U.S. officials told CBS News that the U.S. pier was not used in the IDF operation. It is offshore to assist delivery of humanitarian aid. A U.S. official explained that the helicopter landed south of the facility on a beach but not within the cordoned area of the pier.
"The pier facility was not used in the operation to rescue hostages today in Gaza. An area south of the facility was used to safely return the hostages to Israel," a U.S. official said. "Any such claim to the contrary is false. The temporary pier on the coast of Gaza was put in place for one purpose only, to help get more urgently needed lifesaving assistance into Gaza."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tasnim-news-agency/
Analysis / Bias
Tasnim has strong links with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and according to The Guardian the US accuses the IRGC of terror mainly because of its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that the US and EU have both designated as terrorist groups.
Although the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) don’t openly affiliate themselves with any political parties, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (ABADGARAN) is widely viewed as a political front for the Revolutionary Guards and they are described as “Iran’s neocons”, therefore we rate the political stance of Tasnim as right-wing bias.
Reporters without Borders has reported Iran as “One of the most oppressive countries” According to the Reporters without Borders 2023 report, Iran ranks 177 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index.
The content of headlines and articles use loaded words pertaining to national news such as “Battle against Daesh Still Continuing in Cultural, Ideological Fields: Iran’s Shamkhani” However, they poorly source their articles, heavily quoting without sourcing or providing links to the original source. In general, they promote pro-state propaganda and anti-west conspiracies.
Failed Fact Checks
“Shocking evidence of ISIS involvement in the Ukrainian armed forces has emerged.” – False
Overall, we rate Tasnim News Questionable based on the promotion of state propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as the use of poor sources. (M. Huitsing 12/04/2017) Updated (07/08/2023)
Edit: people down vote exposing Turkish state media :)
Are all the tunnels gone? If not, can the hostages go there? If they're all gone, is Hamas now hiding out above ground only? That'd be news to me. Otherwise I think letting at least hostages in, and maybe some civilians, would be safer. As you said, the area is getting bombed, and since Hamas hides amongst the civilians, as shown here, above ground is not safe for civilians based on Hamas' tactics and netanyahu's willingness to drive hard. So why does Hamas choose this route?
Is there a source for that motivation? Knowingly seems unfounded.
Edit: I may be misunderstand whatever your point is. Are you trying to say that whoever puts military bases near civilians is willfully endangering civilians? I think considerations about threat of attack come into play, and how great that risk is. Let's also not forget people can choose to live around there or not. I mean, there are plenty of military bases in the US that are not under threat of attack. Is the US trying to endanger it's civilians? That seems ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous is the idea that Israel chose to put bases where they were going to be attacked in the future.
Yes and... No. But mostly no.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/opinions/gazan-hope-for-peace-masri/index.html
As a proud Palestinian from Gaza who has dedicated my adult life to trying to put an end to this never-ending cycle of war and suffering for my people, I have learned this: No matter how much you and your people are hurting, more hateful absolutism — from either side — is never the answer. While glorifying radical positions may feel like advancing social justice, it only contributes to the very extremism that makes peace impossible.
On the Israeli side, the Knesset must move from an approach of conflict management to one focused on engaging in continuous negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, aimed at reaching an end to the military occupation and the emergence of a negotiated two-state reality. On the Palestinian side, those supporting Hamas’ terrorism must stop.
In Gaza’s legislative council elections of 2005 and 2006, I, along with more than 50% of voting age Palestinians, voted for Fatah, which controlled the Palestinian Authority at the time. I did not vote for Hamas because they rejected peace, coexistence and a two-state solution and adopted armed resistance against Israel. Unfortunately, Fatah candidates split the vote, giving power to Hamas, who received only 44.45% of the people’s vote with only one majority win in one out of 16 districts.
Hamas should have been disqualified from running in the first place for its unwillingness to recognize the Oslo Accords of 1993 that made the election possible. However, two factors led to Hamas’ participation in the 2005 elections. First, then-President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas thought Hamas would change and that his party, Fatah, would win. Second, US President George W. Bush’s administration clearly misunderstood the situation in the region and, in his effort to spread democracy, supported the inclusion of all Palestinian factions in the election and didn’t push to stop Hamas from running even though Hamas had been identified as a terrorist organization by the US Department of State in 1993.
Since 2007, when Hamas administered its bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority, Gazans have been subject to collective punishment policies from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, which closed its border to Gaza (only briefly opening it on occasion to allow the movement of people and some goods).
Is there an active battle in that area? Or is that a secure area far from conflict? Because it sounds like your contention here is that Palestinian hostages are held in secure bases far from conflict. If I were a hostage and had a choice, I'd prefer to be where there isn't fighting.
So you're saying it might be a good idea to make known certain safe zones for hostages and not turn those into battle grounds? Who is that incumbent on?
Also, aa is Turkish state media and not trustworthy.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/anadolu-agency/
A Bellingcat article states that “AA as a whole can only be considered as blatant and deliberate twisting and distorting of the facts.”
In review, Anadolu Agency utilizes moderately loaded emotional language in their headlines, such as “Merkel slams Trump for ‘harming’ global order” and “Erdogan slams world for ‘failure’ in Jerusalem test.” Anadolu Agency also poorly sources as they typically source by heavily quoting without linking to the actual story.
Overall, we rate Anadolu Agency Right Biased editorially and Mixed factually due to poor sourcing. Further, this is an agency controlled by the right-wing ruling party and has a very strong pro-government state bias. (M. Huitsing 5/25/2018) Updated (11/10/2023)
I don't think there's any reality where anyone absolutely has to suffer Hamas (though Iran would have a say otherwise), and their negotiations have been such that they'd be able to rebuild in Gaza, which Israel doesn't agree with. Realistically Hamas needs to be neutered politically, and that comes with reformed governance.
I think you're responding to a different comment.
So then Hamas has evacuated these tunnels because they don't work?
So you're saying it isn't safe for Hamas to be keeping hostages in those areas right? So why keep them there? And they're underground, some went to Egypt.
If there's more to discuss I'm game. My point is, I'm not in any position to justify or condemn these actions, but that if I were someone with skin in the game, my reactions would vary. As far as this particular situation goes, I'm not justifying or condemning anything here but the involvement of civilians (I in general take the stance I mentioned above). I don't know the status on the ground but do believe that there was reason for fighting. If we're still using Hamas death counts (which don't differentiate fighters from civilians outside of broad estimates), we can extend trust to Israeli sources too until proven wrong.
Netanyahu won't agree to a ceasefire that has any possibility of allowing Hamas to rebuild. Especially with the ring of fire increasing it's intensity around Israel, I imagine giving Hamas any breathing room is a non starter for them. Currently Hamas needs to respond to the latest deal, as far as I understand, but maybe things have progressed since I checked. Getting Hamas out of Gaza is beneficial to both Israel and Palestinians.
Of course Palestinians won't see it the same as Israelis, they're in drastically different boats right now. I'm saying that the civilians in this all have valid points that oppose each other, so why pick only one who is right? Why should Israeli civilians sacrifice getting their loved ones back so Palestinians can live? Why should Palestinian civilians die so Israeli hostages can be brought to safety?
My original question at the heart of this is why is Hamas creating the situation where civilians need to be drilled through (something netanyahu is willing to comply with)? I'm sure everyone here figured there were civilian casualties without even investigating, but why does Hamas insist on this? And if Israel should not kill innocent people to get their hostages back, how else do you negotiate with people who are trying to eliminate you besides giving them everything they want? This turns into a playbook for any terrorist organization to mimic, simply put innocents in harm's way and you get what you want.
I don't know any good answer out of this, but I think it's by design. There's no upside for the Palestinians being put in the middle of this when Hamas gets to hide underground knowing netanyahu will go for broke. This just can't involve capitulating to a terrorist organization that didn't give a shit about their people to begin with, and continue to show they haven't changed.
And this is where we diverge, I am not understanding of Hamas' actions. That is reprehensible, they're monsters and it is part of their mission to eliminate Jews (seemingly at the expense of Palestinians). This is not at all understandable, and I reject any sympathy to Hamas. This is absolutely not a both sides issue. Israel is not solely responsible for this, if the people who want to kill them didn't set up shop next to them with the civilians, I would think the climate would be much more tame. I entertain absolutely zero justification for Hamas' actions.
Edit: I'm going to lay in even harder and express complete disgust that there is sympathy for Hamas here.
Maybe in a sectioned off portion of their tunnel system, one where Hamas fighters are defending them without Palestinian civilians in between. I haven't heard of Palestinians being allowed to camp out in there, so that might be a better place to keep hostages than apartment buildings. They could then keep fighting segmented more easily I would imagine and preserve more civilian lives.
Sure, as I said he needs to go, and he holds some responsibility. Netanyahu has fucked himself through this in too many other ways as well. Hamas is making the decision to use Palestinians as shields, with or without netanyahu's funding, and could choose to not do this any time. Which I would welcome.